During the infamous 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial” John Scopes, a popular general science teacher, was hauled into court for teaching evolution based on Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Darwin was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological transactions. Tennessee had just passed a law forbidding teaching in state schools “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.” The national drama over this decision played on, and in 1960 Spencer Tracey starred in Inherit the Wind, which depicted the Scopes trial decision as state sponsorship of religion and a suppression of scientific inquiry.

This week another movie about the suppression of scientific inquiry opens in theatres nationwide. Ben Stein’s Expelled points out that now it is the teaching of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible that is banned. Recent court decisions now force state schools to teach that evolution can only be the result of mindless chance. Expelled suggests this is as threatening to science and free thought as the original Scopes decision.

Dinesh D'Souza has another key point to make in this debate. Isn’t the assumption that events affecting biological change are purely chance events, and can’t be of divine origin, an atheist belief rather than a scientific fact? If so, should our state schools teach this metaphysical atheism?

The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way under the banner of Darwinism. Such textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. Here are some examples.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species."

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's Legacy: "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."

Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism."

In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, Francisco Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is "the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a Creator."

Some Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts.

Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether evolution can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that Darwinism, which is “chance alone” or “by mere accident” evolution, is being used to deny God as the Creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out.

How can this be achieved?

Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."

Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism masquerading as science.  If God must be removed from government financed schools, so too must the equally metaphysical “by chance alone”.

I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.

In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular.

Biology Without Ideology

The National Association of Biology Teachers, who have been in the forefront of the debate against “creation science” and “intelligent design”, drop “impersonal” and “unsupervised” from their statement.

Shouldn't biology teachers and textbooks stick with science and leave metaphysical statements--especially statements implying or promoting atheism--out of the classroom? While some atheists insist that no one is peddling atheism in the name of science, the facts show otherwise.

In this context it's instructive to review a controversy generated several years ago by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) when the group decided to remove the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from its position statement on the teaching of evolution. The NABT is a membership organization of thousands of teachers at the elementary, secondary and college levels. It has been in the forefront of legal battles against "creation science" and "intelligent design."

The original statement said, "The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, historical contingencies, and changing environments." And there it is: the official statement of the largest pro-evolution group of teachers smuggling metaphysical atheism into a scientific claim about evolution. Let's remember that this metaphysical pronouncement appears in an instruction manual for science teachers nationwide. So much for atheist ideologues who say that this is not an issue for anyone to worry about.

Two academics, philosopher Alvin Plantinga and theologian Huston Smith, noticed the problem and wrote the NABT. They pointed out that the vast majority of Americans believe that a personal agent, God, is responsible for both the universe and for life. What Christians object to is not the idea that the earth is old or that one life form has evolved into another; what they object to is the insinuation, using the authority of science, that God does not exist and that material reality is all that there is.

Plantinga and Huston noted that terms like "impersonal" and "unsupervised" are not scientific terms. "It is extremely hard to see how an empirical science such as biology could address such a theological question as whether a process like evolution is or isn't directed by God. How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?"

Eventually the NABT board found the argument persuasive, and decided to drop the two unscientific terms from its statement. At this point, a group of atheists, led by one Massimo Pigliucci, filed an open letter with more than 100 signatures accusing the NABT of bowing to religious pressure. But Eugenie Scott, writing on behalf of the NABT, pointed out that the NABT's decision was scientific and not political. Scott noted that making metaphysical claims about God's existence or nonexistence "is venturing outside of what science can tell us."

Dinesh D'Souza

Pope's U.S. Visit Also Marks His 81st Birthday

Upon the pope's momentous arrival at the White House this week both President Bush and Pope Benedict assert that freedom and moral values are essential in shaping current public debates.

"'The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility toward the less fortunate,' Benedict said.

'It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate,' he said.

In his formal greetings, Bush said: 'We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth. In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves.'"

L.A. Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-pope17apr17,0,6151514.story

Medical illustrator David Bolinsky, a self proclaimed “idealogical enemy” of intelligent design, slams Expelled with lawsuit one week before film release.

"We are not surprised that opponents of our film are attempting to interfere with its important message. As the movie documents, similar tactics are being used across the country against many of the researchers, scientists, and professors who want to engage in free debate within science but have inadequate resources to challenge the Establishment. However, we do have the platform to confront the 'thought police,' and we will work tirelessly to open the doors of free speech and inquiry," said Executive Producer and Premise Chairman Logan Craft.

Executive Producer Walt Ruloff noted that, "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed opens in over 1,000 theaters nationwide this Friday, April 18th. It is interesting that these efforts are made less than ten days before the movie debuts and involve those who continually seek to thwart open debate. While bullying tactics may work against some individuals who are trying to explore the origins of life, it will not work against us. We certainly will not allow a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers to infringe our rights of free speech and our obligation to expose them for what they are - namely, intellectual thugs unwilling to accept any dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_Jue4aYxY

http://www.tothesource.org/4_15_2008/expelled-legal.doc

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.