Replies

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, as was reported by Brendan Sweetman, Ph.D. in a letter to The Kansas City Star August 21, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

Gary Butner, Th.D.

This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms.

There is a difference between not invoking a deity -- which is an unscientific assumption -- and asserting that a deity does not exist.

Lying about the content of evolution education does not make you look better.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

You can tell when a creationist has no rational argument when they try to blame the teaching of evolution for any number of abhorrent acts.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms.

"Mindless atheism" is not being taught "in our nations classrooms." My son has just finished his 8^th grade unit covering evolution. It was "atheism" only in the sense that it did not invoke God (or gods), as a mechansim. Neither does germ theory. Is that "atheistic"?

And when did we start determining the utility of scientific theories according to how well they poll?

Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

It's a distinction without a difference. ID postulates an unknown "designer" in the absence of any evidence whatever. This is not science and does not belong in science class.

According to your presentation of ID, one could posit that the universe was created five minutes ago by polka-dot unicorns from the Framblehuleh star cluster. Heck, why not? Why not present all the alternatives? How about equal time for the Muslim stories?

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

Well, heck, as long as we're "only speculating," why not speculate they were Jim Jones buffs? I already know -- Jim Jones wasn't a "real" Christian. I don't really believe the speculation I just posted, I'm just returning the favor of utterly baseless speculation.

I agree that the "unsupervised and impersonal" wording was unscientific. In fact, it is no more scientific than the inteligent design "theories" being put forth. The NABT was quite right to take it out.

Natural selection is not necessarily mindless or impresonal if the laws of nature were designed by a personal God. And the question of whether such a God exists or designed such laws is beyond the scope of science. Therefore, any scientist who claims science demands the acceptance of evolution as impersonal is simply not acting as a scientist, but a theologian, and an incompetent one at that.