Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's God or Darwin
National Review Online ^ | 12/21/'05 | David Klinghoffer

Posted on 12/21/2005 2:06:09 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator

Competing Designs

Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.

"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that criticizing Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?

Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is "an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International," according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe what she likes, but it's worth noting.

Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately I've been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the truth speak for themselves.

My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate "the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world." In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! "Safety demands that religion be put in cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for."

In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."

There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."

Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude A HREF="anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about "mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"

Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."

Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."

Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies" class and ousted him as department chairman.

I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore (obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God'] part."

God and Darwin
Admittedly, there are those in the Darwin community who argue that Darwinism is compatible with religion. Judge Jones himself, in the Kitzmiller decision, writes that

many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" — by discovering God's creative powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every presumed miracle, where will that leave God?

Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.

Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.

It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.

Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not — no more than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is "to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a "Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism.

In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.

In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.

In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.

And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aclu; activistcourts; antichristian; atheism; atheismandstate; atheists; christianbashing; christianity; christians; creation; creationism; darwinfundies; design; doublestandard; dover; evolution; freedomfromreligion; freedomofreligion; id; judicialtyranny; liberalbigots; mockingjesus; moralabsolutes; origins; pc; politicalcorrectness; politicallycorrect; religion; religiousintolerance; science; taxdollarsatwork; thenogodgod; youpayforthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-165 next last
To: darbymcgill
"Granted, but there are "sciences" that do."

"And should those SWAGs be allowed in science class and text books?"

To the extent that it's well supported scientifically (ie. it's not a SWAG). I just want solid scientific evidence for things that are taught in science class. Until ID produces solid scientific evidence it doesn't belong there.
81 posted on 12/21/2005 8:24:57 PM PST by 21stCenturyFreeThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: July4th64

The Bible doesn't mention any phenomenon that could be explained by a solar eclipse. A darkness lasting three hours does not fit an eclipse, and a solar eclipse cannot occur near a full moon.

There was a solar eclipse in 29 A.D., but it would not have been total in the vicinity of Israel.


82 posted on 12/21/2005 8:27:41 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: H. Paul Pressler IV
I would think that NRO would have mentioned it if Jones had been a Bush Appointee.

Ain't creationists great? As always, the author of the article didn't mention he's part of the Discovery Institute gang. He forgot to mention the judge's resume. In other words, he's obfuscated the truth yet again, like all creationists do. I'm loving every second of this thread.
83 posted on 12/21/2005 8:35:08 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Y*u sure do type f*nny.


84 posted on 12/21/2005 8:38:10 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

I do not have time to read the entire article, but I did read some of the words of the Judge involved in this case.

That judge is a complete hypocrite, and he is certainly not an example of what objectivity is, by his words.


85 posted on 12/21/2005 8:38:39 PM PST by Radix (Senator Kennedy actually criticized the President for thinking that he is above the Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Bring evolution down to a molecular level and it falls apart. Randomness. Exactly how do you get from A-1 to Z-2000 through random events? The downfall of Darwinism.

I suppose it would be if evolution stated any such thing. DING DING DING, the 1 millionth "end of evolution" claim! Do we (Darwin Central) have a prize?
86 posted on 12/21/2005 8:40:54 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: timor_noctis
I am not an expert on Darwin, but I have read Origin of a Species and Journey of the HMS Beagle. I also have taken a few courses in systematics and classification. I do not know anything about you since you give no info on your page. I am not trying to draw a parallel between Darwin an socialistic principles. I was only trying to debunk some leftist arguments in favor of Darwin. IMHO this is too complex a topic to debate in 5 to 10 sentence rebuttals. At this point I regret ever getting involved with this thread.

P.S. Do I love my niece, or am I only encouraging her survival because she carries approximately 25% of my genes?
Hell, what about my own kids? Food for too much thought.
87 posted on 12/21/2005 8:41:26 PM PST by aliquando (A Scout is T, L, H, F, C, K, O, C, T, B, C, and R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: July4th64
Intelligent Design, creationisim or whatever, is another theory

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Sheesh, do ou people EVER learn ANYTHING?
88 posted on 12/21/2005 8:42:10 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Why is Darwinism considered science? It's pure guesswork.


89 posted on 12/21/2005 8:44:28 PM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aliquando

"BTW, Charles' father was an Anglican minister."

His father was a doctor, not a minister.
http://darwin.baruch.cuny.edu/biography/shrewsbury/rdarwin.html

"Darwin was also a religious man."

Early in life, yes; he died an agnostic though.

Merry Christmas!! :)


90 posted on 12/21/2005 9:53:44 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

later read/pingout.


91 posted on 12/21/2005 10:19:20 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Ain't creationists great? As always, the author of the article didn't mention he's part of the Discovery Institute gang. He forgot to mention the judge's resume. In other words, he's obfuscated the truth yet again, like all creationists do. I'm loving every second of this thread.

I am sure more people would be enjoying this thread if the judge in question had been appointed by a certain former president.

92 posted on 12/21/2005 11:12:35 PM PST by H. Paul Pressler IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: July4th64
Evolution is a theory

Gravity is also a theory but I would not bet that gravity does not exist.

93 posted on 12/21/2005 11:15:12 PM PST by H. Paul Pressler IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
"Evolution does not explain Creation" - Charles Darwin

"Evolution does not explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earthcite>" - me

"ID does not explain anything" - me, too
94 posted on 12/22/2005 4:21:38 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Do we (Darwin Central) have a prize?

No prize. We let nature take its course.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
-- Robert Heinlein

95 posted on 12/22/2005 6:08:21 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

Don't allow Atheism to become the state religion (and it is a faith, it asserts that there absolutely is no god).


96 posted on 12/22/2005 6:52:10 AM PST by weegee (Christmas - the holiday that dare not speak its name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdJay

We have 3 models:
- God created the universe.
- The universe was created and God evolved along with it.
- God does not exist.

Many on the left are opposed to accepting that God "might" have created the universe. I've never heard anyone espouse the second model. That leave thoses who oppose the first model nowhere to go but with the third (no god) model.


97 posted on 12/22/2005 7:02:34 AM PST by weegee (Christmas - the holiday that dare not speak its name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

98 posted on 12/22/2005 7:08:40 AM PST by wallcrawlr (Pray for the troops [all the troops here and abroad]: Success....and nothing less!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

Atheism is a religion because it claims to have the answers, that it is an absolute belief that there is no god.

Agnostism is accepting of religion in that agnostics admit they "don't know" if God exists or is He does, what the nature of that God is.

I don't accept the argument that they push for a secular (non-religious) society, they push for an Atheist society. Their no god God should not be institutionalized and forced down the throats of the citizens.


99 posted on 12/22/2005 7:09:03 AM PST by weegee (Christmas - the holiday that dare not speak its name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
"Safety demands that religion be put in cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for."

Safety??? Who's safety? His? Is Dennett so delusional that he thinks the Christians are coming after him? Or are joined in a cabal to suspend the Constitution and impose a theocracy? Jeepers, such hysterics....

What a blithering idiot Dennett is.... One gathers he would not be reluctant to use coercion and force so that his "pristine opinion," his superior "meme," can prevail in the marketplace of ideas. I wonder how many people appreciate the closet fascism that lies at the bottom of such statements.

Sigh....

Thanks for the post, Zionist Conspirator!

100 posted on 12/22/2005 10:41:43 AM PST by betty boop (Dominus illuminatio mea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-165 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson