Evolving Double Standards

National Review ^ | April 01, 2004 | John West

[Heartlander]

April 01, 2004, 9:00 a.m.

Evolving Double Standards
Establishing a state-funded church of Darwin.

By John G. West

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is on the front lines of the battle to keep religion out of the nation's science classrooms. A group whose self-described mission is "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools," the NCSE routinely condemns anyone who wants to teach faith-based criticisms of evolutionary theory for trying to unconstitutionally mix church and state.

But in an ironic twist, it now turns out that the NCSE itself is using federal tax dollars to insert religion into biology classrooms. Earlier this year, the NCSE and the University of California Museum of Paleontology unveiled a website for teachers entitled "Understanding Evolution." Funded in part by a nearly half-million-dollar federal grant, the website encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution. Apparently the NCSE thinks mixing science and religion is okay after all — as long as religion is used to support evolution.

The purpose of the "Understanding Evolution" website is to instruct teachers in how they should teach evolution, and the federal government (through the National Science Foundation) came up with $450,000 for the project. As might be expected, the science presented on the website is rather lopsided. Although there are vigorous arguments among biologists about many aspects of neo-Darwinism, teachers aren't informed about those scientific debates, ignoring guidance from the U.S. Congress in 2001 that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

But the strangest part of the website, by far, is the section that encourages educators to use religion to endorse evolution. Teachers are told that nearly all religious people, theologians, and scientists who hold religious beliefs endorse modern evolutionary theory, and that indeed such a view "actually enriches their faith." In fact, teachers are directed to statements by a variety of religious groups giving their theological endorsement of evolution.

For example, educators can read a statement from the United Church of Christ that "modern evolutionary theory... is in no way at odds with our belief in a Creator God, or in the revelation and presence of that God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Needless to say, statements from thoughtful religious groups and scholars who critique Darwinism because of its claim that the development of life was an unguided process are not included. Nor is there any indication of the fact that, according to opinion surveys, the vast majority of Americans continues to be skeptical of Darwin's theory of unguided evolution.

This effort to use religion to endorse evolution is part of a larger public-relations strategy devised by the NCSE to defuse skepticism of neo-Darwinism. On its own website, the group advises inviting ministers to testify in favor of evolution before school boards, and it has created a Sunday-school curriculum to promote evolution in the churches. The NCSE even has a "Faith Network Director" who claims that "Darwin's theory of evolution... has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God."

Eugenie Scott, the group's executive director, is an original signer of something called the Humanist Manifesto III, which proclaims that "humans are... the result of unguided evolutionary change" and celebrates "the inevitability and finality of death." Although a non-believer herself, Scott apparently understands the political utility of religion.

Of course, as a private group, the NCSE has every right to use religion to promote its pro-Darwin agenda, whether or not it is sincere. But what about using government funds to do so?

Taxpayers might wonder why it's the government's business to tell them what their religious beliefs about evolution should or shouldn't be. Presumably this government grant was supposed to be spent on science, not on convincing people that evolution comports with "the revelation and presence of...God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." Where's the ACLU when you really need it? It's difficult to see how the website's presentation of religion even comes close to following Supreme Court precedents on the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

One wonders whether those at the NCSE appreciate the irony of their situation. All over the country they have tried to prevent the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. But here they spend tax money to promote evolution, explicitly invoking religion, and that's supposed to be okay.

It seems the Darwinists have overseen the evolution of a new species of religion-science crossbreed: one that fits their agenda.

— John West is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.

[js1138]

Squeezing out 100 posts...

[Cowgirl]

Please refute the man with evidence, not scorn.

[Cowgirl]

The point is a fake is a fake no matter what you want to call it.

[js1138]

You are resorting to name calling just because you can't make your own case.

Oh please. do you really believe a bad case gets better with repeating? Dr. dino's stuff has been examined hundreds of times on these threads, and will be discussed again on this one before it's over.

But it is insane to believe that cutting and pasting his stuff yet one more time will suddenly make it correct.

If you had an ounce of honest curiosity you would look up past threads, or do a google search and find out for yourself where he stands in the world of science.

[js1138]

The point is a fake is a fake no matter what you want to call it.

The important point is that creationist argument is hit and run. You might ask a legitimate question -- and the possibility of forgery is legitimate -- but then you run away before anyone can answer. sometimes the answers are hard to find and take time.

Here's a link to some answers.

Here's something to chew on:

...the Eichstatt specimen has clear feather impressions (Wellnhofer 1974) and the Maxberg specimen has impressions in which the structure of the feather is discernable as being typical of that in modern birds (de Beer 1954; von Heller 1959; Charig et al. 1986). Not only that, the feathers of the Maxberg specimen clearly refute any possibility of forgery because they continue under the bones of the skeleton and are overlain by dendrites ...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Dr Dino has the same qualifications as Laura Callahan. (And seemingly supporters of the same ilk.)

[balrog666]

Am I the only one here reminded of the "Vancome lady" from Mad-TV chanting "la-la-la-la" while holding her fingers in her ears?

[Ignatz]

If creationists cannot get the simple things right (such as what exactly the theory of evolution covers)

There you have it boys and girls: You MUST debate evolution within some thin cross-section of time. You may NOT ask how things came into being up TO some apparently randomly-chosen evolutionary beginning point, for "that is not what evolution covers".
Question the evo's with "what came before...." and they act like cats shot with a water pistol, running away while hissing and spitting over their (collective) shoulders, i.e., "what makes you think they can tackle more complex issues?"

They think they have answers, and concerning how nature currently operates perhaps they do, but in my opinion they're to terrified of the answer to even ask themselves the real question.

Here's a start: You evo's do a fine job of describing how evolution works, and you have (what you think are enough) fossils in your little collections, and you've even had some modest success trying to duplicate it in a lab, but not a one of you can tell me WHY evolution exists.

Alas, but instead of grappling with that question, you'll insult my intelligence. Seen it many, many times right here at FR.
What will it be this time? I have a comma out of place or have used a wrong verb form? Perhaps a misspelling will invalidate my opinions, eh?

ah, well: said my piece and I'm movin' on.....If I'm wrong I'll never know it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Here's a start: You evo's do a fine job of describing how evolution works, and you have (what you think are enough) fossils in your little collections, and you've even had some modest success trying to duplicate it in a lab, but not a one of you can tell me WHY evolution exists.

I can. It's how God populates His Creation with new life forms.

(The original creation of life is outside the scope of evolution.)

Now I have to go back to my hobbit hole until I get back in good graces with Darwin central. ;)

[Junior]

You may NOT ask how things came into being up TO some apparently randomly-chosen evolutionary beginning point, for "that is not what evolution covers".

Ahem. You CAN ask how things came into being. You CANNOT conflate that with evolution, however. Even a simple-minded small child can understand this distinction. That is why I said, "if you cannot get the simple things right, why should we trust what you say on more complex matters?"

[Junior]

The Powers-that-be at Darwin Central have ordered me to inform you that you will be accepted back into the fold once you've made a mandatory pilgrimage to the Gallopogas Islands.

[Dimensio]

You are resorting to name calling just because you can't make your own case.

There is a difference between "me not making a case" and "you ignoring absolutely any shred of evidence offered that contradicts your own position without even addressing why it might be wrong". The latter is the issue here, not the former.

[Dimensio]

There you have it boys and girls: You MUST debate evolution within some thin cross-section of time. You may NOT ask how things came into being up TO some apparently randomly-chosen evolutionary beginning point, for "that is not what evolution covers".

You MAY ask anything that you want. Just don't insist that we use evolution to explain things that aren't covered by the theory. Asking how evolution explains the first life forms is as stupid and meaningless as asking how evolution explains contential drift or the gravitational constant of the universe.

Question the evo's with "what came before...." and they act like cats shot with a water pistol, running away while hissing and spitting over their (collective) shoulders, i.e., "what makes you think they can tackle more complex issues?"

We do get a bit agitated when the same person is told over and over again that evolution does not address the origin of the first life forms and they still ask inane questions predicated upon the false assumption that it does address it. Sorry that we're so snippy, but there's only so many times before we can patiently explain it before we come to the conclusion that the person asking is either willfully dishonest or too ignorant to educate.

Here's a start: You evo's do a fine job of describing how evolution works, and you have (what you think are enough) fossils in your little collections, and you've even had some modest success trying to duplicate it in a lab, but not a one of you can tell me WHY evolution exists.

Evolution exists because life forms replicate imperfectly. Do you need a more detailed explanation than that, or are you just going to move the goalposts and pretend that I didn't just refute your assertion?

ah, well: said my piece and I'm movin' on.....If I'm wrong I'll never know it.

Ah, so you're an intellectual coward without the cojones to back up your screeching insults.

[BMCDA]

...but not a one of you can tell me WHY evolution exists.

Hmmm, maybe it's because there are imperfect self-replicators in an environment with limited resources?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Do I still have to bring back pre-cambrian fossils that carbon date to 6000 years ago?

;)

[Dimensio]

However, your statement above avoids what I believe is a valid point regarding education in our schools. Whether those two things are included in the theory of evolution is besides the point - they ARE taught in schools, whether as a part of evolutionary theory or not.

I have no problem with it being taught as a hypothesis on its own, though I would object to it being classified as part of the theory of evolution.

I was taught that abiogenesis was the result of a bunch of amino acids that just happened to assemble into proteins, then cells, etc...

I was taught that as well. I was taught that it was a hypothesis, not on the level of theory like evolution.

and I was taught the big bang theory.

I was also taught about the big bang theory. In a physics course. I was taught about evolution and abiogenesis in a biology course.

But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".

Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that fits observed evidence?

But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?

If you have an alternate origins hypothesis, I'd like to hear it.

[Dimensio]

While your response is accurate and does refute Ignatz's nonsense, it is sadly wasted. Ignatz admitted that he is a coward, and that he won't be back to see that his intellectually bankrupt points have all been demolished. This way he can pretend that he's "defeated" us with his mindless nonsense.

[Junior]

Actually, we decided we'd settle for a nice, stuffed finch. Not a big one, mind you, just one that would compliment the taxidermy collection in the entrance hall, or possibly the group of trophies over the grand fireplace in the library.

[Qwinn]

"But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".

"Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that fits observed evidence?"

There is absolutely nothing about abiogenesis that "fits observed evidence". As you have yourself insisted on, ranted about, and claimed the right to feel extreme frustration over, the theory of evolution does not cover what created the first life forms. Abiogenesis is exactly as faith-based as a belief in God. There is nothing more "scientific" about it, and nothing that better fits any observed evidence. Actually, I take that back. Cause personally, I think that the billions of human beings who believe they have a sense of a divine being constitutes a hell of a lot more evidence than anything any scientist has ever put out to substantiate abiogenesis.

"But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?"

"If you have an alternate origins hypothesis, I'd like to hear it."

Sure. It starts like this... "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..." *hears the shrieks of pain* Ah, somehow, I didn't think you really wanted to hear it.

Fact is, while all your arguments may have validity in terms of why evolution should be taught in school versus Six-Day-Creationism, it has absolutely no impact on abiogenesis... and yet you trot out the same argument for abiogenesis that you did for evolution ("if you have an alternate scientific theory..."). What this tells me is that the screams of outraged "EVOLUTION DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE FIRST ORIGINATED!" rants are intellectually dishonest, because when you take that argument out of the picture, the rest of the justification for teaching only the atheist faith-based doctrine of abiogenesis remains precisely the same.

Qwinn

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Would that be a ground finch or a tree finch?