Skip to comments.
Evolving Double Standards
National Review ^
| April 01, 2004
| John West
Posted on 04/01/2004 11:17:06 AM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; doublestandard; education; evolution; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: general_re
I'm having real trouble putting this under any heading other than "be careful what you wish for". This looks remarkably like creationists reaping what they have sown, and once I stop laughing my butt off and wiping the tears from my eyes, I'll probably suggest - once again - that religion doesn't belong in the science classroom. "Be careful what you wish for?" But my dear Dorothy, religion has been there the whole time. Just click your heals together three times and say, Theres no place like naturalism
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
-- Robert Anson Heinlein
41
posted on
04/01/2004 5:22:13 PM PST
by
Heartlander
(Neo-darwinism is naturalism dressed up in a shoddy fig leaf. Pay no attention to our intelligence.)
To: PatrickHenry
Two days later, he's finished and she's just getting started...
42
posted on
04/01/2004 5:32:39 PM PST
by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Heartlander
You misunderstand. I wish I could believe it was intentional.
43
posted on
04/01/2004 5:47:06 PM PST
by
general_re
(The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
To: Junior
Two days later, he's finished and she's just getting started... Ain't that the truth. By the way, if you study the pic closely (as I know you already have) you'll notice a definite smile on his face, while the female looks like a grump. I guess that means they're married.
44
posted on
04/01/2004 6:19:57 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(FreeRepublic is a jealous mistress.)
To: general_re
Yes, attack my intentions
You are consistent.
You tossed the creationist label out in your first response and the article had nothing to do with creationism but still deals with government-funded religion.
So go ahead and laugh your hypercritical and hypocritical butt off
I suggest you continue to blame creationists for all of the problems in 'your' world and continue to live in 'your' own creation.
To: Heartlander
I'm not "blaming" anyone, just enjoying the rich, dark irony here. We're finally getting around to bringing religious talk into the science classroom, just like the Discovery Institute has been pushing for all along, and what does the Discovery Institute guy complain about? That religion doesn't belong in the classroom! Well, he taketh away with that hand, but the DI is only too willing to give with the other - he's just upset that it's the
wrong sort of religion in the science classroom. You're not supposed to bring in religious folk to
support evolution, you're supposed to bring it in to
attack evolution.
Well, creationists can't have it both ways, although Lord knows that won't stop them from trying. Either religion goes in, and they learn to live with it when the "wrong sort" finds its way in front of the kids, or we agree that religion doesn't belong in the science classroom, in which case creationism is right out. Oh, sure, occasionally you'll get ignorant objections that there's already some sort of "religion" in the classroom, but those come from uneducated people who don't know about and don't care about the difference between methodological naturalism and full-on materialism, so we don't have to waste any time answering to those too addled to understand what exactly it is they object to.
46
posted on
04/01/2004 8:48:08 PM PST
by
general_re
(The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
To: Ichneumon
So, would you like to "establish" your philosophical worldview, and if so, how?
47
posted on
04/01/2004 9:03:20 PM PST
by
A.J.Armitage
(http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
48
posted on
04/01/2004 9:20:14 PM PST
by
Alamo-Girl
(Glad to be a monthly contributor to Free Republic!)
To: A.J.Armitage
So, would you like to "establish" your philosophical worldview, Not in the way you probably mean "establish", no.
and if so, how?
See above.
To: Gritty; Cowgirl
After reviewing Cowgirl's post again, I will concede your point. I was incorrect to cite the Iroquois creation story since Cowgirl does not specifically call for the teaching of Creationism (though I would wager that is what she would like to have done). But based on her words in the post and without further indication I will assume that she would prefer no version of creation be taught.
I would counter that since we are supposed to be teaching science, we at least go for the theory that has testable hypotheses> Lets leave creation stories out of the picture as there is as much scientific evidence of this continent being formed from the back of a turtle as there is that the Earth was formed in six days about 6,000 years ago.
50
posted on
04/02/2004 5:30:39 AM PST
by
NC28203
To: Heartlander
But the strangest part of the website, by far, is the section that encourages educators to use religion to endorse evolution. I agree with the Discovery Institute on this one issue. Science courses should not mention religion, period. Going through a list of religions which endorse evolution is getting too close to an establishment of religion for my taste.
To: old3030
OK, if scientific naturalism is a religion, what isn't a religion? Is calculus a religion? This reminds of a Calvin and Hobbes comic, where Calvin says math is faith-based.
I love this Darwin = socialism argument. Way to tie all of the things republicans hate together. But of course, creationism/puppy-killing/Maoism isn't a religion.
To: Ichneumon
How do you think I mean "establish"?
53
posted on
04/02/2004 10:40:47 AM PST
by
A.J.Armitage
(http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
To: Buckeye Bomber
But of course, creationism/puppy-killing/Maoism isn't a religion. Much better to mention is that fundamentaist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity hate evolution equally. 'If they agree on this, maybe they agree on flying airplanes into buildings. Hmmmm?'
To: A.J.Armitage
How do you think I mean "establish"? What do you think I thought you meant by "establish"? (We could play this game all week, but I've got better things to do.)
I'm not going to play "twenty questions" with you about what you might have meant.
If you want to clarify your question and ask it again, feel free.
If not, that works for me too.
To: Ichneumon
Since you chose to answer based on your guess at what I mean, of course I'll want to know what that guess was.
Of course, by asking "if so, how?" I took in any and all possible meanings of "establish".
IOW, you're being evasive.
56
posted on
04/02/2004 11:18:35 AM PST
by
A.J.Armitage
(http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
To: Dimensio
I beg your pardon, but they do sight "nothing" in public school text books. Not all of them say the same thing because they usually have a different slant as to how we actually evolved. Also, you have to start from "nothing" because there had to be a beginning at some time.
57
posted on
04/02/2004 9:10:10 PM PST
by
Cowgirl
To: Stultis
We have evidence of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.
You haven't evidence that a dinosaurs turned into a birds. When there is evidence cited, it is found out later to either be a fraud or a mistake. Fossils prove nothing except the thing died. The ape pictures are just made up. They even put human looking feet on their displays to prove their point when no human looking feet were ever found with the ape bones. The horse chart is a fraud. The tadpole looking embryos is a fraud. The big bang theory is nothing but a religion. If there was a big bang everything would be spinning in the same direction which it is not.
58
posted on
04/02/2004 9:21:20 PM PST
by
Cowgirl
To: Junior
I have seen with my own eyes public school text books stating that we started from nothing. Then they go on to say a little dot the size of a pin exploded and that was the big bang. I find it amusing creationists are to "get it right" when the text books are filled with proven lies from one end to the other. The embryo story is a proven lie, the horse story is a proven lie, the moth story is a proven fraud, and the ape pictures are purely fictional.
Fossils prove nothing except that the creature is dead.
The layers they come in are just that, layers of the earth.
They want to date something by the layers they come in but
will come up with answers only after they have already decided how many billions of years to add because of the layer it comes in. It is all catch 22. The carbon dating
consistently produces different results and cannot date something unless they consider the layer.
59
posted on
04/02/2004 9:29:02 PM PST
by
Cowgirl
To: NC28203
I am only for teaching science that does not include lies, of which the text books are full. They must lie in order to have something to prove evolution. I have no problem with showing truth that is known, not theory that is ridiculous. A bird can adapt to a climate or be bred to look quite different than what it started out to be, but it will still be a bird. If there were no dinosaurs ever present a few thousand years ago, why do
caves have pictures of dinosaurs drawn by american Indians before the white man ever showed up. There are many such
evidences of man living with dinosaurs, but they were called dragons. The word dinosaur did not exist then. Why does written history take us back to a maximum of 10,000 years but the only evidence for prehistoric times
is a few fossils supposedly dated by the layers. The
earth is winding down, it is not evolving. You have not
studied creationism if you think there is no evidence for
a different theory than the lying evolutionists.
60
posted on
04/02/2004 9:39:44 PM PST
by
Cowgirl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-127 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson