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

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


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 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 next last
To: Junior
I've been checking her replies, and they're all copied and pasted from drdino.com. I'm going to take some time picking a few apart later this evening, if no one else tackles them.
81 posted on 04/04/2004 11:49:33 AM PDT by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
I'll be taking on the rest of this later tonight, but I was skimming through and found this little absurdity:

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.


Both statements are false. Evolution says NOTHING about the creation of the universe, and it says NOTHING about the origin of the first life forms. That the author makes this claim directly exposes his utter and complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.

I was concerned that I'd have to do a lot of research to debunk the claims that you copied and pasted, but if the scholarship level of the rest of the offerings are on par with the above excerpt, I shouldn't worry at all, as the author is clearly arguing from total ignorance.
82 posted on 04/04/2004 3:20:25 PM PDT by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
How very Bright of you… (assuming you are still a member of the established ‘bright’ organization that is organized against established religion…)

Careful. Your God doesn't like you telling lies. The Brights are organized for no such purpose.

I see no reason why you think I was being sarcastic. The idea of a biology course going through a list of religions to point out the ones that are compatible with evolution is IMO completely inappropriate.

83 posted on 04/04/2004 3:28:38 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (300,000 new jobs in March. Poor John Kerry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Basically she's parrotting. She doesn't understand what she's posting, she just thinks it sounds good.
84 posted on 04/04/2004 6:04:24 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You are talking about college text books, I'm talking about grade school text books. If you have a problem with that statement, it's not me. After all, I don't even believe it. This is what is being taught in the grade
schools.
85 posted on 04/04/2004 6:44:10 PM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
You are talking about college text books, I'm talking about grade school text books.

No, you're talking about a total strawman depiction of evolution. You clearly understand nothing whatsoever of the subject. All you can do is cut and paste from drdino.com, because you apparently don't have an original thought of your own to offer and you lack the criticial thinking skills to actually debunk any offered evidence.
86 posted on 04/04/2004 8:54:10 PM PDT by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Here this isn't "cut and paste":

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise; they became as fools.

Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Dr. Kent Hovind, Dr. Carl Baugh and other scientists that I have read offer more than enough evidence that evolution
is not true. You can choose to not believe what they say, but why are evolutionists using lies to make their case? I am not confined to drdino.com, but I'm not ashamed to use his material which is offered without a copyright. As for evidence, apparently the evolution theory you know about is so complicated you are unable to explain it.
87 posted on 04/05/2004 12:34:38 PM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
I found a lovely article addressing the bogus and intellectually bankrupt claim that Archaeopteryx was a fraud.

I don't know why you bother to recite Scripture. Christians who accept evolution are clearly not going to be swayed by what they've heard before, and as a non-Christian I'm not going to be swayed by it either (and, by the way, I've seen it before). It's just words from someone else's book of mythology.

Dr. Kent Hovind, Dr. Carl Baugh and other scientists that I have read offer more than enough evidence that evolution is not true.

And yet you've shown absolutely no understanding of the concepts. When Hovid's documented lies are presented to you, you ignore them and hope that they will go away.

You can choose to not believe what they say, but why are evolutionists using lies to make their case?

Why do you claim that they are lies? You don't have the intellect to understand the claims in the first place, so you have no business calling them lies. As for Hovind, he's a documented liar. I even pointed out that he was outright wrong about the claims that evolution says anything about the origins of the universe or the origins of life. If he's so ignorant (or dishonest) as to make such claims, how can he be trusted on anything else.

As for evidence, apparently the evolution theory you know about is so complicated you are unable to explain it.

In psychological terms, this is called "projection". Your utter ignorance of the theory of evolution does not debunk it.
88 posted on 04/05/2004 1:43:09 PM PDT by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Biology, The Dynamics of Life
Glencoe Science
89 posted on 04/05/2004 9:01:47 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Why would you think it is funny that I am aggravated?
I thought you (of all ‘no label’) would be fair minded and instead…('Creationist' label from the beginning)

Bottom line – I know you don’t agree with what the NCSE is doing… (Again ‘no label’)

90 posted on 04/05/2004 9:08:02 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Careful. Your God doesn't like you telling lies. The Brights are organized for no such purpose.

You don’t believe in any god… ‘Mindlessness’ is all that is left for you and your ‘beginning’– this is your god. You accuse me of lies – and act as though a higher source does exist by invoking what? Let’s look at ‘your’ belief system:

Think about your own worldview to decide if it is indeed free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. Check the wording in the definition and description (above). If you would like more information on the important terms used in the definition, you can go to the FAQs.

If you decide that you fit the definition, then you can simply say so and join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society--the BRIGHTS MOVEMENT. If successful, these early efforts of ours could have far-reaching effects.

We are forming a constituency of Brights (persons who fit the definition and sign in on this Web site) for social and political action. This constituency of Brights includes many who are members of existing atheist, agnostic, freethought, humanist, rationalist, secularist, or skeptic organizations and many more who are nonreligious and are not associated with any formal group.

Can we Brights impact society's outlook by putting just one new word to popular use? That remains to be seen, but if you are intrigued by the idea, we invite you to explore this Web site and learn more about The BRIGHTs Movement.

Now I asked if you were trying to be sarcastic in post #54

Your blind watchmaker friend and founding member agrees with you…

Dick Dawkins writes many books on evolution… What if someone used your same logic in regard to humanism, atheism, nazism, socialism, etc…

91 posted on 04/05/2004 9:21:14 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
Uh, did you happen to notice that you went, in one message to the very next, from claiming (via your cuts and pastes) that Archaeopteryx isn't transitional between reptiles and birds because it's just a bird, to claiming that it isn't transitional because it's just a reptile with hoaxed feathers?

Remember a transitional form should be difficult to easily classify as either "A" or "B" because it has a mix of features from both groups, and/or because it has features that are intermediate in form between those typical of either group (both things are true of Archaeopteryx). You've illustrated the thoroughly intermediate character of Archaeopteryx beautifully because -- to the extent you are held responsible for your references -- you yourself can't decide whether it's a bird or a dinosaur!

92 posted on 04/06/2004 12:35:48 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
From "The Evolution Cruncher"

BRIEF HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Thank You! That was a delicious sample of arrogant and ignorant bilge. Darwin practiced "witchcraft" and never studied science! LOL! I'll be looking for this tome in the used bookstores to add to my collection of creationist, uh, literature. Did the idiot publish it under his real name?

93 posted on 04/06/2004 12:52:48 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Evolution says NOTHING about the creation of the universe, and it says NOTHING about the origin of the first life forms."

For the record, let me state that I am not a Creationist. As an agnostic, I don't believe that evolution and ID necessarily contradict each other (pretty much the Catholic perspective).

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

Fine, if you don't consider these to belong to the theory of evolution, I won't argue with that. 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".

In all of these evo/creo threads, I -constantly- see the evo side make this claim - that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Okay! Fine! Accepted! But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?

Qwinn
94 posted on 04/06/2004 1:12:15 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
You don’t believe in any god… ‘Mindlessness’ is all that is left for you and your ‘beginning’– this is your god. You accuse me of lies – and act as though a higher source does exist by invoking what? Let’s look at ‘your’ belief system.

Typical Talibunny: his opponents are denied the most fundamental attributes of humanity, because they don't agree with him. If by accident he had been born Islamic, he'd be screaming for Sharia.

Lies are wrong. You don't need to be a fundamentalist to assert that.

As for the Brights; their role is to stand up against the pervasive anti-naturalist agenda in our society. In fact, Heartlander, you are a prime example of why many of us feel the Brights need to exist. If objecting to slander is anti-Christian, what does that say about Christians?

95 posted on 04/06/2004 8:22:38 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

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

Good question. At most they should teach that there are many speculative theories about the origin of life, but little hard evidence.

96 posted on 04/06/2004 8:24:39 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl
Here this isn't "cut and paste":

You wrote Romans and Genesis?

97 posted on 04/06/2004 8:36:45 AM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Junior
It may be turtles all the way down, but each turtle moves in its own proper epicycle.
98 posted on 04/06/2004 8:39:11 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: js1138
No, I typed it myself:)
99 posted on 04/06/2004 10:23:22 AM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You are resorting to name calling just because you can't make your own case.
100 posted on 04/06/2004 10:26:07 AM PDT by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 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.

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