The Gospel according to Darwin

There is scant reporting on the anti-religious zeal with which many atheists promote Darwinism.

February 12 used to be known in classrooms across the nation as Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. But over the last decade, an increasing number of schools and community groups have decided to celebrate the birthday of the father of evolution instead.

The movement to establish February 12 as “Darwin Day” seems to be spreading, promoted by a evangelistic non-profit group with its own website (www.darwinday.org) and an ambitious agenda to create a “global celebration in 2009, the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origins of Species.”

Darwin Day celebrations provide an eye-opening glimpse into the world of grassroots Darwinian fundamentalism, an alternate reality where atheism is the conventional wisdom and where traditional religious believers are viewed with suspicion if not paranoia.

Promoters of Darwin Day deny that their activities are anti-religious, but their denial is hard to square with reality.

According to the Darwin Day website, the movement’s inspiration was an event sponsored by the Stanford Humanists and the Humanist Community in 1995. Since then the honor roll of groups sponsoring Darwin Day events has been top-heavy with organizations bearing such names as the “Long Island Secular Humanists,” the “Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin,” the “Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists,” the “Humanists of Idaho,” the “Southeast Michigan Chapter of Freedom from Religion Foundation,” and the “San Francisco Atheists.” The last group puts on an annual festival called “Evolutionpalooza” featuring a Darwin impersonator and an evolution game show (“Evolutionary!”).

Given such sponsors, it should be no surprise that Darwin Day events often explicitly attack religion. At a high school in New York a few years ago, students wore shirts emblazoned with messages proclaiming that “no religious dogmas [were] keeping them from believing what they want to believe,” while in California a group named “Students for Science and Skepticism” hosted a lecture at the University of California, Irvine, on the topic “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without a Designer.” This year in Boston there is an event on “Biological Arguments Against the Existence of God.”

A musical group calling itself “Scientific Gospel Productions,” meanwhile, mocks gospel music by holding annual Darwin Day concerts featuring such songs as “Ain’t Gonna Be No Judgment Day,” the “Virgin of Spumoni” (satirizing the Virgin Mary), and my favorite, “Randomness Is Good Enough for Me,” the lyrics of which proclaim: “Randomness is good enough for me./ If there’s no design it means I’m free./ You can pray to go to heaven./ I’m gonna try to roll a seven./ Randomness is good enough for me.” The same group’s website offers for sale a CD titled “Hallelujah! Evolution!”

The original “honorary president” of Darwin Day was biologist Richard Dawkins, author most recently of The God Delusion. Dawkins is best known for such pearls of wisdom as “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate,” and “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The Darwin Day group’s current advisory board includes not only Dawkins but Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (an original signer of the “Humanist Manifesto III”), philosopher Daniel Dennett (who praises Darwinism as the “universal acid” that eats away traditional religion and morality), and Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer (an atheist who writes that “Science Is My Savior” because it helped free him from “the stultifying dogma of a 2,000-year-old religion”).

Perhaps in an effort to revise the image of Darwin Day as merely a holiday for atheists, last year a professor from Wisconsin urged churches to celebrate “Evolution Sunday” on or near Darwin Day. But the fact that some liberal churches have now been enlisted to spread the Darwinist gospel cannot cover up the anti-religious fervor that pervades the Darwinist subculture.

Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolution’s staunchest defenders.

On the few occasions when the anti-religious agenda of someone like Dawkins is even raised, it is usually downplayed as unrepresentative of most Darwinists.

What Darwin Day shows, however, is just how ordinary the anti-religious views expressed by Dawkins are among grassroots Darwinists. Far from being on the fringe, Dawkins’ views form the ideological core of mainstream Darwinism.

Not that this should come as a shock. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics. A look at the major critics of the theory of intelligent design reveals similar views. Barbara Forrest, co-author of the anti-intelligent design harangue Creationism’s Trojan Horse, is a long-time activist and board member with a group calling itself the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association,” although she fails to disclose that fact in her book, and reporters studiously avoid asking her about her own religious beliefs.

The anti-religious outlook of many of Darwin’s chief boosters exposes the hypocrisy in current discussions over Darwin’s theory. The usual complaint raised against scientists who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory is that many of them (like the vast majority of Americans) happen to believe in God. It is insinuated that this fact somehow undermines the validity of their scientific views. Yet, at the same time, defenders of Darwinism insist that their own rejection of religion is irrelevant to the validity of their scientific views—and most reporters seem to agree.

Of course, in an important sense these defenders of Darwinism are right. Just because leading Darwinists are avowed atheists or agnostics does not mean that their scientific beliefs about evolution are wrong. Scientific propositions should be debated based on their evidence, not on the metaphysical beliefs of those who espouse them.

But if Darwinists have the right to be debated based on evidence, not motives, then scientists who are supportive of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design should have the right to expect the same treatment.

If Darwin Day helps expose the blatant double standard about religious motives operating in the current evolution debate, then its evangelistic boosters will have performed an invaluable public service—however unintentionally.

—John G. West is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest.

"Interpretation:
* Juvenile (3 years old based on deciduous teeth, first permanent molars) (1, 3, 4, 7)
* Bipedal hominid (based on position of foremen magnum, brain endocast, small canines) (1, 3, 4, 7)
* Killed possibly by bird of prey (based on fractures and puncture marks on skull) (1, 10) "

It is an INTERPRETATION , and nothing else! What about my interpretation : "Killed possibly by fallen rocks( based on fractures and puncture marks on skull)" .Which interpretation is good ?
An interpretation is based on subjective judgment.

It is an INTERPRETATION , and nothing else! What about my interpretation : "Killed possibly by fallen rocks( based on fractures and puncture marks on skull)" .Which interpretation is good ? An interpretation is based on subjective judgment.

Is that the new creationist talking point? You can have the data but I have my own interpretation?

"Which interpretation is good?" Well, I would surely trust the interpretation made by experts who have examined the fossil over yours. Even my own interpretation is better than yours, as I have some training in that field and I spent several hours with a cast of this specimen in grad school.

Gee, I guess not all interpretations are of equal value, eh?

Meanwhile, here is another of my favorite specimens.

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

See, here's some info for you.....Coyote, with as much info you pump into these threads, there's an equal amount of information out there to contradict it.

Here are five special reasons why mankind *did not* descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters:

"1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

From here:

http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13a.htm

Not that this should come as a shock. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics.

Fortunately NAS represents a very tiny percentage of the millions of biologists in the US.

From their website,

The National Academy of Sciences membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 350 foreign associates, each of whom is affiliated with one of 31 disciplinary Sections.

Sorry, I do not consider any "science" from the Creation Research Society to be valid.

The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Does this sound like science to you?

But any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.

Coyote, with as much info you pump into these threads, there's an equal amount of information out there to contradict it.

That's funny. You really don't have any idea how much evidence for evolution there is out there, do you?

Coyoteman's skulls are the tip of the iceberg. To really get an understanding of the evidence, you would have to cover the environment where each was found, it's age (and the method used to determine it). Then you'd have to cover genetic studies, including DNA sequencing of various species, mitochondrial DNA, and all the complex species relationships that evidence contains. And even that list is still the tip of the iceberg.

When coytoeman says "there's more", you have no idea.

"Sorry, I do not consider any "science" from the Creation Research Society to be valid."

Too bad you don't consider it. I'd venture to guess that the sites you grab info from are mostly from authors whose thesis is that we evolved from Apes as a starting point, then add info to substantiate their position. That's a pre-conceived belief also.

I could invalidate your information as quickly as you do on the basis that I don't agree with the content of the websites you post info from....just as you don't agree with mine.

And in Biology class they teach Darwinism.

You are seriously behind the times. There are a lot of things taught in biology class and studied in the field of biology.

Here are some articles from the most recent issue of Human Biology (Volume 78, Number 4, August 2006).

Maximum-Likelihood Variance Components Analysis of Heritabilities of Cranial Nonmetric Traits
Ethnic Differences in the Prevalence of Inherited Thrombophilic Polymorphisms in an Asymptomatic Australian Prenatal Population
Reanalysis of Eurasian Population History: Ancient DNA Evidence of Population Affinities
Genetic Structure in Contemporary South Tyrolean Isolated Populations Revealed by Analysis of Y-Chromosome, mtDNA, and Alu Polymorphisms
Genetic Structure of Dagestan Populations: A Study of 11 Alu Insertion Polymorphisms
mtDNA Variation in the Altai-Kizhi Population of Southern Siberia: A Synthesis of Genetic Variation

I could invalidate your information as quickly as you do on the basis that I don't agree with the content of the websites you post info from....just as you don't agree with mine.

Its not whether one agrees with a position or a website. It is a matter of evidence. The CRS has clearly shown, in their own words, that they are not doing science.

I provided that evidence, in the Statement of Beliefs of the Creation Research Society, upthread. This Statement of Beliefs showed that the CRS is doing apologetics, not science.

As shown by their own statements, their opinions in matters of science are not methodologically equivalent to those of scientists who are following the scientific method, nor can their "evidence" be trusted in matters of scientific investigation.

They are doing apologetics (defense of religion), not science.

From: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI2.html

"The scientific evidence showing the hand of the Creator falls into three major areas: life sciences, astronomical and physical sciences, and earth sciences. Generally speaking, the life sciences operate in the biosphere (the atmosphere, oceans, and other surface waters); astronomical sciences deal with phenomena above the biosphere; and earth sciences deal with phenomena below the biosphere.
Three fascinating objects are depicted on the opposite page—one representing each of these three areas of science. Each involves new discoveries which excite layman and scientist alike. Each object is an amazing reminder of a designer whose attributes are too big, too complex, and too powerful for the mind of man to grasp."

Written By: Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.

So Coyote, is he disqualified as a Scientist with his lengthy academic career because of the fact he believes in the Biblical account of Creation?

The method one uses determines what one is doing; qualifications are often a judge of how well one is able to do something.

Your example is of a person highly qualified in science. Presumably when he does science, using the methods of science, his works routinely appear in scientific venues and are of value to science.

But when his methods change from science to apologetics, he ceases to be doing science. This is the problem I pointed out above with the Creation Research Society. They have a preordained goal, defense of religion. As shown by their own Statement of Beliefs, they cannot come up with any answers that disagree with scripture. That is apologetics, not science.

The reason I am spending time explaining this is the confusion that is often found between a person's scientific qualifications and his religious beliefs. It is the method one uses that determines what one is doing. Use the scientific method correctly, and you are doing science, even if you are in a grade school science fair. Accept the Statement of Beliefs of the CRS, and seek to prove the accuracy of scripture, and you are doing apologetics rather than science, no matter what your scientific qualifications may be.

"Just whose money is being taxed, yours, the government's, or the taxpayer getting a deduction?"
As soon as you [nothing personal, put "one" instead if you wish] claim the deduction, I [with other taxpayers] have to pick the slack. Thus, depending on your tax bracket [say, 28% for the sake of discussion] - out of each deduction dollar you claim, 28 cents comes from the pockets of others - including my pocket. The moral merit, if any, would be greater, if you were donating entirely out of your own pocket. - This was my meaning.

"Accept the Statement of Beliefs of the CRS, and seek to prove the accuracy of scripture, and you are doing apologetics rather than science, no matter what your scientific qualifications may be."

That's fine, but the same info you gather to back your notions are from people advancing the Darwinian explanation of the Human existence. Do you concur?

And also, the antithesis to the Darwinian explanantion is, of course, an Intelligent Designer. You continue to sustantiate your position from one standpoint (one possibility) and I, the other (another possibility). Just because you say it is science because of how it's formulated, doesn't make it true.

The scholar I quoted is a perfect exapmle of someone who has a backgound steeped in science and acedamia, and has another opinion in regards to Creation (or in this case Human existence). You can call this apologetics all you want, but there are plenty of scientists out there who don't agree with the Darwinian position. Just because a Scientist is a Christian doesn't mean his voice is any less then a non-Christian Scientist.

Well, try to get there- and we'll see what happens.

Although not in biology, I have peer reviewed academic papers and been peer reviewed myself so I am acquainted with the type of conformist pressure many journals and professional societies place on researchers. The same false-consensus based argument could be used to imply that everyone should be Democrats because journalists are politically more qualified and they are almost all Democrats. All this misses the point that this debate is fundamentally philosophical and not biological. In any event, claiming a professional qualification for a debate on an anonymous Internet discussion forum is laughable. Arguments here should be based in logical constructions and cited facts, not qualifications or testimonials.

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.