Darwinism Remains The OFFICALLY Sanctioned Religion Of America

The courts have once again upheld that the religion of Darwinism (i.e. evolution) is the only religion recognizable as true and teachable to our children. There was a time when this type of edict from government to the people would have been heavily frowned upon and might well have been met with loaded guns pointed at those that attempted it. But not today.

As the school system in this country has migrated away from its roots of community and church control to county, state and even federal control things that are often frowned upon (i.e. the teaching of religion under some guise of “separation of church and state”) is accepted as the norm. The criteria used to justify it is simply can their be enough of a shroud to conceal it as “science”.

Let’s not be coy. Darwinism is a religion. It has all the major qualities of such. It is, as Webster’s Dictionary defines, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. There is no proof of evolution on the macro scale but merely faith that it exists. On the micro scale you have what can best be described as adaptation but still very little in the way of one species miraculously morphing into a new one.

Bacteria reproduce so fast that you can observe thousands of generations in a relatively short time. And still there is no recorded evidence of a rose springing forth from a petri dish. Heck there isn’t even evidence of a rose ancestor appearing!

But now the courts said that a school district in Dover, PA even mentioning Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwinism was unconstitutional. Pretty good way to ensure only the religion of choice gets exposure no?

Darwinism is only a theory. It is not science fact. Something else the Darwinists don’t like pointed out either. Webster’s also correctly defines “theory” as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ” or “a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption”

In fact Darwinists hate having to recognize evolution as only a theory so much that they are fighting another battle to keep stickers off of text books that remind students of this in Cobb County Ga. The stickers read simple (and correctly) “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

But we cannot have that either! And the reason is because Darwinism or the “Origin of the Species” fails one critical test. That critical test is there is no starting point.

Most arguments with an evolutionist break down as you walk them back through their theory.

“Where did life currently on Earth come from?”
Darwinist: ” It evolved from species that previously existed.”

“Do you have evidence of this?”
Darwinist (if he/she is honest): “Not hard evidence but we have a fossil record from which can suppose this. Yes there are many anomalies evolution doesn’t account for and yes we don’t have ‘intermediate’ species but it works in theory.”

“Fair enough. So where did those species that previously existed come from?”
Darwinist: “They evolved from a common ancestor.”

“And the ‘common ancestor’ came from?”
Darwinist: “It formed chemically and spontaneously through chemistry in the primordial ooze.”

“And the primordial ooze came from?”
Darwinist: “It formed after billions of years and after the Big Bang.”

“And what is the ‘Big Bang’?”
Darwinist: “A super dense ball of matter exploded creating all the matter that currently exists.”

“And where did this super dense ball come from?”
Darwinist: “Uh … um … huh. Well I guess that it had just always existed or was created out of nothing.”

Please note the last line of that. It either always existed or it was created out of nothing. Sound familiar? It should because it is basically the same starting point you have with recognized religions like Christianity and so on. You cannot prove it. You simply accept it as faith. God has always existed and he created the universe out of “nothing”.

So what separates Darwinism from concepts such as Intelligent Design? The answer is the guise of “science”. The same guise that made people think for years that the sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat for that matter.

Listen. I have always been candid about my beliefs when it comes to “evolution”. This belief has always been that I have little doubt that macro-evolution of some form does exist even though it has never been proven. At the same time macro-evolution like all other phenomena follow the rules of science even if we have not discovered those rules to date. And all the rules of science were created when a being that we know as God formed the Universe. God doesn’t break these rules because He doesn’t have to because He created them and allowed for the ultimate scientific principle known as His Word to supercede all other laws.

I believe that evolution exists because it is part of Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design simply states that there is an Intelligence that guides the way the laws of nature happen. It doesn’t mean “creationism” although many have tried to make it mean such. It simply means that there is something smarter than we controlling the way things work.

And to many people that is a scary thing. Even to many Christians and people of other faiths that should believe the same thing but in slightly different ways.

But try to step away from the accepted principle of Darwinism as the state sponsored religion and there will be Hell to pay until communities and families reclaim their schools and their children.

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free (http://www.thelandofthefree.net) and American Conservative Daily (http://www.americanconservativedaily.com). He is also the owner of American Infidel T-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/americaneagle04).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments »

Creationism and Atheism “By Any Other Name”

The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (ruling made on Dec. 20, 2005) concerned whether Intelligent Design (ID) could be mentioned as an alternative explanation to evolution in a ninth-grade biology class. The school board had directed that the following statement be read in the class:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

District Court Judge John Jones, himself a regular church-goer, ruled that ID is only Creationism relabeled, and as such is definitely promoting a particular religious view that includes belief in the God of Christianity. Judge Jones noted that the testimony of expert witnesses for the defendants (the Dover Area School Board) confirmed the religious mission of ID organizations. He further pointed out that the 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Arkansas has already declared the teaching of “scientific creationism” in public schools as unconstitutional.

After Edwards, the editors of the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, merely changed the numerous references to creation and creationism in prior editions to Intelligent Design, with no other change of the content. His conclusion: since the teaching of “scientific creationism” in public schools is unconstitutional, and since Intelligent Design is “scientific creationism” with a new label, teaching in public schools it is also unconstitutional.

Further, Judge Jones said that while ID “may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.” This is because science by definition “is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data…. [Its] explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data - the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”

Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs that selecting a supernatural explanation is a “science-stopper,” because “once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer.”

No doubt this ruling will serve as precedent for future and pending creation vs. evolution cases throughout the country and will have a chilling effect on attempts by local school boards to introduce alternative explanations to macroevolution and its underlying religion, secular materialism (atheism relabeled).

The truth is that as long ago as 1859, Louis Pasteur irrefutably proved that spontaneous generation never occurs. We stake our lives on this truth every time we open a can of peas. To claim that life arose spontaneously in the past when experiments in the present demonstrate it is impossible is not science. It is not testable; it is incapable of experimental disconfirmation.

Yet secular materialism continues, not only to be taught, but in the public school science classroom to enjoy a monopoly sanctioned by court rulings such as Kitzmiller. The religion of atheism, under another name, is allowed free reign unchallenged while theism is excluded because of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Of course, this will not muzzle discussions of Intelligent Design. Several members of the Dover Area School Board who backed use of the above statement lost their reelection bids on Nov. 8, replaced by members opposed to the policy. The president of the new board, Bernadette Reinking, has revealed that the board now plans to remove ID from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class.

Want to go deeper?
To learn more about Intelligent Design and the ID movement, check out the writings of Phillip E. Johnson, the man regarded as the founder of ID:

  • Darwin on Trial
  • Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education
  • Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
  • The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism
  • Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law, and Culture
  • The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate
  • The Triumph of Design: And the Demise of Darwin (Video)

Also valuable is Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe.

* * *

Copyright ©2006 Steve Singleton

Steve Singleton has written and edited several books and numerous articles. He has been an editor, reporter, and public relations consultant. He has taught college-level Greek, Bible, and religious studies courses and has taught seminars in 11 states and the Caribbean.

Go to his DeeperStudy.com for Bible study resources, no matter what your level of expertise. Explore “The Shallows,” plumb “The Depths,” or use the well-organized “Study Links” for original sources in English translation. Check out the DeeperStudy Bookstore for great e-books, free books, and great discounts. Subscribe to his free “DeeperStudy Newsletter” or “DeeperStudy Blog.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments »

Does Anyone Out There Really Care About Dover

Judge John E. Jones III’s decision in the Dover trial has been heralded as a great victory for science and science education and a major setback for intelligent design and creationism.

It is neither of these. The Dover trial is simply the latest certainly not the last in a long line of largely irrelevant and inconsequential legal challenges to the teaching of evolution in America. The most famous of these is certainly the Scopes Trial. Nominally, Scopes lost and was fined in this historic encounter, but the real loser was the teaching of evolution weakened in the wake of the verdict as skittish textbook publishers downplayed the controversial theory.

Another celebrated legal encounter occurred in 1982 in Little Rock, Ark., when that state proposed to mandate “equal time” high school pedagogy, requiring creationism to be taught alongside evolution. The judge concluded that there was no basis for teaching creationism with evolution in Arkansas public schools. In an about-face from Scopes, creationism lost this battle, but continued to dominate the cultural battle among Americans at large.

A similar challenge originated in Louisiana in 1987 and eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where, presumably, once and for all, creationism was declared unscientific, religious and not appropriate for America’s high school biology classes. But polls continued to show that America’s rejection of evolution was as widespread as ever.

Intelligent design creationism’s successor suffered its first major legal defeat in Dover late last year. But like similar legal defeats of its parent species, the defeat means next to nothing to the American public. Polls will continue to show opposition to evolution. The real effect of the Dover ruling will prove to be as inconsequential as its predecessors in Tennessee, Louisiana or Arkansas.

America’s battle over evolution is not about science nor even about education. It is about religion, and, as such, can only be understood as a culture war between religion and secularism. The legal hairsplitting we have seen about how science is religiously neutral and religion can be reconciled with evolution is an ivory-tower perspective that may warm the hearts of philosophers but does little to thaw the chill between the culture warriors who disagree.

The careful, sober language of Judge Jones stands in marked contrast to the rhetorically charged commentary that has emerged from both sides over the past few decades as religious and secular visions of origins have competed for the allegiance of Americans.

Liberal publications produced cartoons heaping ridicule on the opponents of evolution, portraying them as “missing links.” Anti-religious spokespeople for science described the illiteracy and backwardness of the creationists. Richard Dawkins called creationists “cavemen,” an insult that Isaac Asimov seconded on the back cover of Dawkins’ influential book The Blind Watchmaker. In his review of Blueprints in The New York Times, Dawkins charged that people who did not believe in evolution were “stupid, wicked, or insane.” Dawkins is considered by many to be the leading public intellectual in the English-speaking world, and there are countless other leading anti-religious intellectuals who share his views, such as Daniel C. Dennett, Peter Atkins and Stephen Pinker.

Creationists countered that science was trying to undermine religion. Their leader Henry Morris argued in his influential book The Long War Against God that evolution was a part of Satan’s strategy to destroy faith in God. His views are shared by many of today’s influential religious leaders, such as Ken Ham, James Dobson and D. James Kennedy.

So, while major confrontations like the Dover trial get headlines and give the impression that important battles are being won and lost, they are really nothing more than highly visible skirmishes while the real battle the one for hearts and minds, not stickers and textbooks continues unabated.

Karl Giberson is editor of Science & Theology News.

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments »

Close
E-mail It