Monday, December 27, 2010
Evolution and Religion
A Response to a Lawyer defending the Dover decision to censure any mention of ID (intelligent design) within the science classroom:
You wrote, “Judge Jones should have focused primarily on the purposes of the Dover school board, which clearly were to proselytize for a particular kind of creationism, rather than to explore interdisciplinary approaches to science and religion generally.”
Censuring the Dover board because it was religiously motivated represents an unacceptable bias. Let’s face it – everyone is in the proselytizing business. Everyone has a worldview they’re trying to push, as George Bernard Shaw had correctly observed, “All good art is propaganda!” Atheists boast that evolution is their primary evangelistic tool. Darwinian naturalism is a religion, as evolutionist Michael Ruse observed:
• “Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity…an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... Evolution is a religion.”
In light of this, the Dover decision was highly prejudicial. It censured one group as religiously motivated, but gave a free-ride to the other. Furthermore, it granted a virtual and repressive monopoly to Darwinian naturalism, sidelining its only opposition – ID. And what horrible infraction had the Dover school board committed? They didn’t even impose ID teachings on the science classroom! They merely required that a statement be read by the biology teachers prior to teaching evolution – that it’s a theory and that there is another theory of origins.
This decision will have a stifling effect upon discussion and the free exchange of ideas. It will silence any criticism of Darwinian naturalism, enthroning one particular religion in the science classroom. It will also embolden the evol.-establishment to act punitively against any who might challenge their hegemony.
It also encourages religious discrimination against potential academic staff, as demonstrated in the recent rejection the imminently qualified Martin Gaskell. It was suspected that he might be an “evangelical,” according to an email from a member of the search committee.