Posted on 02/14/2007 2:07:15 PM PST by Tim Long
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.
Its a bit hard to understand how people who can except the story of the birth of Jesus Christ, the basis for Christianity and yet cannot accept creationism.For non-Christians it may not be a problem.
Yawn.
I fell asleep there....
There is empirical evidence contradicting the idea of creationism, while there is no evidence that contradicts the story of Jesus.
"Its a bit hard to understand how people who can except the story of the birth of Jesus Christ, the basis for Christianity and yet cannot accept creationism."
Actually, the position of the Catholic church does not challenge evolution or the big bang. Do a search of Pope John Paul II and evolution.
I was taught at the Falls Creek Baptist church camp in Oklahoma sometime around 1970 that there was no conflict between Genesis and science. No conflict between the bible and evolution.
Then came the "creation science" movement in the 1980's, and my respect for Christianity started downhill.
So was my church correct in 1970? Or correct today? Either way, the leadership of the church had it totally wrong at some time.
Evolutionists are so funny. They argue fervently for their religion while vehemently denying their religion exists.
Yawn...I'm Jewish...your creation stroy is just that. Please don't pass that on as some scientific theory.
Hmm, isn't it in conflict with Celebration of Diversity? What Darwin was thinking about survival rate of gays?
I visted the web site at www.darwinday.org, and I didn't see any anti-christian or anti-muslim (they're creationists too, you know) bashing whatever. There's some intolerance going on here, and I don't think it's the scientists who are intolerant of faith, but it's faithful people being intolerant of science.
It's a bit like watching the Israeli Palestinian food fight. The Israelis are tolerant of Arab "Palestinians", even having some in their Parliament. While the Palestinians refuse to tolerate Jews in their midst, and have no functioning Parliament.
I am intolerant of intolerance, and it's the creationists attacking science who are on the wrong side of this issue.
Creationists are funny. Being immersed in a religion allows them to view everything else as just another religion to compete with.
Kind of like my Southern Baptist grandmother and her attitude about Catholics.
You seem tired. Maybe you shouldn't skip naptime. Now go back and play with the other preschoolers.
Religions come in all shapes and sizes. Darwin Day is a day for a "long dead guy" by his followers.
There will be rituals performed, texts read, dreams forecast, and community feeds.
And the transfiguration will have Dawkins alongside Darwin and Carl Sagan and Obi Wan.
May the farce be with you.
Too funny. I'd throw in Eugenie Scott as a Marian apparition. : )
Funny how Darwins evolution has seemed to stop. Since the modern man has been around for 25000 years but where are the monkeys that are in the middle of evolution, half human half ape? Last time I checked there were not any talking monkeys around. Also wouldn't the gay people have died off by now. I think the provincetown birth rate is about zero. I group that can't reproduce should be gone according to darwin or some of them should be (an not artificially) switching to female or male to maintain the populat ion like some frogs do. BTW where are all the fossils for the different stages of development. I have only ever seen artist interpretations. Plus Darwin was a die hard Christain. He never denied creationism.
You must love to get patted on the head by your teachers. I bet you think you came to a self-investigated rational conclusion while believing everything that people told you.
I believe he was an agnostic.
My Southern Baptist grandmother bad mouths Catholics too. I just can't stand it. And there is not use in telling her that Baptist and Catholics agree on the fundementals of Christianity. And I don't understand why people think that science and evolution are a threat to Christianity. Some people just don't realize science studies natural processes, which is completely separate from the supernatural(God). There are many people, including the Vatican and Pope John Paul II, that realize that one can accept science and believe in God and Christianity. I've certainly had no trouble accepting science and retaining my Christian beliefs.
I couldn't agree more. Looking at the threads on usenet, slashdot, digg, and here, it seems like evolutionists are so full of themselves that they either pat themselves on the back for uncritically believing what they were taught in school (while thinking they are so smart), or firing off ad-hominems at creationist straw-men of their imaginations.
Science and creationism are not incompatible
Dawkins says that evolution proves religion is a lie. He leaves no room for theistic evolutionists.
Sounds like a Clint Eastwood movie i.e. the Good (Lincoln), the bad (Darwin), and you'd need some sort of a really good candidate for the ugly part of it, possibly Madeline Albright. She's definitely ugly enough to have been born in 1809....
I tend to agree that the debate needs to be framed in these terms. Sort of the "I wish that you were cold or hot" scenario. People need to pick naturalism or supernaturalism. Theistic Darwinism is rather silly.
Elections are turned by just one or two percent of the votes.
When conservatives chase away people who are scientifically literate, do you think there will be enough creationists left to win a vote?
Whatever anyone's belief is about evolution, this Darwin's Day event has a anti-religious element to it, and that may be the primary motivation for holding this event.
Creationists are such nice people.
I didn't say I agreed with Dawkins. I very much dislike Dawkins, disagree with his premise science disproves God, and find him to be an intolerant, arrogant jerk.
Only literate in nonsense. Darwinists don't tend to be the strongest conservatives. When you believe humans are descendents of ooze, politics don't seem that important.
"Theistic Darwinism is rather silly."
I guess Pope John Paul II was silly then.
Please explain when the "dark ages" ended and the "Age of Reason" began.
Why? If creationism is correct, then God is playing one heck of a mind game on us. On the other hand, the birth of Jesus is not so at odds with the available evidence (especially if taken in its original, without the translation problems such as "virgin" for "young woman," etc.)
Evolution proves that Genesis is not literal. Beyond that is irrelevant.
You're talking to the wrong person. Fiercely Protestant.
It would probably make your head explode to learn that millions of devout Christians accept evolution as a valid scientific theory.
Yes. The Rain is either natural (condensed water vapor), or supernatural (God made the rain). It can't possibly be both.
Are you an idiot? How can you belive the garbage you post? Is your world-view so fragile?
Based upon your scholarly work and careful study of evolutionary theory, could you kindly point out the part that suggests that modern apes (or monkeys as you call them) should be expected to evolve into humans? Nothing I have read or been taught has ever suggested that creatures leave successful niches unless there is a compelling force or untapped opportunity waiting to be exploited.
Oh, so you believe only Protestants go to Heaven then and all Catholics are going to Hell or am I wrong?
There is intolerance of religion right here on FR, in most creation vs. evolution threads. There's one running right now. There are radical atheists who post on FR, saying things completely indistinguishable from what you would find on a leftist forum, and making statements just like those cited in the OP.
I've posted Dawkins' quotes in the past. Please don't make me look them up again. :>)
Go to the source web site, www.darwinday.org, and show me where the anti-religious talk is. I'll be waiting for some kind of trash mouth writing like the two blogers John Edwards hired.
I'll be waiting.
"I am intolerant of intolerance, and it's the creationists attacking science who are on the wrong side of this issue."
So does that make you intolerant? Sounds like it to me.
It's almost as good as "Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without a Designer". By definition, this quote completely contradicts itself. A Design, by definition, requires a Designer.
***Then came the "creation science" movement in the 1980's, and my respect for Christianity started downhill.***
You made your choice live with it. What do you care about the church after letting your Christianity go down hill.
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.