The problem with evolution is not that it is
unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the
classroom in an atheist way under the banner of Darwinism. Such textbooks
frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims
about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. Here are
some examples.
Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On
Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural
selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the
species."
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's
Legacy: "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs
of nature...whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in
the products of nature."
Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology:
"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind,
uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or
spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies
that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that
when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine
has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism."
In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative
Evolution, Francisco Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is
"the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a
Creator."
Some Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the
flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of
"creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID)
movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the
scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been
tried in the courts.
Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection
or whether evolution can account for macroevolution or only
microevolution. What they care about is that Darwinism, which is “chance
alone” or “by mere accident” evolution, is being used to deny God as the
Creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as
science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID
theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the
unscientific atheist propaganda out. [RWN Editor's Note: Regardless of what
Mr. D'Souza thinks true Christians care about Biblical truth which rejects
Darwinism and theistic evolution unequivocally. Intelligent Design (ID)
is not unscientific. It is common sense, and there are many in the
scientific community that accept ID arguments (e.g. DNA). Watering down
the Truth does not change the facts regardless of what the courts say.]
How can this be achieved?
Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution
prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way.
How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment
protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time
forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely
held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs
but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your
government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights
have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means
not only "religion" but also "atheism." [RWN Editor's
Note: This is a perfectly legitimate legal argument, but does not negate
the perfectly legitimate scientific argument of ID.]
Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes
atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the
same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from
"establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means
that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand
out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science
teachers cannot advocate atheism masquerading as science. If God
must be removed from government financed schools, so too must the equally
metaphysical “by chance alone”.
I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for
promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce
creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to
parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology
textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy
of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious
belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is
being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten
and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material.
Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw
metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism. [RWN Editor's Note: Excellent
point, but this still does not negate the legitimately of the scientific
argument of ID.]
In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat
to religion in general or Christianity in particular.
