Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is a materialistic approach to teaching the origin of life inherently atheistic and therefore religious?

William Dembski
August 30, 2006
Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[There’s] a new 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that approaches the issue of teaching origin-of-life theories in public schools from a new angle . . .

Few are aware that the courts have ruled atheism is a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment in 2005 and thought about its implications on the teaching of origin-of-life theories in public schools. In brief, evolution becomes both a religious and scientifc theory (using the court’s definition of scientific theory), and abiogenesis becomes purely a religious theory. That being the case, these atheist origin-of-life theories should be treated the same as any other origin-of-life theory. Anything less is unconstitutional. Visit the website at http://originoflifefairness.org for much more information and the links/facts to back it up.

The mainstream media wants to keep this knowledge quiet. If you agree the public needs to know about this issue, your help would be greatly appreciated telling the public about this website. . . .

Sincerely,
Randel Huey
CEO/Founder “Origin of Life Fairness in Public Schools, Inc.”
Jacksonville, Florida

Comments
Now let us see if it will stand.John A. Davison
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
There is as yet no theory of evolution (TOE). There are only thoroughly disproven hypotheses like Lamarckism and NeoDarwinism and still viable hypotheses like the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). Let us see if this harmless comment is allowed to appear. Being by nature an experimentalist, I would like to know. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Leo1787 wrote: “I would like to hear from those who are religious and believe in TOE on this subject, if there are any out there who read this blog.” Since he asked to hear from others who read this blog, presumably Leo came back to check if anyone had responded. It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means Leo has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one. Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?BarryA
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
If the public schools are teaching a doctrine that is essential for one religion (atheism) but antithetical to another (those with creationist beliefs) should that doctrine be taught. Especially if the doctrine has no basis in science.jerry
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Leo, "life on earth is the result of a chance combination of chemical compounds and energy, and at no time did any teacher deny the existence of God (a prerequisite to atheism)." You don't have to "deny the existence of God" to be an atheist when your starting premise is that chance and random chemical combination started life. We could get ridiculous and suppose someone could believe in a god who didn't start life by design, but is that really god? I can't think of any religion other than atheism that teaches the world started by chance ... certainly not the major monotheistic religions, not hinduism, ... which one does? (God: "Oh wow. Look what accidently happened on earth. Cool!") The point is that since there is no evidence that life can pop up by accident, since we haven't even come close to proving that such a thing could happen, then we take it by faith. And since faith is a component of religion, as atheism is, then it shouldn't be in school. "will fail just as every other attempt to introduce the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation of the origin of life into public school curricula has failed." As if atheism has "a viable scientific explanation of the origin of life"? But for the sake of being obvious, what is that explanation? And what religion, other than atheism, accepts that doctrine? Is this a contradiction in the making?faithandshadow
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Leo: Learn to draw the proper distinction between ID and ID\'s philosophical implications. Conflating the two will get you drop-kicked thru the goalposts of this blog and back out into the nether-regions of Darwinian la la land. One more reference to ID invoking the supernatural (or some related canard) and you will be permanently unselected from this blog. See the sidebar for nonsense to avoid under \"put a sock in it\" ->Scott
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
@Leo1787 "Denial of the supernatural in the origin of life does not constitute atheism, there are many Christian believers who are also proponents of TOE." 2 Qs: Completely naturalistic evolution? And do they have good theology? The main point is, can we not infer intelligence of any kind? Heck you don't even need to do something like Mt. Rushmore, even the "simple" Stonehedge will do. And if you're a Christian, is not too much to ask that you believe God was Designer, even if it be the dreaded frontloaded theistic evolution? I'd like to see your answer to BarryA's question w/ out resorting to the dodge. I really like this guy Randel Huey. Honestly, it took someone to point out to me that Atheism is the reigning paradigm in our school system. GO Origin of Life Fairness in Public Schools, Inc.!jpark320
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Leo1787 writes: “this semantic sleight of hand on the part of ID’ers will fail just as every other attempt to introduce the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation of the origin of life into public school curricula has failed.” Leo, let’s see how you respond to the familiar Mount Rushmore test. Assume that a Stephen King super virus wipes out all human life next year. 500 years later an alien visits earth and observes Mount Rushmore. The alien has two and only two choices to account for his observation: 1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent. 2. He could appeal to chance erosion of the mountain to account for the sculpture. If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the “supernatural” into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture? If the answer to this question is “No, it’s not fair” why is it fair for you to make the same accusation against ID proponents when they are attempting to account for specified complexity several orders of magnitude greater than that seen at Mount Rushmore? My prediction: Leo will ignore these two questions altogether or he will try to dodge them.BarryA
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
To the contrary, the logic is quite poor. Atheists existed prior to evolutionary theory so that theory cannot be foundational of the "religion" itself. You may as well say that, because the Catholic Church now rejects geocentrism that the standard model of physics is Catholic doctrine. While evolutionary models may certainly be accepted by many atheists, they aren't themselves defining of atheism and there are several different types of atheist who reject them. Raelians, for example, are atheists who reject evolution quite vehemently. Buddhists, as well, believe in no particular god (and thus could be considered "atheists") yet probably don't view evolution particularly favorably. As a result, for several reasons, this legal effort is essentially non-sensical.Drek
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
I agree with BarryA. Our federal judges are nothing more than black-robed oligarchs pontificating what *they* feel should be law.Ryan
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
I learned about evolution in my high school biology courses, including the concept that life on earth is the result of a chance combination of chemical compounds and energy, and at no time did any teacher deny the existence of God (a prerequisite to atheism). Denial of the supernatural in the origin of life does not constitute atheism, there are many Christian believers who are also proponents of TOE. You make a great leap of faith (pun intended) when you suggest that chance as an explanation for the beginning of life is the same as atheism. I would also suspect, though I do not know because I am not in the least religious, that many religious people who believe in that concept of the origin of life would be insulted at your attempt to pigeon hole them in this manner (ie "If you believe life on earth arose by chance you're an atheist.) I would like to hear from those who are religious and believe in TOE on this subject, if there are any out there who read this blog. Therefore this semantic sleight of hand on the part of ID'ers will fail just as every other attempt to introduce the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation of the origin of life into public school curricula has failed.Leo1787
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
The logic is flawless. The logic is also pretty much irrelevant. Expecting the federal courts to carry their logic where the judges’ political preferences don’t want them to go is naive at best. When faced with the issue, look for the courts to engage in rhetorical slight of hand to duck it. No one who knows anything about constitutional law (which has very little to do with the text of the constitution by the way) expects the courts to apply the same standard to atheistic origin of life studies as they do to ID. Remember, the only thing one needs to know to practice constitutional law before the US Supreme Court is how to count to five.BarryA
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply