RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: The Gospel according to Darwin, John West in the National Review< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jason Spaceman

Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2007,02:37   

There is scant reporting on the anti-religious zeal with which many atheists promote Darwinism.

By John G. West

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 ( 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.

Read it here.

Jason Spaceman

Posts: 163
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2007,02:53   

And West isn't done, he's got a bone to pick with the Kansas school board too:

ID backer knocks Tuskegee deletion from Kansas standards

Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. - A debate over how evolution is taught in Kansas also has become a debate over what students should hear in science classes about the Nazis, forced sterilization and an infamous study of syphilis in black men.

A brief passage about history in science standards for the state's public schools became an issue Monday, as the State Board of Education prepared to vote on a new set of guidelines. Seeking to rewrite anti-evolution standards adopted in 2005, the board targeted for deletion a passage about historic abuses of science citing the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

John West, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design research and didn't want the standards rewritten, called the deletion "a travesty" and wrote an angry letter to board members. Among other things, he noted, the deletion would occur during Black History Month.

"The board's plan to whitewash the history of science is shameful," he wrote.

But the passage had drawn criticism from scientists who note that only abuses perceived as linked to evolution were mentioned.

"That was never in the science standards until the intelligent designers inserted it," said Steve Case, associate director of the Center for Science Education at the University of Kansas. "Introducing that was just a way to get at their attack, 'Scientific knowledge is bad.'"

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2007,06:50   

But ID is all about science, ya know.

(snicker)  (giggle)

No WONDER nobody pays any attention to them anymore.

Editor, Red and Black Publishers


Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2007,10:30   

Whenever anyone asserts that evolution requires atheism, I just laugh.

I became an atheist long before I heard of evolution, and before I did I went through (no sniggering, people) an “ancient astronauts” phase (I was twelve! Okay?). I remember giving that up as absurd and not knowing what the story of our origins was, and being initially skeptical about evolution (as I was about everything by then).

Undergoing that rootlessness and search was a lot of fun, actually; I think that I thrive on uncertainty, and that’s probably rare, and I don’t expect other people to be like me in that respect. I don’t think evolutionary theory will collapse but even if it were to, I would just be in that position again. And that would be fun again.

Despite my enthusiasm for the subject I don’t have my personal identity wrapped up in theories about our origin. People like Wells do and that’s their problem. What I really enjoy is the process of learning, and there are some very important questions that need to be asked, but “Goddidit” isn’t an answer, even if God did it. As my beloved high chemistry teacher said (and he was a devout Christian), “If any of you put down ‘God’ as an answer on a test, you’ll flunk. And if God takes my test and puts down ‘God’ as an answer, he’ll flunk too.” :D

Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  3 replies since Feb. 13 2007,02:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]