…and this is a 
Ron Numbers, another tool of the religious establishment
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 2, 2007 9:08 AM, by PZ Myers
The definitive book on the history of the creationism movement is The Creationists(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) by Ron Numbers (and I have to remember to get a copy of the new expanded edition). Numbers has an interview in Salon which starts off well, but as it goes on, my respect for the guy starts sinking, sinking, sinking. He's another hamster on the exercise wheel, spinning around the same old ineffective arguments that get us nowhere, and he can't even follow through on his own chain of logic.
Here's that reasonable beginning.
Given the overwhelming scientific support for evolution, how do you explain the curious fact that so many Americans don't believe it?
I don't think there's a single explanation. To many Americans, it just seems so improbable that single-celled animals could have evolved into humans. Even monkeys evolving into humans seems highly unlikely. For many people, it also conflicts with the Bible, which they take to be God's revealed word, and there's no wiggling room for them. And you have particular religious leaders who've condemned it. I think there's something else that I hate to mention but probably is a serious contributing factor. I don't think evolution has been taught well in the United States. Most students do not learn about the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
At the university level or the high school level?
Grade school, high school and university. There are very few general education courses on evolution for the nonspecialist. It's almost assumed that people will believe in evolution if they've made it that far. So I think we've done a very poor job of bringing together the evidence and presenting it to our students.
I agree with that, although I think he's failing to pull his story together. There is a general degree of ignorance about evolution and basic biology; there are large numbers of people actively opposing evolution in the schools for religious reasons; evolution is taught poorly in the schools.
Now, why is it taught poorly? He's already answered that (isn't it obvious?), but he's going to dance evasively around it throughout the interview.
First, though, he's going to make another valid point.
There's a stereotype that creationists just aren't that smart. I mean, how can you ignore the steady accumulation of scientific evidence for evolution? Is this a question of intelligence or education?
Not fundamentally. There is a slight skewing of anti-evolutionists toward lower levels of education. But it's not huge. One recent poll showed that a quarter of college graduates in America reject evolution. So it's not education itself that's doing this. There are really dumb creationists and there are really dumb evolutionists. Of the 10 founders of the Creation Research Society, five of them earned doctorates in the biological sciences from major universities. Another had a Ph.D. from Berkeley in biochemistry. Another had a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. These were not dumb, uneducated people. They rejected evolution for religious and, they would say, scientific reasons.
Correct — creationists are not necessarily stupid people, so we can rule out simplistic explanations that involve all of them being at the bottom of the scale of intelligence. Some of them are entirely capable of working their way to the highest levels of academic accomplishment.
So he has ruled out diminished capacity as an explanation. What could the reason be that so many people get the science wrong? Here's where he starts going off the rails, and the interviewer, Steve Paulson, is going to start actively promoting the usual dogma with him.
My guess is that the most persuasive arguments for evolution are not going to come through scientific reasoning. They're going to come from scientists, and from theologians and other people of faith, who say you can believe in God and still accept evolution, that there's nothing incompatible about the two. Do you agree?
To a large extent, I do. But I think the influence of those middle-ground people is limited. Conservatives don't trust them. They think they've already sold out to modernism and liberalism. And a lot of the more radical scientists spurn them as well. Richard Dawkins, for example, would argue that evolution is inherently atheistic. That's exactly what the fundamentalists are saying. They agree on that. So you have these people in the middle saying, "No, no. It's not atheistic for me. I believe in God and maybe in Jesus Christ. And in evolution." Having these loud voices on either side of them really tends to restrict the influence that they might otherwise have.
So much wrongness…the source of the problem of creationism that Numbers and Paulson are apparently too blinkered to see is religion: major religions in this country actively fight against good science, pressure schools into dumbing down their science curricula, lash out against teachers who try to teach that 'controversial' idea in their classes, and just in general promote ignorance, dependency on emotional blather, and this meaningless twaddle called "faith".
Those "people in the middle" are ineffective because they are trying to peddle two inconsistent views—they try to encourage science on one hand, and then on the other they promote an unscientific position. They cancel themselves out, and are basically forces for the status quo…a status quo which is currently unacceptable.
There is nothing radical about rejecting religion. It's a sensible, ordinary, quite simple process; Numbers is simply damning atheists with his labels. And it gets worse.
My sense is that you don't much like the stridency of certain atheists. The most obvious examples would be Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.
Right. I don't know what the figures are right now, but I bet half of the scientists in America believe in some type of God. So I think Dawkins and Dennett are in a minority of evolutionists in saying that evolution is atheistic. I also think it does a terrible disservice to public policy in the United States.
So even if they believe that, you're saying, politically, it's a real mistake for them to link atheism to evolution?
Yes. Because in the United States, our public schools are supposed to be religiously neutral. If evolution is in fact inherently atheistic, we probably shouldn't be teaching it in the schools. And that makes it very difficult when you have some prominent people like Dawkins, who's a well-credentialed biologist, saying, "It really is atheistic." He could undercut -- not because he wants to -- but he could undercut the ability of American schools to teach evolution.
Evolution and science and math and history and spelling and the whole of the public school curriculum are inherently atheistic, in the sense that they do not endorse any gods. Atheism is not a religion; it is an absence of gods, and of course the only way to maintain religious neutrality is to teach without the promotion of any gods at all. I don't understand why some people find this so difficult to grasp. Teaching science without god in it does not mean that kids are assigned homework to skip church and blaspheme against the holy spirit — it just means that they are told that evidence is important, that we test hypotheses against the natural world, that it is not enough to say that we want the answer to be X, we need to critically evaluate X.
Now the only way that could undercut the ability of schools to teach evolution is if we have these well-meaning but religiously biased people simultaneously declaring that that business of critical thinking and evaluating natural hypotheses is "radical" and defying religious neutrality by promoting a specific religion. The problem is not the atheists, it's damned shortsighted apologists for religion who criticize people for teaching science without gods. That's all it means to teach good science.
Now Dawkins and Dennett and others are finally stepping outside the classroom and promoting a deeper, wider acceptance of atheism in the social realm; they are saying you ought to skip church and feel free to blaspheme against the holy spirit and maybe you should critically evaluate Lutheranism or Catholicism or Islam or whatever tradition you've been brought up in. That's different than merely insisting that geology should be taught without Jesus and entirely on the evidence; it's also a good and necessary move to break the de facto lock religious thinking obviously has on way too many people's heads.
I am really exasperated with those who complain that the people who say "Evolution is supported by the evidence, teach it without your religious biases" are the problem, a greater problem than the multitudes who say "Evolution is false because Jesus or Mohammed say so". Numbers is being absurd, and he ought to know better; creationism didn't take off because myriad scientists were attacking religion, quite the contrary. Science has been attacked by the religious because good scientists refuse to defer to religion, as is the only way they should act.
The problem is not a handful of prominent scientists with the courage to speak out against religion as an avocation, it's the millions of religious authorities around this country who are paid to speak out against science every week, who are supported by tax breaks from the government, and whose damaging influence is rationalized away by unthinking apologists, many of whom are a self-defeating force within the anti-creationism movement.
But if the only way for scientists to break this superstitious stranglehold, this default assumption that faith is equal in power to evidence, is for them to get out of the classroom and begin fighting back, I say more power to them. I am not going to make excuses for a religion that is encouraging ignorance and scientific illiteracy, as Numbers is—I'm going to point out repeatedly that the only religious neutrality we're going to have is no religion at all.
Comments
Wow, if I had thought that I could get out of PE by saying that it was inherently atheistic life would have been beautiful!
(I live too near Wheaton College for this to have been an abstract idea. This area is filled with people who are full of that fine Christian hate that we see so much of these days. Remember when the fundies were considered to be a bit nutty and no one listened to them? Sigh.)
Posted by: Mena | January 2, 2007 9:26 AM
If evolution is in fact inherently atheistic, we probably shouldn't be teaching it in the schools.
maybe we could start teaching the standard definitions of words, so that numbskulls like this wouldn't be tempted to cast atheism as a religion.
Posted by: cleek | January 2, 2007 9:42 AM
Great post. Except... "millions of religious authorities around this country who are paid to speak out against science every week" - ? Slight exaggeration?
Posted by: reallyordinary | January 2, 2007 9:45 AM
"If the heliocentric model of the solar system is inherently atheistic, we probably shouldn't be teaching it in schools."
"If the conservation of energy is inherently atheistic, we probably shouldn't be teaching it in schools."
"If the claim that a bat is not a bird is inherently atheistic, we probably shouldn't be teaching it in schools."
Posted by: quork | January 2, 2007 10:06 AM
I took Numbers' statement to mean that it would be unconstitutional to teach the non-existence of God as a fact in public school. Let's assume you believe that the non-existence of God (within the standards of certainty we apply to other things) is a fact, readily established beyond reasonable doubt to any reasonable person. Teaching it as such would still set down an official, preferred view regarding religious beliefs. It strikes me as a definite violation of the establishment clause.
Note that teaching evolution conflicts with particular religious beliefs, but evolution is a fact that can be taught without any reference to religion. Statements about God clearly refer to religion and make absolutely no sense out of that context. Numbers' statement is that IF (counterfactual hypothetical) one were to teach evolution as an argument against the existence of God, THEN this would violate the establishment clause. Reasonable people can disagree about this claim as well, but using it as some kind of litmus test to rule out Numbers from the set of friendly viewpoints strikes me as ridiculously partisan.
Posted by: PaulC | January 2, 2007 10:09 AM
This conflation with atheism and a belief in evolution really galls me, and I would think that an authority as well-versed as Numbers would know better. I myself am an atheist, but my personal disbelief in the supernatural informs my acceptance of the principle of evolution no more than it does my acceptance of the principle of gravity. It is simply not relevant. While it is true that creationism makes no sense without a belief in the supernatural, the opposite is not true. Atheists and scientists both would benefit tremendously from the successful dispelling of this conflation: scientists, because the religious would see that there is no religious objection to science, and atheists, because it would give them one less misunderstanding to fight.
Posted by: Opisthokont | January 2, 2007 10:11 AM
I don't think it's an exaggeration -- it's an estimate of the number of low-level pastors and reverends and ministers and priests all doing their regular business around the country. Does anyone have a number for how many evangelical/charismatic/fundamentalist preachers infest the US?
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 10:12 AM
Millions is a reasonable word. I was born in a town of 2000 people, which has 48 active churches today. That's about a 40:1 ratio of people to preachers. When you add in a handful of deacons, you have less than a 8:1 ratio of people to religious authorities, which would yield over 37 million religious authorities in the US. I know cities outside the South have smaller numbers of churches and that bigger churches exist in large cities, but even a 300:1 ratio would yield 1 million religious authorities in the US.
Posted by: xenomath | January 2, 2007 10:26 AM
somehow I think this bit of the interview is important:
SALON: otherwise, science keeps chipping away at religion.
NUMBERS: exactly. it never ends. it always changes and it means you'll have to be constantly reinterpreting god. it wasn't so much that they invested in the genesis account as that many of them were concerned about the last book of the bible. revelation foretold the end of the world. and they would argue, how can we expect christians to believe in the prophecies of revelation, about end times, when we symbolically interpret genesis, and interpret it away? so if you want people to take revelation seriously, you have to get them to take genesis really seriously.
it is important why people hold on to these beliefs. very quickly i think there are two basic reasons:
1. people are afraid to die. they long for an afterlife and religions tell them that it's ok, to not be afraid and that they will exist, in some way, forever.
2. people like to control the actions of others to their benefit. the final judgement is the tried-and-true mechanism for getting people to do what you want them to do.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | January 2, 2007 10:27 AM
I think Alan Sokal's analysis is pretty much spot-on:
This quotation comes from pp. 66–7 of Sokal's essay "Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers" (PDF link).
If anything, I think Sokal is being a bit too optimistic. After reading that New Yorker article we discussed a while back on the bible-printing industry, it's hard to see organized religion as "an ethical counterweight to the untrammeled power of money". Likewise, it is undeniable that our churches have given us great leaders in the civil-rights struggle — but who made Martin Luther King, Jr. a universally admired hero, the churches or the public schools?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 2, 2007 10:33 AM
From the interview:
Does anyone want to fact-check Numbers's numbers? I mean, first of all, saying one believes in "some type of God" doesn't say very much. This might include Einstein, for example, whose "God" was basically a poetic shorthand for the sum total of natural laws, some of which we do not yet know. And honestly, if Jack Chick's Jesus is the one sitting in judgment, everybody who believes in a Deist Watchmaker will find themselves broiling in the lake of fire, right alongside Sokal, PZ and me.
Furthermore:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 2, 2007 10:44 AM
Whenever I start feeling even a twinge of empathy for hardline religionists, something like this comes along that blows my mind. What sort of nutcase thinks that Revelation is the most important, literal book of the Bible? Wouldn't any sane, rational Christian (for the sake of argument) think that it was considerably more important for John, say, or even one of Paul's books, to be literally true than Revelation? I mean, the book could be complete and utter bollocks from start to finish and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference to whether God loved you and Christ died for your sins and if you repented you'd go to heaven.
It's people like that that make me wish that God did exist, and that he were Allah.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 2, 2007 10:59 AM
Are you sure there isn't a 'g' at the end of his Forename?
Posted by: Steve Netherwood | January 2, 2007 11:12 AM
And Numbers would agree with you; hell, Ken Miller would agree with you. You are just playing word-games. When people say "evolution is atheistic", as some people do on both the creationist and militant atheist fronts, they mean "evolution implies the non-existence of gods" not "evolution is compatible with the non-existence of gods".
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | January 2, 2007 11:12 AM
I suppose they are playing politics in the interview, rather can calling it out. It is religion exclusively that causes evolution to be non-accepted, when compared to other scientific fields of the magnitude. Of course religious evolutionists are still as much interested in bringing people to Jesus as they are about teaching evolution. This means religion must remain holy. It cannot be faulted for its impact on scientific teaching. This pandering totally ignores the need for self-criticism that we think to be so important about personal development. If I find myself guilty of hindering someone, I need to take upon myself to self-examine and improve upon myself. It's not an act of self-hatred to question your own acts.
Posted by: daenku32 | January 2, 2007 11:17 AM
I know that there are too many fundamentalists trying to remove evolution from the science curriculum, but which major religions are
This isn't the official position of the Presbyterians, Methodists, most Jewish organizations, or even the Catholic church.As an example, most Jews accept the 12th century position of Maimonides that when there is a conflict between science and the bible the solution is to read the bible figuratively.
The Presbyterian church writes:
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | January 2, 2007 11:19 AM
Why, I'm not playing word games at all. Numbers berates Dawkins for being too strident, but can you find one instance of Dawkins saying anything like "Textbooks should say there is no god"? Numbers, Miller, and Dawkins would agree that we shouldn't do that; he's setting up the usual apologists straw man.
And yes, if we apply the same kind of scientific thinking to the Bible that we do to the natural world, the answer is that god is BS. We do not advocate wasting time in the science classroom doing necropsies on the superstitions of ancient peoples, though, so that's an issue that won't be dealt with there...we will address it outside of our classes, though, and do so freely without concern that Ron Numbers or Pat Robertson or whoever is offended by our heresy.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 11:28 AM
I admire Dawkins. He reminds me of Diogenes Laertius, the celestial dog, who when invited by a man into a richly furnished house and asked to be careful not to spit on the floor, turned and spat in the man's face, exclaiming that it was the only dirty place he could find where spitting was permitted. If he were alive today, searching as he once did with his lantern for a truly unbiased and indifferent individual, his best bet would be among the atheistic scientists, not the priests, nor the philosophers. Dawkins likewise, is not afraid and will not swallow his spit out of fear of launching it into the faces of those who, like thieves, can only pretend and pose.
Prudence and timidity are useless in the face of those who project a world of unreality. The only fault I can see with these men is that both prefer to live within the world, free to reflect without illusion upon human reality.
Thank you E Cioran.
Posted by: Stew | January 2, 2007 11:45 AM
Where does Numbers claim that Dawkins wants to say "Textbooks should say there is no god"? You are putting words in his mouth. Numbers is simply saying that if evolution *is* presented as atheistic in the atrong sense of implying the nonexistence of god(s), then it opens the case for creationists to get it banned in school on constitutional grounds in the US, just like creationism is banned for implying the existence of god(s).
I don't get the impression that Numbers is "offended" by Dawkins.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | January 2, 2007 11:53 AM
Since I didn't say Numbers said that, I'm not putting words in his mouth.
I am saying that your interpretation is nonsensical. No one is pushing to have schools advocate the nonexistence of gods, so it's silly for Numbers to complain about it. Is anyone jumping on Francis Collins for arguing that the natural world supports the idea of the christian trinity? Doesn't that make evolution violate separation of church and state, because evo then promotes a sectarian religious faith?
It's a ludicrous argument. What it would mean is that no one could draw any conclusions that would affect religious belief on any subject without putting the entire high school curriculum in jeopardy. Someone says physical forces generated the spherical shape of the earth, rather than the personal hand of God? Oh, no -- that's religion! Can't teach physics or geology now.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 12:06 PM
BTW, has Dawkins ever actually commented that if something is 'atheistic', it means only atheists can accept it?
Just wondering because Numbers characterizes the middle-ground as follows:
"No, no. It's not atheistic for me. I believe in God and maybe in Jesus Christ. And in evolution."
Posted by: daenku32 | January 2, 2007 12:16 PM
PZ:"I don't think [millions is] exaggeration -- it's an estimate of the number of low-level pastors and reverends and ministers and priests all doing their regular business around the country. Does anyone have a number for how many evangelical/charismatic/fundamentalist preachers infest the US?"
---------------
This is not an answer to your question but it is a start.
There are about 160 million self identified adult Christians in the US depending on which year the data are from and other factors.
A large majority of those are distributed among the top ten US "churches" (as in sects, etc. like Catholic vs. Baptist).
These top 10 ("churches") religions in the US, all Christian, have about 103 million members, distributed among 169,100 churches (as in "I wend down the street and there was a church on the corner")
The number of catholics per church is way higher than for the other groups, which are mainly evangelical, baptists, and such. The non-catholics have a higher rate of operation in the Evo-Creo area.
SO if a "church" has a few operatives, you've got 170,000 + a bunch (those not in the top 10) times F, where "F" is a fudge factor roughly equal to "a few."
So not "There's millions of 'em". Rahter, "There's gotta be a million of 'em..."
Source: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 2, 2007 12:20 PM
No, he hasn't, nor have I. Most human activities are "atheistic", in the same sense...unless you're waiting for angels to descend and cook your dinner, or if Jesus manifests himself in the bathroom to flush the toilet for you.
Numbers is basically protesting that some people are willing to say you don't need to say a prayer to Mohammed in order to get your car repaired.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 12:22 PM
You brought up the example, not I. To claim that you didn't give the example as something that Numbers was claiming Dawkins would support is rather silly.
Yes. In nearly every review of his book. All the reviews I've read have been pretty negative.
No, only that such conclusions shouldn't be *taught*. Students are free to notice that natural law doesn't give much room for a deity to work in. It's just like teaching modern history -- a teacher that taught that a certain political party was composed of corrupt hypocrites would be inappropriate -- but teaching events including Watergate and Iran-Contra may make the students draw their own conclusions.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | January 2, 2007 12:32 PM
We're going round and round in circles. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT SUCH CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE TAUGHT. OK? The Numbers objection is that Dawkins holds such ideas and speaks them in public...and that's enough for him to claim that atheists are going to damage the American curriculum.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 12:42 PM
Is Dawkins really saying evolution is atheistic, or leads to atheism? Well, yes and no. The theory itself is neutral. You can accept both evolution and God -- as long as you make sure God is a bit vaguer than the kind of God which made everything 6.000 years ago (which is easy to do, of course.) Dawkins is clear on that. PZ points this out here too. Teaching evolution in the schools is NOT the same thing as teaching there is no God. There is no direct conflict between evolution and religion.
But God per se -- any Higher Intelligence or Life Force or Cosmic Consciousness -- *indirectly* conflicts with evolution, because evolution explains how complicated things like intelligence, life, and consciousness grow up from unintelligent, lifeless, unconscious processes and things. Evolution is atheistic if you apply it ALL THE WAY -- all the way down, and all the way up.
In other words, it's atheistic only if you think reality is going to be consistent, and there is nothing particularly virtuous in compartmentalizing religion from everything else (and a good deal to be said against it.)
Posted by: Sastra | January 2, 2007 12:42 PM
[Sastra: Is Dawkins really saying evolution is atheistic, or leads to atheism? Well, yes and no. The theory itself is neutral. You can accept both evolution and God -- as long as you make sure God is a bit vaguer than the kind of God which made everything 6.000 years ago (which is easy to do, of course.) Dawkins is clear on that. PZ points this out here too. Teaching evolution in the schools is NOT the same thing as teaching there is no God. There is no direct conflict between evolution and religion.]
I'm not sure I would totally agree on that, though I quickly admit I have not read his latest book. This is a problem that needs a more subtle examination.
Imagine a thought experiment in which a normal person is de-integrated by a newly designed neruodeconstructifer device. The person is now two people, one we'll call Richard and he is only capable of thinking like a scientist. The other we'll call Duane, and he can only think like an Evangelical Preacher Creo-simp.
Richard is incapable of believing in god because he thinks like a scientist. He can no more easily believe in god than he can believe in evolution or gravity.
Richard expects the world to work a certain way because he is capable of inferring likely states or futures based on an ever-refined model of how the world works. It is quite possible that Richard can have a model of the world in which there is a god, should the evidence suggest this, and as well, Richard can have a model of the world in which there is a force called Natural Selection, and a model of how DNA works etc., if there is sufficient evidence to suggest these things. But he cannot believe in god nor can he believe in DNA.
Duane, on the other hand, may have faith that god exists, or he may have faith that god does not exist. Either one of these is a religious inference.
If god does not have a place in Richard's model, he may have to classify himself as an atheist on some government form. If Duane does not believe in god, he may have to classify himself as an atheist on some government form. But if we arbitrarily state that atheism is never a religious act, then Richard could be an atheist technically, but not if sufficient proof arises suggesting the existence of god. Duane could never be an atheist even if he chooses to have faith that god does not exist.
If god does have a place in Richard's model, he would not be an atheist, but he would certainly not be religoius. (Of course, if Duane happens to believe in god than neither would he.) If we arbitrarily state that atheism is an act of faith just like Hinduism or whatever, then Richard can never be a theist despite overwhelming evidence of the existence of god, should such evidence arise. Duane will remain religious under all circumstances regardless of what he believes.
In practice, it is probably true that almost all atheists are self-consciously rational, so don't worry, most of this weird stuff will hardly ever happen.
If all you have is a hammer, you will treat everything like a nail. If all you have is rational thought, you are very unlikely to shape your life around a concept based on faith. If part of you is religious, and you value rational thought, you will probably be not very religious. And, if that goes to a certain point, and rationality emerges as fundamental to your world view and way of being, pretty much the best you can do is become a Unitarian.
(How do you get a unitarian to move out of your neighborhood? Burn a question mark on his lawn...)
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 2, 2007 1:05 PM
Oh, well, the confusion between methodological naturalism (a prerequisite for science) and ontological naturalism (a philosophical speculation that doesn't look testable, and is compatible with science but doesn't strictly follow from it). Same-old-same-old.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 2, 2007 1:26 PM
"Numbers is basically protesting that some people are willing to say you don't need to say a prayer to Mohammed in order to get your car repaired"
That is quite an obviously false misrepresentation of what numbers intended to say.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | January 2, 2007 1:28 PM
[PaulC:I took Numbers' statement to mean that it would be unconstitutional to teach the non-existence of God as a fact in public school. Let's assume you believe that the non-existence of God (within the standards of certainty we apply to other things) is a fact, readily established beyond reasonable doubt to any reasonable person. Teaching it as such would still set down an official, preferred view regarding religious beliefs. It strikes me as a definite violation of the establishment clause.]
I don't think so. If, when a fully rational person is forced to answer the question "does god exist, yes or no and we'll kill your first born if you don't give us an answer," that person answers "No" then that's it. Teach that global warming is real despite the oil company's best efforts to lie, teach that Nixon really was a crook, and teach that god does not exist.
However, this is complicated by the problem that proving the non existence of something is not only difficult, but worse, generally uninteresting. Rational thinkers generally assume you can't do this with vague things like "god" and such.
Again, the problem is in the use of the term "belief" ... perfectly good English word but drenched with meaning when speaking of religion. Do you really mean "belief" when speaking of "reasonable doubt" and "reasonable person"?
Anyway, I don't think the rational assertion that there is no evicence whatsoever of the existence of god is a violation of the establishment clause becuae the existence of god is not "known" to religious individuals or religious people by this line of reasoning.
The Catholic Church seems to have a grasp of this now and then (like once every other century?) On one hand, burn the scientists, on the other hand ignore them. The church tried to be careful not to make too much of the "acceptance" by scientists of the Big Bang, which for some reason that is way beyond me was supposed to be confirmation of Genesis. ("Let my photons go!" spoketh the plasma on the first day)
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 2, 2007 1:33 PM
Let's not get confused. That evolution, or in fact any field of science, does not require for any concept of god, does not imply that evolution has special status to reveal the existence or non-existence of god. People like Dawkins send the message, veiled or not, that evolution is intrinsically atheistic in suggesting that GOD must not exist; and not so, in the sense that "god is not required for understanding evolution".
I agree with Badger, PZ's confusion seems pretty plain to me
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | January 2, 2007 1:39 PM
Somebody earlier wrote : "Numbers is simply saying that if evolution *is* presented as atheistic in the strong sense of implying the nonexistence of god(s), then it opens the case for creationists to get it banned in school on constitutional grounds in the US, just like creationism is banned for implying the existence of god(s)."
1. Atheism is not a religion; it's simply the denial or rejection of the existence of gods. Some religions rely on the existence of gods but no religion relies on their non-existence.
2. creationsim is not banned (from Science classes) for implying the existence of gods. The Genesis story of creation is banned from the Science classroom because the reliance of Genesis as evidence for the origin of life would would require the teaching of scriptural authority, and therefore privelege Judeo/Christian/Islamic religon.
Posted by: Middle Professor | January 2, 2007 1:41 PM
Posted by: llewelly | January 2, 2007 1:54 PM
Greg Laden wrote: "Duane, on the other hand, may have faith that god exists, or he may have faith that god does not exist. Either one of these is a religious inference."
No, faith that god does not exist is not religious inference. In Duane's case, its simply ignorant inference. Religious inference is the conclusion that something "is" because of scriptural (or spiritual or guru) authority.
Posted by: Middle Professor | January 2, 2007 2:09 PM
Are you people really incapable of recognising that "Evolution provides a non-supernatural mechanism for the origin of life and intelligence" is a distinctly separate argument from "Evolution provides proof that God does not exist"? Are you further incapable of recognising that people like Dawkins and PZ are arguing the former point?
With regards to the teaching of evolution in schools, this is the only point that has any relevance. So to that extent, there is absolutely no grounds for claiming that Dawkins, PZ, or pretty much anybody else are pushing evolution education in order to stamp out religion, which is precisely what Numbers says they are doing.
Yes, it's true that Dawkins and PZ go farther. They are both atheists. Having evidence for a non-supernatural mechanism for the origin of life, they apply principles of parsimony to conclude that there's no reason to assume the existence of the supernatural. Yes, they do talk about this, sometimes at length. But they acknowledge -- publicly, openly, repeatedly -- that this part of the discussion has no place in science class because the existence or non-existence of God is utterly irrelevant to science.
Numbers is conflating two different questions here to create an extremist straw man that doesn't exist so he can knock it down and play the Serious, Reasonable Commentator. Hey, why not? Everybody else is doing it.
Posted by: Joshua | January 2, 2007 2:12 PM
I'm an atheist and yet not a big fan of this tedious slogan; there *are* atheistic religions -- if Zeus or Jaweh exist then some forms of Buddhism are falsified; what most people mean by atheism (and what I subscribe to) is more properly termed "metaphysical naturalism"; besides, the practical fact is that in the US, both atheists and theists have invoked the establishment clause in order to protect their rights; in other words, "atheism" is legally treated just like a religion.
The whole point of Dover was that ID is creationism even if doesn't rely on Genesis.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | January 2, 2007 2:14 PM
All Dawkins argues is that evolution explains design and design can no longer be used as evidence for God. He's never said that it entails that "God must not exist" or that it should be taught in schools. Even if he did, Dawkins is British, so establishment is irrelevant. And, technically, since atheism is not a religion, having a course on atheism, where atheism is taught as absolute truth, wouldn't be establishment anyway.
Posted by: poke | January 2, 2007 2:29 PM
[Middle Prof:Greg Laden wrote: "Duane, on the other hand, may have faith that god exists, or he may have faith that god does not exist. Either one of these is a religious inference."
No, faith that god does not exist is not religious inference. In Duane's case, its simply ignorant inference. Religious inference is the conclusion that something "is" because of scriptural (or spiritual or guru) authority.]
No right back at you! My premise, my thought experiment, I get to decide. Duane is an entirely faith based person. SEe?
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 2, 2007 2:37 PM
both atheists and theists have invoked the establishment clause in order to protect their rights; in other words, "atheism" is legally treated just like a religion.
people use the law in whatever way will benefit them. the state police in NC used anti-terrorism laws against operators of a meth lab because of the amount and type of chemicals they were using. that doesn't mean people who operate meth labs are "terrorists".
Posted by: cleek | January 2, 2007 2:39 PM
The First Amendment's stance on religion is pretty clear. It works both ways. It not only prevents the government from restricting the practice of any one religion but also prevents the government from supporting the practice of any one religion (which de facto restricts all the others, but the wording mentions both these cases).
This is the key thing when it comes to protecting atheists. You don't need to define atheism as a religion in order to protect it under the First Amendment, because most of the acts that might oppress atheism constitute the support of some other religion.
Posted by: Joshua | January 2, 2007 3:15 PM
Whatever happened to the argument that fundamentalist religion requires and demands faith to obtain salvation? Faith is belief without proof. If the universe could not be entirely characterized without invoking God, then that would be proof of God's existence, thus eliminating the need for faith. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, that science does not conflict with religion since faith is central to salvation. Thus to argue against evolution is to argue against faith, not for it. Does not the Bible say that God gave man free will in order to choose whether or not to believe in God? If that is so, then it MUST be possible to understand all of creation without invoking the existence of God, otherwise one would not be free to choose to believe in God's existence. I find it so frustrating that the science community does not use this argument; that the fundamentalists' own scriptures essentially commands them to leave science alone and stop trying to subvert it to "prove" God's existence.
Posted by: SteveM | January 2, 2007 3:28 PM
Greg Laden wrote:
"No right back at you! My premise, my thought experiment, I get to decide. Duane is an entirely faith based person. SEe?"
in response to Middle Professor writing:
"No, faith that god does not exist is not religious inference. In Duane's case, its simply ignorant inference. Religious inference is the conclusion that something "is" because of scriptural (or spiritual or guru) authority."
Greg: to take your thought experiment seriously, I have to agree with your definitions. I disagree that "faith that god does not exist" is a religious inference for the reason stated. But I will modify that to say that "faith that god does not exist" is not *necessarily* a religious inference. If Duane has reasons within his system of worship or spirituality to believe that gods do not exist, then the statement is religious inference. By reasons I don't mean empirical evidence, I mean something like an ancient text or the high priest of Duane's religion stating that "only disbelievers in gods will reach such-and-such state."
Posted by: Middle Professor | January 2, 2007 3:31 PM
[MidProf:Greg: to take your thought experiment seriously, I have to agree with your definitions. I disagree that "faith that god does not exist" is a religious inference for the reason stated.]
Yes, I don't think we are disagreeing here all. The Duane that says "no" to the question "tell me if god exists, yes or no" is not common among, say Christians. Such beliefs are widely held, however, among Buddhists (or so I am told) as a matter of religion, so Duane is not unlikely and certainly not impossible. But we're talking mainly Christian/Western-Atheist disputes here.
The apparent fact that god does not exist as held by many Western free-thinkers is as you are suggesting based mainly on lack of evidence that s/he does exist.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 2, 2007 3:47 PM
Joshua and SteveM are spot on.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 2, 2007 3:50 PM
Joshua: The First Amendment's stance on religion is pretty clear. It works both ways. It not only prevents the government from restricting the practice of any one religion but also prevents the government from supporting the practice of any one religion (which de facto restricts all the others, but the wording mentions both these cases).
You may be interested in: Drinking Blood. I'm sure you are right, but it is interesting to consider the degree to which the founders were interested in the conflict between rationality and religion. Probably, for some of them, quite a bit.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 2, 2007 3:59 PM
It's pretty astounding how low the level of discourse is here and how quickly otherwise intelligent people (seemingly, anyway) get dragged down by the one-issue idiots.
Numbers is bad why? Because he isn't sufficiently radical? Because he has a notion of politics that extends beyond PZ's incredibly naive belief that politics is a debating society:
Those "people in the middle" are ineffective because they are trying to peddle two inconsistent views--they try to encourage science on one hand, and then on the other they promote an unscientific position. They cancel themselves out
PZ, have a look at history. Have a look at George Bush. Political figures hold and espouse contradictory views all the time. A lot of times this accounts for their success. Views don't cancel out in politics like a math equation. Stop playing at politics if you're this stupid about it.
Evolution and science and math and history and spelling and the whole of the public school curriculum are inherently atheistic, in the sense that they do not endorse any gods.
And with this sense of atheistic you have emptied Numbers' point of any meaning. Clearly that's not what he meant by atheistic. What he meant was that evolution is often presented as if it positively endorsed the belief that there is no god. Evolution has nothing to say about whether there is any god at all. I can imagine many gods who would be perfectly consistent with evolution. So Numbers' point is there's no point in making a big ballyhoo out of the fact that these would be different Gods than most people believe in.
Because most people don't believe in God because it provides them an explanation for the origin of species anyway.
"Evolution is supported by the evidence, teach it without your religious biases"
This isn't what Numbers is talking about. He's talking about Dawkins, not high school science teachers.
The problem is not a handful of prominent scientists with the courage to speak out against religion as an avocation, it's the millions of religious authorities around this country who are paid to speak out against science every week, who are supported by tax breaks from the government, and whose damaging influence is rationalized away by unthinking apologists, many of whom are a self-defeating force within the anti-creationism movement.
But if the only way for scientists to break this superstitious stranglehold, this default assumption that faith is equal in power to evidence, is for them to get out of the classroom and begin fighting back, I say more power to them.
That's a mighty big IF there, and that if is precisely the issue. And I think that IF your political instincts are as bad as they seem reading this, you'd do us all a favor by sticking to more strictly technical matters.
Your condemnation of "apologists," btw, sounds a lot like the Bush administration's condemnation of "appeasers." The answer here is the same: Not buying into problems you don't need to buy into is not appeasement. It's called playing to win.
And winning does not mean being perfectly consistent, forcing everyone else to kowtow to your truth and winning every little skirmish along the way. It means basically getting your way in the end.
Your strategy seems to me to concede loss and to go down in a blaze of righteous glory. Personally, I'd rather win, even if it means a bit of inconsistency and a letting the religious have what we don't need.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | January 2, 2007 4:10 PM
It's pretty astounding how low the level of discourse is here and how quickly otherwise intelligent people (seemingly, anyway) get dragged down by the one-issue idiots.
Numbers is bad why? Because he isn't sufficiently radical? Because he has a notion of politics that extends beyond PZ's incredibly naive belief that politics is a debating society:
Those "people in the middle" are ineffective because they are trying to peddle two inconsistent views--they try to encourage science on one hand, and then on the other they promote an unscientific position. They cancel themselves out
PZ, have a look at history. Have a look at George Bush. Political figures hold and espouse contradictory views all the time. A lot of times this accounts for their success. Views don't cancel out in politics like a math equation. Stop playing at politics if you're this stupid about it.
Evolution and science and math and history and spelling and the whole of the public school curriculum are inherently atheistic, in the sense that they do not endorse any gods.
And with this sense of atheistic you have emptied Numbers' point of any meaning. Clearly that's not what he meant by atheistic. What he meant was that evolution is often presented as if it positively endorsed the belief that there is no god. Evolution has nothing to say about whether there is any god at all. I can imagine many gods who would be perfectly consistent with evolution. So Numbers' point is there's no point in making a big ballyhoo out of the fact that these would be different Gods than most people believe in.
Because most people don't believe in God because it provides them an explanation for the origin of species anyway.
"Evolution is supported by the evidence, teach it without your religious biases"
This isn't what Numbers is talking about. He's talking about Dawkins, not high school science teachers.
The problem is not a handful of prominent scientists with the courage to speak out against religion as an avocation, it's the millions of religious authorities around this country who are paid to speak out against science every week, who are supported by tax breaks from the government, and whose damaging influence is rationalized away by unthinking apologists, many of whom are a self-defeating force within the anti-creationism movement.
But if the only way for scientists to break this superstitious stranglehold, this default assumption that faith is equal in power to evidence, is for them to get out of the classroom and begin fighting back, I say more power to them.
That's a mighty big IF there, and that if is precisely the issue. And I think that IF your political instincts are as bad as they seem reading this, you'd do us all a favor by sticking to more strictly technical matters.
Your condemnation of "apologists," btw, sounds a lot like the Bush administration's condemnation of "appeasers." The answer here is the same: Not buying into problems you don't need to buy into is not appeasement. It's called playing to win.
And winning does not mean being perfectly consistent, forcing everyone else to kowtow to your truth and winning every little skirmish along the way. It means basically getting your way in the end.
Your strategy seems to me to concede loss and to go down in a blaze of righteous glory. Personally, I'd rather win, even if it means a bit of inconsistency and a letting the religious have what we don't need.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | January 2, 2007 4:13 PM
And my point is that we need to buy into those problems. Does anyone seriously believe we're winning the fight against creationism in this country? The apologists keep babbling about how they want to win, as they keep doing the same old thing that has led to a country thick with creationists, run by people who think religiosity is a prerequisite for government office.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 4:14 PM
Despite the many disagreements on this thread, there seems to be a unanimous agreement (or at least no stated disagreement) that schools cannot directly teach that gods do not exist. For example, PaulC wrote:
"I took Numbers' statement to mean that it would be unconstitutional to teach the non-existence of God as a fact in public school. Let's assume you believe that the non-existence of God (within the standards of certainty we apply to other things) is a fact, readily established beyond reasonable doubt to any reasonable person. Teaching it as such would still set down an official, preferred view regarding religious beliefs. It strikes me as a definite violation of the establishment clause."
I disagree. Again, the statement "such-and-such god does not exist" does not establish or privilege any one religion, and certainly doesn't establish a "preferred view".
Of course simply stating that gods do not exist without discussing different god concepts and reasons for reaching this inference would simply be bad teaching, but bad teaching is not unconstitutional. Discussing different god concepts doesn't establish religion unless we said that one concept is correct. But rejecting all of them does not establish any religion.
There are fields more relevant to the discussion than evolution. For example, there is a lot of very interesting anthropological, psychological, and neurophysiological work that suggests why and how humans create god-like agents. That is, this work suggests that gods are illusions created by humans. From much of the discussion above, I would infer that most of you believe that these studies cannot be taught as this would violate the constitution.
Posted by: Middle Professor | January 2, 2007 4:19 PM
Oran and PZ:
I am very concerned about this middle ground discussion.
I don't like the "middle ground" for a lot of reasons. It is logically inconsistent and fails to produce real compromise, so it has very little value. But the most significant problem is that it is often not really the middle ground, though many good people who reside there may not realize it.
At a recent conference for teachers, someone whom I believe would be called a "middle grounder" suggested "Finding Darwin's God" as a resource that public school teachers could pass on to children (HS) in their classes who had questions about religion and evolution.
"Finding Darwin's God" is a work explicitly designed to reconcile Abrahamic religion with evolution. It's endorsement by a teacher is a very clear violation of the civil rights of the students in that classroom.
Yet in a roomful of mostly middle grounders (and I generally respect and appreciate their efforts, I quickly add, but just wish they would be mean and grumpy instead) this suggestion was made and no one blinked. (Well, my wife, a HS bio teacher, blinked, and whispered in my ear: "Whoa, I should get fired if I do that!")
But of course, she wouldn't get fired because nobody would notice! Nobody would notice because the middle ground is not only soft but foggy!
Furthermore, I think we need to move towards where the following concept:
RATIONAL THOUGH
is NOT considered extreme. Please.
The reason why the middle ground is in the middle rather than an extreme is because the extreme (right) is so flaky and far out and deranged that giving a book on how to reconcile science with a belief that god created the universe TO A STUDENT IN A SCIENCE CLASS (Oh crap, sorry for shouting...) is considered an OK strategy discussed among people attending a conference to strategize how to support teachers who are getting attacked by creationist school board members, parents, and students!!!!
(I can't believe this is happening.... really.)
Posted by: g | January 2, 2007 4:30 PM
Now we start getting into the tricky stuff.
Is it OK to say in public school that Zeus is a mythical, fictitious character who does not exist?
I'd say yes. I suspect most teachers would, too.
What about Vishnu?
What about Jesus (not the man, the redeeming-god-being)?
The political compromise I'm willing to make is that it's fine with me that teachers (especially in science classes!) don't get into the business of debating the existence of supernatural creatures. I agree that it wouldn't be establishing or preferring a religion if we did, but I think it's fair to avoid the conflict by not making a big deal of it.
Now if only the creationists would return the favor.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2007 4:30 PM
And my point is that we need to buy into those problems. Does anyone seriously believe we're winning the fight against creationism in this country? The apologists keep babbling about how they want to win, as they keep doing the same old thing that has led to a country thick with creationists, run by people who think religiosity is a prerequisite for government office.
1. Give me an example of a school district where your approach has won. Give me a single example of a place where creationists tried to stop the teaching of evolution, and they were turned back by people loudly proclaiming the creationists' so-called god was nothing but a myth and they should be ashamed of themselves for believing in Him. Not just in fighting evolution on his behalf, but for believing in him at all.
2. What was the approach taken in Dover? How did those folks get turned out of the school board? Was it through the leadership of people who had open contempt for religious belief?
3. Which do you think would make more headway against those who demand (nominally) Christian leaders? Saying "screw you, I'm an atheist"? Or doing as our forefathers did, making vaguely Christian-sounding noises, getting elected and pursuing a secularist agenda as best they could?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | January 2, 2007 4:35 PM