In this post, Dutchman made, well, not a claim exactly, but an implication that somehow attacking evolutionary biology in an academic context was, either an attack on atheism or something that would somehow offend atheists (but presumably not others). That mistaken view seemed, tangentially, related to his view that upholding the Establishment Clause in public schools was somehow “oppression”
As Marley instructed Dutchman to drop the hijack, and **Dutchman **seems resistant to that idea, I figured I’d open a thread to hash out the new tangent. Or, ya know, hammer Dutchman’s errors into a finely granulated powder. Either/or, I’m easy that way.
This point of view seems to go hand in hand with the idea that evolution is a counterpoint to creationism. Even assuming that creationism had some scientific validity, the two are totally unrelated concepts. Evolution purports to explain the development of life forms into other life forms. One need not be an atheist to accept it, and indeed one need not accept it if one is an atheist. I know lots of atheist/agnostic people who believe in some sort of Lamarckian development theory, mostly because they didn’t pay attention during biology.
Ugh, this stuff. Some folks seem to think atheism entails more than simply not believing in any gods. If you ever want a sad laugh, or to weep for humanity, check out the 'Religion And Spirituality" section on Yahoo Answers. Most there think atheism means you have expertise in abiogenesis, evolution, the origin of the universe, etc.
To a degree, yes. Not inherently, but that’s likely to be a major motive given the kind of people who oppose teaching evolution. It’ll likely be meant in part as an attack on atheists, even if there aren’t any atheists there to attack.
Banning the study of evolution would only be an attack on atheists if it were replaced with study of creationism as a scientific theory (which creationism is not, in case I had to spell that out).
If it were banned and just not addressed at all … it would be an attack on education in general. It would be like banning the study of momentum, or banning the study of covalent bonds or something.
And as long as we’re up and running, I’ll throw in my pair of pennies:
No, wanting to remove evolutionary biology from the curriculum is in no way, shape, or form inherently an attack on atheism. It is, by necessity an attack on proper pedagogy, logic, facts, truth, rational inquiry and intellectual honesty. It is, situationally, a weapon used by some on the religious right to attack a scientific doctrine which they see as inherently atheistic and attacking their theology and worldview. However, atheism does not mandate a belief in or thorough knowledge of evolutionary biology, and belief in and a thorough knowledge of evolutionary biology does not require atheism as a prerequisite.
Additionally, requiring schools to follow the Establishment Clause mandates a religion-neutral academic environment in public schools, and oppresses nobody at all. In fact, it is a popular theocrat gambit to claim that being prevented from forcing one’s religion or one’s religious trappings on others is somehow limiting the freedom or rights of the theocrats. That view is bullshit.
To put it in nutshell: Dutchman is mildly to egregiously wrong on each and every single claim he made.
But it is addressed - in creationist churches and their proselytizing. They just want to eliminate anything that casts doubt on their dogma. When they eliminate evolution from schools, they eliminate the main way people have of being exposed to a serious description of it. Instead they just get distorted and often outright wrong bits and pieces from popular culture.
Banning the study of evolution is an attack on science. And since many religions are perfectly OK with evolution, atheists don’t get to claim it as their own.
The determining factor in whether or not it’s an attack on atheism isn’t what atheists feel on the matter, but what the people making the attack intend. And the people who oppose teaching evolution seem to generally regard it as atheistic, regardless of what other religious groups feel.
Nor do they want to. I am not sure if you read the thread that spawned this one, but it was about the removal of a school banner that had debatably religious content (specifically the text referred to “Our heavenly father.”) One poster was arguing simultaneously that the wording of the banner was not specifically Christian and that its removal was an attack on Christianity. Later he said it was an attack on Christianity because it’s an attack on all types of theism. So The Flying Dutchman asked this question about evolution and atheism in parallel to that discussion. Apparently the idea is that if banning the teaching of evolution is an attack on atheism, then removing the banner is an attack on theism or Christianity. This fails because banning the teaching of evolution is not an attack on atheists- although it might be done by people who think evolution is atheistic.
To the max. An attack is an attack even if the thrust does not make contact. To suggest that many of these political religious fundamentalists aren’t attacking atheists is absurd. Atheists invented evolution which is poluting the minds of God’s young people in the public schools. There’s only one group more hated by them and that is the Muslims .
I believed that in both cases an attack on a group occured and I assumed it was obvious.
I believed in both cases no endorsement can be conclusively argued for. For some people for sure. For others , they just don’t care. Just because you think I think you are a genius, doesn’t mean you’ve been endorsed. You’ve been talking to the wrong people.
But, if you really believe that the banning of the teaching of evolution in the schools isn’t an attack on atheists as well, Then we have nothing more to talk about.
And btw, I am a johnny come lately atheist. I just wish we could all stop hassling each other and be more accepting of minority views around here.
You’ve got it half right. Banning the study of evolution would be an attack, but not on atheism. It’s an attack on science, critical thinking, and other things, but not on atheism, since subscribing to the theory of evolution doesn’t make anyone an atheist, nor does being an atheist automatically mean that one must believe in the theory of evolution.
If North Korea attempts to launch a missile at the US and inadvertently hits Japan instead, who was actually attacked? Does the target of the attack begin with intent and stay there or is the target transferred upon realized impact? Maybe that’s another question for another thread.
I don’t think that is really the case, not as such.
Rather, they feel that people learning about evolution, since it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis, might start asking questions about what else in the book is not factual or literal, and eventually vanish from the flock in a puff of logic (the fundie “every single word is true” part of the flock, at any rate). Which they are totally right about BTW, if Europe is any indication.
So it’s not so much an attack on atheists/atheism as it is a last ditch attempt to refloat a slowly sinking ship. Or it’s a pre-emptive strike on future atheists rather than a deliberate attempt to troll or silence present ones, if you will.
IOW, it’s not against us, it’s pro them. It *can *be like the late Howard Taft, of course.
In the Kitzmiller case, the people who felt attacked were the parents of the children in Dover school - and as far as I know none of those parents were atheists (two of them were Sunday school teachers).
Some may be attacking evolution because they believe it’s a good way to attack atheists. The vast majority would be attacking evolution because they view science, reason, facts, logic and honest inquiry as a threat to biblical literalism and they view the Creation narrative as being fundamental to that literalism worldview.
Except, of course, this is solid bovine fecal matter.
It is not, for instance, an “attack” upon Christianity to say that they’re not allowed to violate the Establishment Clause. I’m not being “attacked” if someone tells me that I can’t steal the TV from your house. The idea that it’s somehow an attack upon Christians, or a limitation of their rights, or “oppression” as you so bombastically claimed, assumes that Christians somehow have the right to force their religion on others with government aegis and that by limiting that you’re somehow denying them their inherent right to force Christianity upon you. I trust that you can see why that’s a mildly retarded argument to advance?
It isn’t. It’s an attack on science.
Now, “every student must sign and recite a loyalty oath that there is a God and that His existence is beyond doubt, argument or the need for proof.” Yah, that’d be an attack on atheism. But fighting evolution is no more an attack on atheists or atheism than banning discussion of optics or kinetic energy.
Yeah, so what if Christians want to use government funds and schools to indoctrinate our children and force their religious views and/or religious trappings on those who do not consent. I mean, what’s the big deal maaaaaaaaaan?