American biology teachers insist on atheism?

An American lawyer who is active in intelligent design issues has written me to say that the National Association of Biology Teachers, far from foreswearing atheism, has in fact merely moved some of its former upfront atheistic tenets to the supporting material under its current grand (and relatively innocuous-sounding) statement.

From the May 2004 version:

NABT endorses the following tenets of science, evolution, and biology education. Teachers should take these tenets into account when teaching evolution.

Essential Concepts of Biological Evolution

- The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of biological evolution - an unpredictable and natural process of descent with modification that is affected by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, migration and other natural biological and geological forces.

Okay, well, wait a minute ... unless we know for sure that there is no meaning or purpose in the universe, how can we possibly know that biological evolution is unpredictable and (purely) natural?

A number of well-respected scientists who, incidentally, do not align with the intelligent design theorists, would dispute the view that evolution is unpredictable, notably Michael Denton and Simon Conway Morris.

Also, if one claims that biological evolution is unpredictable, it may also be untestable and unfalsifiable. That's too bad. I had hoped it would be more than nice graphics. I especially hoped that because I have just finished tickng off playwright Paul Rudnick on account of the fact that I thought his treatment of the subject is shallow. But if it's not science after all, maybe shallow wins.

(Note: Before you waste a lot of time denouncing my remarks in the Comments box, please note the title of this blog: I am not a creationist, as the term is normally understood. I think, from observing the current controversy, that the dogma of Darwinian evolution without design or purpose is primarily designed to serve materialist philosophy, and does not have nearly enough evidence to stand on its own. That said, I do not dispute the current dating of the age of the universe or of Earth—or the idea, in principle, of common ancestry. Whether our origins really happened that way, is, of course, another matter, and it is disquieting to learn that evolution is supposed to be "unpredictable." )

When the Public Actually Does Get Interested in Science

A Christian Science Monitor story this weeks provides more evidence that Darwinian evolution is not in any sense a normal science.

Science teacher lobbies who — to listen to them — have always wanted the public to get interested in science, now face the reality of a public that is very interested indeed. And what’s the response?

In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom. But in some cases doing so also means learning to handle well- organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory.

...

But to many teachers, "teaching the controversy" means letting ideologues manufacture controversy where there is none. And that, they say, could set a disastrous precedent in education.

Oh, I see ... so when the hillbillies do get interested, and bone up on the subjects, and are critical of the legends students are told in order to prop up strict Darwinian evolution when the actual evidence fails, they are merely the tools of ideologues.

Thanks for clarifying that, Sir.

Here’s a matchless quotation from a teacher, in the Christian Science Monitor’s story on the Kansas evolution hearings,

"I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."

Oh my precious little teacherkins, I just cannot imagine anything worse than being in a confrontational mode with those kids. Do hurry and get a law passed that makes it a felony for their parents, the media, or any other adult, to convey to them information that results in questions you don't feel like answering. Contact your teachers union rep today. This must be sorted out at once!!!

Seriously, the teachers fondly remember from my own brathood welcomed confrontation over ideas. Indeed, as I recall, we argued over Darwinian evolution in my Grade Eight class in London, Ontario (Canada), in 1963. I wonder who we should all sue for not protecting us from "a confrontational mode"? My only regret is that we didn’t have a Jonathan Wellsback then to stir the pot. (Wells was probably writing lines in those days for some offence unrelated to questioning Darwinism.)