The ID Report

"Destroy the Author of Things in order to Understand the Infinite Universe."
-- Daniel C. Dennett, "noted atheist" and professor of philosophy at Tufts in a January 2009 Presidential Lecture at Stanford University. The words are his translation of an acrostic he authored in Latin for the letters D-A-R-W-I-N substituted for the letters I-C-T-H-U-S in the popular "Jesus fish" symbol.

I don't want my child being taught religion at school! Oh, really? Then you better get down there right away, because if he or she is in any public school science class he or she is being taught religion in school. From grade school on, and especially in high school, government established science classes have become a safe haven for teaching your child religious doctrine. But not for all religions, mind you; only those with certain views on the "author of things". So, again, if you really don't want your child being indoctrinated with the religious views of those religions, go now, quickly, and file a complaint with your local school board. Or don't ever again complain about "religion" being taught in science class.

Surprised? Didn't you know that materialistic evolution, preached publicly as "evolution" or "Darwinism", is the religious belief of many major religions? Take Unitarian Universalists, for example, the religion close to that of Charles Darwin himself for much of his life. Those "non-creedal" believers of nothing in particular and everything natural in general find Darwinism perfectly consistent with their "free faith". I'm sure they are perfectly pleased to have your Johnny taught (on the public dole) beliefs which they find agreeable. Refusing to be "bound by a statement of belief", the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, a self-described "liberal religion" embraces the naturalistic/materialistic beliefs of religious favorites such as Humanism, Paganism, Atheism/Agnosticism, and "other beliefs" all of which hold some form of materialistic evolution consistent with their beliefs about the "author of things". And all of them, you can be sure, are delighted that your school is teaching your sweet baby Jane their beliefs about where she came from.

And Unitarian Universalists are just the tip of the religious iceberg floating in your child's science waters. Learning about the Darwin fish courtesy of the U.S. government gives your student a head start on the road toward full-fledged Atheism, Secular Humanism, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation and Wicca, all of which have all been held by U.S. courts to be religions according to the U.S. Constitution. It seems those atheist/humanist/wiccan/what-but-no-who believers who wished to claim the mantle of "religion" for the purpose of dodging the draft or getting "churches" into prisons have spoiled it for the rest of you no-godders; U.S. courts correctly look at religion functionally, as opposed to whether or not God is involved. So even though God is not involved in Darwinism, Darwinism is involved in religion.

Evolutionists agree. Take the Darwinists at the University of California at Berkeley. Wishing to comfort you that it is a "misconception" that "evolution and religion are incompatible", those government actors are spending your tax dollars to assure you that "most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings." In fact, according to these state-sponsored theology advisors, "in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution." Yes, there are no doubt thousands of atheists, humanists, pagans, and maybe even a wiccan or two, all of which, like Daniel Dennett, are devoutly religious in their own godless way and accept evolution. But why is this government organization acting under the Constitution of the United States openly admitting this? Is it constitutionally permissible to teach science consistent with only certain government-approved religious beliefs?

No, one would think not. Consider: why is it OK to teach Darwinism, which Darwinists insist is "compatible" with "most religious groups", but it's not OK to teach material, observable, testable evidence of intelligent design, a theory which is compatible with other religious groups? Hmmm? Is it because regardless of the material evidence intelligent design theory necessarily invokes a supernatural agent? But doesn't the question of a supernatural agent, let's just say God, play both ways? How is it that science consistent with a "no God exists" religious belief is permissible under the Constitution, but science consistent with a "God exists" religious belief is not? Yes, your Johnny's definitely being taught religious beliefs in science class.

Ever since Humanism was introduced as "Religious Humanism" in the first Humanist Manifesto, the cat's been out of the bag on the dogmatic nature of the "no God exists" crowd. Consider the very first religious affirmation of Humanism: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." Having conveniently disposed of a "beginning" to explain, Humanists follow with the religiously necessary second tenet: "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." And what might that continuous process be? Might it be the process taught to your child in the name of science, perhaps with Dennett's atheist fish as a visual aid?

Funny, isn't it, how it's the intelligent design crowd that's censored because their beliefs are "religious"? Like housecats hearing a can opener, dogmatic Darwinists jump into action at the first faint sound of intelligent design in the public schools. Failing to appreciate their cat theology of indifference to an otherwise all-providing master as just one religious view that stands in stark contrast to the theology of those who are the master's best friend, they hiss and scratch to protect the hegemony of a science "compatible" only with their religious views. Labeling any attempt at introducing any non-Darwinian evidence as "creationism in disguise" only serves to force the issue: what is Darwinism disguising?

No matter how the question "where did we come from?" is answered, the answer will be "compatible" with one religious view or another. Why is it, then, that only a certain class of religious views are permitted in the public school science classroom? Whether it's the views of "non-theistic" Friends (Quakers) or Gaia enthusiasts, or the Society for Universal Immortalism, why are our children being indoctrinated in the religious views of certain religions? And why is it that it is only the liberal, godless religions that merit special accomodation in the classroom?

Maybe you think it's OK if your child is prepared by the U.S. government with the requisite religious beliefs to be Unitarian Universalist. Or fully fit to be a Buddhist. Or amenable to the ideas of the Non-Theistic Friends. Maybe you are fine with the government sending your child on his way toward being a run-of-the-mill atheist. If so, why is it not also OK for the U.S. government to influence your child for theistic religious beliefs with observable, testable evidence of intelligent design?

Because in the science class it doesn't matter if it's also religious as long as it's true!

Oh, really?

Roddy Bullock is a freelance writer and the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network.

Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:

Daniel Dennett quote: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january21/prezlecsr-012109.html

Religious affiliation of Charles Darwin: http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Charles_Darwin.html

Unitarian Universalism Association of Congregations beliefs: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml

University of California at Berkeley stating that Darwinism is consistent with some religious beliefs, but not others: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml

Humanist Manifesto: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html
Non-theistic Friends: http://www.nontheistfriends.org/

Society for Universal Immortalism: http://www.universalimmortalism.org/

Views of L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology) found here: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:I4HYUDhNZ6EJ:www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest59.htm+scientology+darwin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. Here is a quote: Moreover, Hubbard religiously adhered to the Gnostic myth of Darwinism. In Dianetics, he writes (emphasis in original):
It is fairly well accepted in these times that life in all forms evolved from the basic building blocks: the virus and the cell. Its only relevance to Dianetics is that such a proposition works--and actually that is all we ask of Dianetics. There is no point to writing here a vast tome on biology and evolution. We can add some chapters to those things, but Charles Darwin did his job well and the fundamental principles of evolution can be found in his and other works. The proposition on which Dianetics was originally entered was evolution. (69; emphasis added)