Constitutional Law, Courts, Religion, Science

Redefining Religion

Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger

“Blessed be you, mighty matter, irresistible march of evolution, reality ever newborn; you who, by constantly shattering our mental categories, force us to go ever further in the pursuit of the truth.”

–Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “Hymn of the Universe,” (Harper and Row, 1961).

It took the jury fewer than fifteen minutes to convict substitute teacher John Scopes of the crime of teaching evolution to Tennessee public school students in 1925.  It was the last victory of Christian fundamentalists in their war against the disciples of Darwin, and a hollow one at that.  Although the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, it reversed the verdict because the trial judge had imposed a $100.00 fine on Mr. Scopes, contrary to a provision in the Tennessee constitution requiring a jury to assess fines exceeding $50.00.  In sending the case back, however, the court made the unusual suggestion that further prosecution not be pursued.  Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 SW 363 (1927).  It was not.

Fundamentalists were emboldened by the Scopes verdict.  In 1928 Mississippi and Arkansas adopted similar laws and in the ensuing years, the subject of evolution was effectively dropped as a topic in many high school science courses, a trend that was not reversed until the Sputnik scare in 1958 led to a revamping of science curricula.  It was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court decreed that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools violated the Establishment Clause.  Epperson v. Arkansas, 397 U.S. 97 (1968).

With direct bans no longer available, fundamentalists pursued a new strategy, the adoption of “balanced treatment” legislation requiring that teachers provide time for the exploration of the Genesis story of creation as an alternative explanation of biological origins.  In 1983 a federal district judge threw out Arkansas’ balanced treatment statute, concluding that creationism is “not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law.  It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.” McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1267 (E.D. Ark. 1982).  Several years later, Louisiana’s balanced treatment statute was also found to violate the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test.  Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

Efforts to recast creationism as science under the name “intelligent design” were rebuffed in the now famous case of Fitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,  400 F. Supp.2d 707 (E.D. Pa. 2005), in which the court succinctly stated that “[intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” 400 F. Supp.2d at 765.

But the war is far from over.  Creationists are once again in court, and this time they are urging that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is itself a violation of, inter alia, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses because evolution theory incorporates the “core tenets of Religious (‘secular’) Humanism.”

Cope (a/k/a Citizens for Objective Public Education, Inc.), et al., v. Kansas State Board of Education was filed on September 26th in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.  The case seeks to enjoin implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards adopted by the Kansas Board of Education in June of this year.  Those standards are objectionable under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, according to the plaintiffs, because they endorse the “orthodoxy” of scientific materialism, which “holds that explanations of the cause and nature of natural phenomena may only use natural, material or mechanistic causes, and must assume that, supernatural and teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid.” (Complaint, para. 8)  Plaintiffs contend that teleological and materialistic explanations of the natural world create “competing religious beliefs.” (Complaint, para. 75).

The allegations are absurd on a number of levels.  First, Plaintiffs have adopted a definition of religion which eliminates any requirement for belief in a supernatural entity.  Second, Plaintiffs’ reasoning, if pursued to its logical conclusion, would virtually preclude the teaching of science in the public schools because their objections go to the basis of what we understand as the scientific method.  Third, Plaintiffs rely upon the same flawed dualism that taints most fundamentalist arguments, the false assumption that acceptance of the findings of evolutionary biology are incompatible with religious belief in general and Christian belief in particular.  The great paleontologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin, for example, who is quoted above, regarded evolution itself as part of the process of divine creation.

This latest assault on science is not the first time that creationists have relied on the Secular Humanism argument  In Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution, 636 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the court rejected the claim that a museum exhibit of evolutionary processes constituted a governmental endorsement of Secular Humanism.  The court held that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit a science display which may happen to be in agreement with a tenet of a particular religion.  And in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, supra, the court observed, “Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.” 529 F.Supp. at 1274.

Fundamentalists have failed in their attempts to create science out of religion.  There is no doubt that they will also fail in their attempts to create religion out of science.  The only serious remaining question is why we must continue to have the discussion.

 

 

 

141 thoughts on “Redefining Religion”

    1. Roger Lambert wrote: “Religious = secular ?”

      When Secular Humanism first began, it attempted to establish itself as a religion, and the SCOTUS has mentioned Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion. Read the first Humanist Manifesto written in 1933 to get an understanding of this.

      http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

      FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
      SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
      THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
      FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
      FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
      SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.
      SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation–all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
      EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.
      NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
      TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
      ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
      TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
      THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
      FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
      FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

    2. Roger Lambert wrote: “Religious = secular ?”

      When Secular Humanism first began, it attempted to establish itself as a religion, and the SCOTUS has mentioned Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion. Read the first Humanist Manifesto written in 1933 to get an understanding of this.

      http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

      FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
      SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
      THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
      …

    3. Roger Lambert wrote: “Religious = secular ?”

      Secular Humanism originally attempted to define itself as a religion.Read the Humanist Manifesto I written in 1933.

      http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

      Also, the SCOTUS identified Secular Humanism as one of several non-theistic religions.

      In modern times, secular humanists attempt to distance themselves from being called a religion because of the change that has happened in the concept of separation of church and state leading to a monopoly in the public school system of non-theistic knowledge.

  2. Mike Appleton wrote: “the conflict between science and fundamentalist theology is not a consequence of bad science but of bad theology.”

    That’s your perspective because you already accept that the only good theology is one that bows to the popular scientific paradigms. The truth is that for most scientists, the paradigm is that natural laws can explain everything. By the very definition of science, there is no room to consider supernatural explanations. This is what creates the conflict. Any creationist theory whatsoever attacks not just the scientists’ paradigm, but his worldview. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn said paradigms change through scientific revolutions, but worldviews do not.

    Religion accepts both natural explanations and supernatural explanations. Science is basically a subset of the path of knowledge accepted by the religious. Add to this mixture the concept of separation of church and state being extended beyond the Jeffersonian concept of it such that there must be no contamination of anything involving tax dollars and religious expression, and what we have is a public educational system that is hostile toward religious concepts.

    The conclusion in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education that creationism is not science because it is not testable or potentially falsifiable is clearly wrong. They reached that conclusion simply because an association of scientists voted to claim that there is not a shred of evidence for creationism. What is a judge suppose to do when he has a whole group of scientists making a claim, and only one or two scientists who disagree? I think it would be better that he not take sides, but that is not what he did. So now we have the court system, headed up by a non-scientist, determining what is and what is not science.

    There was a scientist in that courtroom by the name of Robert Gentry who actually proposed a scientific test to falsify his creationist theory of how basement rocks of the earth such as granite were formed within minutes rather than taking millions of years. His work dealt with polonium halos and his failed attempts to find naturalistic explanations for their existence in mica. Some scientists attempted to falsify his theory, but failed, producing rhyolite instead of granite by natural processes. Thus far, nobody has been able to produce granite by natural means.

    The concept that creationism is testable and falsifiable is rather easy to acknowledge when we consider creationist theories that propose a relatively young earth. Evolutionary theories all require long periods of time. Without long periods of time, they are falsified. So a focus upon empirical clocks that can accurately determine the age of the earth could potentially falsify creationist theories that say the earth is only 10,000 years old. Most scientists accept the basic assumptions of radiometric dating, and therefore they conclude based upon this empirical clock that the young earth creation theories have been falsified. Well, if a young earth theory of creation has been falsified by empirical methods, then the theory clearly was scientifically testable. It is fun to watch scientists squirm over admitting this (or not admitting this, as is most often the case) because they know what is coming next. If that falsified theory of creation is falsified by science, then what about a creationist theory that proposes a very old earth? Should we not also consider scientific methods to falsify them?

    The truth is that science is antagonistic toward any scientific work that might suggest a creator or intelligent designer. The bias is philosophical, being based upon the Enlightenment concept of how we obtain knowledge. Can knowledge come to us only through the empirical senses, or can knowledge come to us through the spirit or soul? If knowledge comes only through the empirical senses, then every religious text if a fraud. This is the working paradigm of most scientists. For many it is an ingrained worldview. Granted, a minority of scientists attempt to reconcile their religion and scientific work by saying they address different questions, and that religious texts are metaphorical and never to be taken literally or scientifically, but the majority of scientists are atheists or irreligious, especially those working in evolutionary biology. This is the bias that influences the questions they study and the articles they approve to be published.

    I haven’t read the complaint yet, but I plan to read it. Perhaps I will comment on it later.

  3. Would one of the admins do the work for the censors and release innocent English from their clutches.

    After a cup of java of course.

  5. “The only serious remaining question is why we must continue to have the discussion.” – Mike A

    First, note was said up-thread:

    “Science doesn’t deny God. Many scientists are people of faith. Darwin himself was a religious man. Science says it cannot prove or disprove God because a God doesn’t have to follow the rules of nature – which is what science seeks to unravel and reveal. That is what supernatural means; attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.” – Gene H

    “Belief in God and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.” – Elaine M

    These dynamics are charged up when teleology comes into play whether in textbooks, essays, or scientific papers in scientific journals.

    Charged up emotions come into play when scientific papers use teleological terms that weaken or break the nomenclature of disciplined evolutionary discourse:

    Teleology is a problem because its users subconsciously or consciously use verbiage that connotes essences to machines or organisms which those machines or organisms do not have:

    Since at least the 17th century (and mostly because of Newton), natural scientists have stopped using formal or final causes to explain natural phenomena … except in biology. This was first pointed out by Colin Pittendrigh (Pittendrigh, C. S. Behavior and Evolution) (ed. by A. Rose and G. G. Simpson), Yale University Press, 1958), who coined the term “teleonomy” to refer to the kind of teleological phenomena observed in biological processes.
    …
    So, let’s get back to the book (Quantum Aspects of Life) to further emphasize that physicists also can get loose with their discipline, i.e. can get off into the weeds of teleology, unless they are careful:

    Expressed differently, how does a quantum superposition recognize that it has “discovered” life and initiate the said collapse? There seems to be an unavoidable teleological component involved: the system somehow “selects” life from the vastly greater number of states that are nonliving … But this implies the environment somehow favours life—that life is “built into” nature in a preordained manner. So an element of teleology remains. (p. 11) … an element of teleology is required; namely that the molecule must somehow know before hand what it is aiming for. (p. 42) There is no teleology needed here since we describe the measurement as a two-step process … (p. 45) … there’s the teleological point that, hey, we search for something … (p. 357) … As far as the teleological aspects are concerned (p. 360) … Teleological aspects and the fast-track to life … there is a teleological issue here … (p. 392)

    (ibid, Quantum Aspects of Life, emphasis added). The point being made is that “natural selection” discussions by either evolutionary biologists or physicists can become fundamentally teleological unless great care and focused technical language skills are employed …

    (The Uncertain Gene – 2). For those who want to go through that experiment, describe the machine epoch, beginning at the Big Bang then progressing through some ~10.21 billion years of machine evolution until finally molecules of DNA became part of the universe of machines, all of which transpired prior to the advent of any carbon based life forms.

    (Putting A Face On Machine Mutation – 4, links removed). The effort between 1937 – 1946 called The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis sought to weed out teleological verbiage and other improper nomenclature from scientific writing concerning the theory of evolution.

    When religionists who are also evolution believing scientists write a paper and inadvertently leaks teleological notions into the paper, or when an evolution believing atheist scientist does the same, it eventually requires an event like The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis to clear up the clutter.

    A recent writing shows how devastated the scientific literature is, both by bad science, and bad scientific writing:

    Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.

    Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

    What a load of rubbish

    Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.

    One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control.

    (How science goes wrong, The Economist). Another thing that religionists and atheists have in common is the holier-than-thou sentiment.

    Can anyone sense The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis II looming on the horizon?

    If so, will it resemble the President and the House of Representatives T-Party members getting together for an adult event another debacle?

  7. What a stimulating episode you guys have here. Way better than TV, except for the Daily Show. My opinion is that all arguments have reason to argue, but the people of God need to let the light of The Lord shine on others according to his plan. We can not force a belief upon another anymore than the scientific method can explain passionate love. Let science pursue its information free from religion. Let two women proclaim their love before God. That is not our judgement to make. Even King Solomon, in all his wisdom, had wives who practiced other religions. Nothing is perfect but God and this Universe we live in. Followers of the Jesus I know be helping the poor and healing the sick. There is a sickness of our own generational magnitude, from obesity to TV stupidity. Human trafficking in our neighboring countries, girls trying to come to America “in God We Trust”. A war on drugs that has proven to be the least effective use of resources. The church needs to focus on the tangible evil that, in my opinion, is a far greater insult and deserves more attention. We were all once children and we see the miracle of Life, gratitude is the only religion we should consider due to our very brief history in evolution 😉 Gratitude can lead to compassion which can hopefully get everyone on the same page because we got our work cut out for us. I wouldn’t trade this team for any other, you guys got the same light that shines in me.

  11. Gene,
    That is a well known computer animation of the 50 megaton Russian Tsar Bomba which was tested in October 1961. The biggest US fusion bomb was the Castle Bravo test on Bikini atoll. The miscalculation was almost fatal for the scientists who set it off. It was supposed to be six to eight megatons at the very most. The primary fuel was 40% lithium-6, but it was mixed with 60% Lithium-7. The scientists thought the Lithium-7 was inert and would not support a fusion reaction. Wow. Were they ever wrong. Instead of the expected six or so megatons, they got a 100 million degree fireball five miles in diameter within one second of detonation. Keep in mind the initiator “cap” was an atomic fission bomb similar in size to the one that leveled Hiroshima. For comparison purpose, think of the firing cap of a shotgun shell compared to the actual powder charge. Anyway, the “inert” Lithium-7 turned out to not be inert at all, but also contributed to the fusion reaction. Castle Bravo damn near killed the science crew all the way over on the other side of Bikini. The crater is visible from the space station.

    Here is actual footage of Castle Bravo test from several different cameras, with real sound, as it was on March 1, 1954. Estimated fifteen megatons. They never tried that mixture of Lithium isotopes again. Albert Einstein died a year later at the age of 76. I wonder what he thought of Castle Bravo. There is being proved right, and then there is being proved RIGHT!

  13. rafflaw:
    LOL. They do tend to get in a lot of trouble. de Chardin has been rehabilitated since his death, but during his lifetime his writings were essentially declared off limits by the powers that be.

  14. Gene, did you say “Physics…knows.” This is right on par with your staement of earlier where you say that “…logic can be counterfactual.” I am no loger dreaming. Its become a nightmare.

  15. raff,

    You mean Jesuits aren’t anointed with inerrability (love that word) … hold out your hands young man … thwack!

  16. Apparently you do misunderstand, Anthony.

    The Higgs (and we aren’t even sure what kind of Higgs it is yet) says nothing about God. It says something about mass. If you want to believe that a God is required for fundamental particles to exist? That’s your choice. Science doesn’t care. Physics already knows that matter is just energy only slower.

  17. Anthony,

    I’ll simplify.

    Scientific proof and theological proofs are not the same thing substantively and to compare them is a false equivalence. Science is by definition materialistic (although not necessarily deterministic but I’ll leave quantum mechanics out of it for now). Theology is by definition the study of the nature of God and religious belief; the supernatural. Theological proofs are junk as far as science goes, but if a person chooses to believe in the supernatural, that is their choice. It is not, however, their right to force that choice on others by calling religion science (see creationism) or by calling science a religion (which by definition it isn’t as it does not address the nature of God or the supernatural).

    Science deals with what is – quantization is the heart of the scientific method.

    Theology deals with what someone wants to be real but has no proof for other than teleological arguments.

    Actual versus speculative.

    Applying theology to science is like dancing about architecture.

    Saying their proofs have equal value is a false equivalence.

  18. Mike A.,
    don’t you know that you can’t trust anything those pesky Jesuits say!

  20. And Gene, I have no misunderstanding of Higgs-Boson. At this point I must be dreaming.

Comments are closed.