In reference to: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3
Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used.
Abiogenesis and Evolution
[Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom.
... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ...Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life. This is incorrect. Evolution is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life. Abiogenesis is the development from life from non-life. It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state. It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct.
Advocating Evolution as Religious
An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolution and not creationism represents state advocacy for the religion of Humanism. Several problems exist here.
There is no justification (because it is a false claim) that evolution is religious. Even if you assume Humanism is religious, it does not follow that evolution is religious. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is secular - separate from religion by definition. It is stated that evolution is a cornerstone of Humanism, and implied that it follows that evolution is therefore religious. But a religious movement using a secular concept as a basis for faith would in no way impart that faith to the secular idea.
Repeated attempts are made to show that evolution is religious because it requires blind-faith belief in life coming from non-life. Again, Evolution does not make this claim. Evolution does claim that homo sapiens appear to share a common ancestor with most life on Earth. But it is completely silent on the origin of life itself.
Humanism as Religion
A decent point can be made that certain forms of Humanism are religious. This article makes some missteps though. Several quotes appear from the "Humanist Manifesto I" from 1933. These quotes have a very religious slant. Then there is a reference to Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins signing the Humanist Manifesto III. But what is not mentioned is that all the religious language that was quoted does not exist in version III of this document which is what they signed. So to draw the conclusion that this represents religious behavior and motivation on their part is mistaken at best. Eugenie Scott is affiliated with the NCSE who's mission is to defend the teaching of Evolution and Climate Science in public schools, by definition a secular agenda.
A supreme court ruling has included "Secular Humanism" in a list of religions in a ruling, as referenced in the article. But that ruling did not levy any restrictions on the teaching of evolution in public school. If this is a reasonable connection - that the supreme court has ruled Secular Humanism a religion, and evolution is inseparable from Secular Humanism - then the logical course for one with an agenda would be a legal one. If evolution is legally religious then it is unlawful to teach it in the science class. That is not done because the courts have already ruled on this sort of thing, and they have clearly ruled by contrast that evolution is not religious.
Advice for Christian Teachers
Near the end of the article there are several recommendations given to Christian teachers. But one that is missing is to actually learn what science says about Evolution. To learn that to equate the massive amount of good science that went into the study of the evolution of homo sapiens to an artist making up a drawing from a pile of bones is a ridiculous comparison.
Comments