Evolutionary biologists: Allstar atheists, apparently, or — very occasionally — teddy bears for Jesus
|June 19, 2007||Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design|
In Ã¢â‚¬Å“Evolution, Religion and Free WillÃ¢â‚¬Â (American Scientist, Volume 95, 294ff), Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine found that, of 149 eminent evolutionists polled, 78% were pure naturalists (no God) and only two were clearly theists (traditional idea of God). Some were in between these poles. The authors describe most of them as deists (some sort of divinity might have got things rolling but it is not God in any sense that Christians understand).
They note that the evolutionary biologists scored the lowest so far in any such poll. They described the vast majority of their respondents as Ã¢â‚¬Å“metaphysical naturalistsÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialistsÃ¢â‚¬Â, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“monistsÃ¢â‚¬Â. In other words, these are people who are serious about their materialism and atheism.
These evolutionary biologists generally view religion as a product or byproduct of human evolution so that Ã¢â‚¬Å“… evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœway of knowingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ has nothing to teach us about evolution.Ã¢â‚¬Â The authors stress that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Seeing religion as a sociobiological feature of human evolution, while a plausible hypothesis, denies all worth to religious truths.Ã¢â‚¬Â
So these are the people who are provide the framework for the educrats who are entitled to tax you in order to interpret life to children who are forced to attendÃ‚Â publicly funded school systems.
Mainstream media, covering the intelligent design (ID) controversy, warn you that most ID advocates are Christians or other theists. But how many have told you what I just did – that most of the people who strongly promote a no-design universe and no-design life forms are atheists?
This has been true, by the way, for the better part of a century, ever since James Leuba started his surveys in 1914. So now, do you understand at least one reason why there is an intelligent design controversy?
How do scientists who say they believe in God cope? Not well, if one goes by Brit paleo prof Simon Conway Morris. Conway Morris provides a textbook example of uselessness, while speaking to Texas students:
“There is no reason an evolutionary biologist could not subscribe to something transcendent,” explained Morris to the Baylor Lariat, Baylor UniversityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s student newspaper. “It would be a mistake to assume that all scientists are materialists, and they are not.”
Actually, statements like that border on infamy. Most key evolutionary biologists in North America are aggressive materialists, and they do not subscribe to “something transcendent”.
Although Conway Morris does claim to be a Christian, it is hard to know, based on his statements in the linked piece, whether he accepts anything that could come into direct conflict with atheistic materialism. “In the final analysis”, he insists, only Jesus matters. But heaven and earth shall pass away before that final analysis makes any real difference, it seems.
Here are some additional stories I posted at the Post-Darwinist:
Has a new planet, just like Earth, really been found?
Darwinian atheist Richard Dawkins as pop cult figure
Jonathan Wells’ Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design now in Czech.
“Junk” DNA now hailed as “powerful” regulator. Score one for the intelligent design hypothesis
Humungous fungus challenges what we mean by a “life form”
Me? Something against Francis Collins? No! Basically, if you have some mouthy teen shouting that he wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t go to church any more because he has discovered polynomials, and therefore he is going to go out and get his thingummy pierced – Collins is a good choice. On the other hand, …
Another reason to ignore legacy mainstream media coverage of the intelligent design controversy (especially when the medium is reporting on something that isÃ‚Â not right around the corner from you, so you can check up on it)
Materialism (naturalism) is self-defeating, according to philosopher
Complex central nervous systems developed early, study suggests