Home » Intelligent Design » Evolutionary biologists: Allstar atheists, apparently, or — very occasionally — teddy bears for Jesus

Evolutionary biologists: Allstar atheists, apparently, or — very occasionally — teddy bears for Jesus

In “Evolution, Religion and Free Will” (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 “metaphysical naturalists”, “materialists”, and “monists”. 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 “… evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a ‘way of knowing’ has nothing to teach us about evolution.” The authors stress that “Seeing religion as a sociobiological feature of human evolution, while a plausible hypothesis, denies all worth to religious truths.”

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 attend 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 University’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 won’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 is 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

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to Evolutionary biologists: Allstar atheists, apparently, or — very occasionally — teddy bears for Jesus

  1. I think the reason for people like Simon Conway Morris and Francis Collins is that they do not want to put their faith in something that can in anyway be invalidated by the facts. They have fully bought into the argument that since Galilleo was able to explain rotation of the planets without chrystal spheres biology will one day prove abiogenesis and the origin of the species. The trend of naturallistic explanations is just too powerful for them to believe that it has a limit. If the facile responses of ID’s critics are any indication, Behe has just shown that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and diversity of species is trivial.

    Seriously, the more I read objections to The Edge of Evolution the more I am struck by what a devastating blow it has struck to the heart of the materialist establishment.

  2. Of course the majority of the hardcore atheists are in soft wishy washy sciences like biology.

    The obvious gets much harder to deny as you move into the harder sciences like physics.

    But take heart, the “old guard” will die off as their creation myth continues its slide into irrelevance.

  3. Personally, I think it’s funny that in addition to being an author on this paper, Greg W. Graffin is the lead singer of the punk band “Bad Religion.” Hilarious

  4. Greg W. Graffin is the lead singer of the punk band “Bad Religion.” Hilarious

    LOL, I didn’t realize that. When it comes to issues scientific they don’t have a great track record.

  5. Well if he is the singer of a punk band then he must not have an agenda at work ;)

    I wonder how they counted someone an “eminent evolutionist” ?

    I suspect if you dug into the classification a bit you’d find lurking under the surface the same sort of problems that crop up in most claims that atheists make about there representation in one field or another.

    Although the large number of atheists in the “emminent scientist” category in biology, might explain why the field has the problems it currently has. They are commited to their religion of naturalism and defend it with zeal that would put the most hardened YEC to shame.

  6. Although the large number of atheists in the “emminent scientist” category in biology, might explain why the field has the problems it currently has.

    I think there is a lot of truth to that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the biology departments start going the way of the psych and sociology departments as those with an inclination to study the science of life start gravitating to practical things like pharmaceuticals, medicince, nursing, veterinary science etc. and (cough cough) computer studies and math.

  7. Of possible tangential interest, check out the Freedom From Religion Foundation site:

    http://ffrf.org/

    And look at all the cool products you can purchase to prove that you are a “free thinker”:

    http://www.ffrf.org/shop/products/

  8. I wonder how they counted someone an “eminent evolutionist” ?

    You need wonder no more: it’s explained in the article. If you want more detail, contact Graffin, who carried out the survey.

    Bob

  9. In fairness to Collins and Conway Morris, most of ‘atheistic materialism’ is little more than a (scientifically) disconnected opinion of the data in a broad sense.

    What they endeavor to show is that, even if you accept the very “data” that atheist materialists cite (evolution in general, common descent, RNA world origin of life), you don’t end up with either atheism or materialism by necessity. The scales don’t even tip in that direction. What does tip is the attitude of the media and the university culture in general, both of which have a thing for stating opinion with decisive authority.

    Regardless of what their attitudes are towards ID, I think they do ID proponents a favor by arguing against the idea that the data speaks against a Creator/creators in any ultimate sense. Even setting Intelligent Design aside, the idea that common descent is a mark against an intentional creation is laughably weak.

  10. I always thought Bad Religion’s lyrics were painfully bad with forced rhymes and terribly sophomoric sentiments. Here is a sample,

    Cuz I’m a 21st century digital boy
    I don’t know how to live but I’ve got a lot of toys
    My daddy’s a lazy middle class intellectual
    My mommy’s on valium, so ineffectual
    Ain’t life a mystery?

    Ya dude! Down with the middle class!

    Here is another brilliant bit of verse from Bad Religion,

    modern man, evelotionary betrayer,
    modern man, ecosystem destroyer,
    modern man, destroy yourself in shame,
    modern man, pathetic example of earth’s organic heritage,

    I can see Al Gore holding up his bic lighter right now.

    I will spare you the lyrics to “Kyoto Now!”

  11. Yeah they are pretty far to the left and indulge all of the secularist political ambitions with the usual paranoia and FUD of theocracy and the religious.

    They do occasionally make a good point thought (american jesus springs to mind here) and I think they write good tunes even if the lyrics are rubbish and naive.

  12. I can see Al Gore holding up his bic lighter right now.

    Yeah. LOLOLOL

  13. The Teddy Bears over at ASA haven’t touched the Behe book yet. It is not a direct assault on their position but one that will make them uncomfortable since these scientists will have to deal with science instead of theology if they review it.

    Any discussion of ID there is immediately taken over by Pim van Meurs whose main forte seems to be the monitoring of the infinite number of monkeys and then republishing what he finds.

  14. This article explains a lot. It is because of their atheistic beliefs that evolutions can not accept reasonable scientific evidence. That is why they ignore the extreme complexity and life and have to tell themselves not to see design even though it is overwhelming. That is also why evolution is not falsifiable. The junk DNA fiasco shows that they can never change their minds even when the evidence consistently proves they are wrong.
    Luke says in Acts 14:15 “…the living God, who made the sky, the earth, the sea, and everything in them.” Once again it is faith that leads to a more complete and fulfilling understanding. Keep up the good science.

  15. [...] – no God, and human freedom is an illusion created by the buzz of neurons. Which is what most evolutionary biologists [...]

  16. [...] – no God, and human freedom is an illusion created by the buzz of neurons. Which is what most evolutionary biologists believe. – – Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of [...]

Leave a Reply