There has been, for some time, a movement to infuse our government with a semi-official religion. It is most visible in our public school systems. The lead for this movement is the ACLU. And they use the power of money to drive their agenda.
The ACLU just filed suit against a school district in Pennsylvania because the schools include intelligent design as a possibility for the creation of the universe. No, the schools aren’t teaching that God created all. They simply include the possibility of “something” creating all along with other theories. The ACLU cannot stand for anything other than evolution being taught.
Their religion? Secular Humanism.
Joseph Farah devotes a column to this topic, and I will not attempt to rehash what he has already covered. But I do agree with his assessment of secular humanism as a religion. So does the Supreme Court. The definition of religion is
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
and that fits quite nicely. Faith is the key.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith is also the key in Darwin’s theory of the evolution of man. I have to say I’m not cognizant of all research on this topic, but I have yet to see anything that shows evolution outside of a given species. I do believe evolution is fact, and species adapt by having progeny with characteristics which better equip them to survive. Survival of the fittest is seen any time you watch some nature show, and the weak or infirm, or those with inadequate protection/camouflage being done in. Those who survive are those who can outrun or hide better. Three men being chased by a lion don’t have to outrun the lion—they just need to outrun one of the other men.
No findings I’ve seen show any indication that human beings evolved from anything other than human beings. The same holds true for any other species.
Yet there seems to be “consensus” on this theory, as there is with many others. And that is the topic of Michael Crichton’s lecture at CalTech on January 17, 2003. Science of consensus isn’t science at all.
As an engineer, I understand this. Unfortunately, many people not involved in science, and a small number who are, use consensus as their argument or “proof.” Crichton cites such luminaries as Carl Sagan, who often stated his opinion as fact, and marketed it well.
Crichton takes on such “common knowledge” issues as second-hand smoke, extraterrestrial life, and evolution. None of these are based on solid research or evidence, but are accepted on faith—and consensus. Crichton explains, quite clearly, that consensus is actually the opposite of good science. “Everyone in Science” knew the Earth was the center of the universe, and anyone who disagreed was insane. “Everyone in Science” knew numerous diseases were contagious, even when researchers showed they weren’t, rather they were caused by diet. “Everyone in Science” knew the world was flat.
The true scientist is outside the consensus, and is belittled.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
After citing example after example, Crichton offers his conclusion:
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or “Urinal-Constipation” as Boortz sometimes calls it, has coverage (registration required, more here) of the issue at the Pennsylvania school:
Eight families have filed a lawsuit against a school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution, claiming the curriculum violates the separation of church and state.
The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit is the first to challenge whether public schools should teach “intelligent design,” which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit.
Here is where the power of money comes in. Regardless of the validity of a complaint, how many school districts in this country can afford a legal fight against the well-funded ACLU? That is why the ACLU likes to jump in on lawsuits of this type. They are easy to win by default. A school district looks at the cost, and decides they would be better off simply caving.
Of course, the issue really is whether Darwin’s theory is just that—theory—or fact. And I’ve seen no support of the particular theory, only facts and research which support the more general theory. Their faith—religion—is that it is true. Since there is no scientific proof, the school district is teaching that there are other theories. Yet the human secularists will tolerate no other god but theirs, and will impose their religion through lawsuit.
That, my friends, is what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Galileo would still be a heretic today.