October 10, 1999

Double Standard

I was giving thought to the recent court issues surrounding evolution being taught in schools. One scholarly article from MSNBC quoted a lady from New Mexico as saying something to the effect that "the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, like the theory of gravity." I am not sure what theory of gravity she is talking about. I know of gravitational laws though, and evolution is definitely not a 'law' in the proper scientific sense, but rather a hypothesis based upon empirical evidence. It is important to note that it is empirical, based on observation. This means that it can only be an inductive argument and not a deductive one. Inductive arguments can never 'proven' to be true on a logical level. But what stirred these thoughts in my head was an existing double standard. Let us look at how evolution is being taught.

Evolution is being (and has been for a while) taught in schools as a fact. The word theory may be placed in there but has been redefined to mean something more like a law, which is where I believe the New Mexico lady was going. It is also being taught as a replacement to the old notions that some sort of Supreme Deity exists. This would clearly put it in the category of atheism. In fact, most of the original proponents of evolution held so tightly to their 'theory' because the concept of a 'God' conflicted with their personal sexual desires (see Huxley). They were atheists by choice and desire rather than any sort of logical reason. (Note: I am not claiming that this is the sole reason people today hold tightly to evolution.) This would put evolution as one of if not the most important tenet of atheism. If atheism is true then a god does not need to exist, therefore a god does not exist. Therefore, since evolution is true, god does not exist. That is the general line of thought. (Interesting illogical jump.)

This is where the trump card of 'separating church and state' is played. Creationism can not be taught in schools because it necessarily implies a creator, and therefore a god. To teach that a god exists is a violation of this 'separation' whereby the 'church' cannot have any influence upon the education of students. How soon we (intentionally) forget that the Supreme Court did declare that atheism is a religion. Wait. Atheism is a religion. Its main tenet is being taught in schools. It is clear therefore that a religion is being taught in schools. Where is the separation of church and state. It would appear that there is no separation of church and state but rather they are one in the same because the religion of atheism is being taught in public schools.

I am pretty sure that these thoughts may tick off an atheist. But why is it such an emotionally charged issue? Ask Huxley. He knew that if he were to believe in God that he would have to change his life around. He knew that God requires moral accountability. He knew that if God existed then he was in big trouble. He believed in evolution because he did not want to believe in God. The debates are emotionally charged, not because they are logically sound, but because they interfere with our wants.

What do you want? Consider the promises. Do you want to behave like the uninhibited animal? The complex bag of sexual desires that Huxley and his friends wanted? Do you want that undefined word, 'fun'? Do you want to live recklessly with no accountability? Or would you rather have rest, peace, acceptance, forgiveness, and hope? Which life is "told by a fool, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?

What do you want? Let me know.

UPDATE