In his book, Finding Darwin's God, biologist Ken Miller ponders the rise anti-evolutionary aspect of the ID movement. He writes:
By and large, the critics of evolution are not cynical opportunists. They aren't stupid, and they certainly understand how strong the scientific evidence is against them. So, why do they oppose evolution with such passion and persistence? I think I know, and we shall see in the next chapter, many of my scientific colleagues, so baffled at the strength and depth of anti-evolution feelings in the U.S., would be surprised to discover that they are themselves a large part of the reason why.
In other words, many in the scientific community are partly to blame for the existence of The Wedge. And some very recent writings continue to illustrate this for us.
After making his observations, Miller then follows with a whole chapter outlining the manner in which many leading scientists have used evolution and science as tools to proselytize for atheism. He cites the usual culprits "“ Dawkins, Wilson, Dennett, and even to a lesser extent, Gould. Miller then notes that these men are not aberrations, but instead there are many more like them in academia. If you employ evolution and science as a tool to attack religion and a tool to advocate for atheistic metaphysics, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how this creates the fertile ground for a reaction like the Wedge.
What we have seen recently are more examples of scientists using evolution to argue for atheism. We have already seen how sociobiologist David Barash, arguing in the mainstream media, has used evolution to argue for atheism and defined evolution from this metaphysical perspective .
Well, another well known evolutionary psychologist, Stephen Pinker, was also made a similar argument in the pages of Time magazine.
Pinker includes an explicit attack on theistic evolutionists:
Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.
For this leading scientist and Darwinian fundamentalist, accepting evolution is not good enough.
It gets even more clear with Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of In an Uncertain World.
While Weisberg is not a scientist, he is a product of academia that has clearly bought into the message peddled by people like Dawkins and Pinker, all in the Name of Science. As such, he gives us a clear view inside that Trojan Horse in his article, Evolution vs. Religion: Quit pretending they're compatible.
Wiesberg frets about The Wedge and offers the following take:
Many biologists believe the answer is to present evolution as less menacing to religious belief than it really is"¦"¦ This was the soothing contention of the famed paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that science and religion were separate "magisteria," or domains of teaching. The theme appears frequently in statements by major scientific organizations and wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards.
Now that I think of it, it does seem as if this theme is only sounded by major scientific organizations wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards. Why don't the same organizations sound this theme when people like Dawkins, Dennett, Barash and Pinker tell the public otherwise? Could it be that these organizations really don't believe this theme, but use it only as a political device? I'm not sure, but we are left with their complete silence anytime a leading member of their community uses science or evolution to peddle Atheism. That silence needs an explanation and Weisberg himself suggests this when he notes, "In a state like Kansas, where public opinion remains overwhelmingly hostile to evolution, one sees the political logic of this kind of tap-dance." Anyway, let's continue as Weisberg lets his cat out of the bag:
But let's be serious: Evolutionary theory may not be incompatible with all forms of religious belief, but it surely does undercut the basic teachings and doctrines of the world's great religions (and most of its not-so-great ones as well).
Hang on, as he is not finished yet:
That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries.
Wow. Darwin himself becomes the poster boy for evolution destroying religious faith. But there's more:
But the acceptance of evolution diminishes religious belief in aggregate for a simple reason: It provides a better answer to the question of how we got here than religion does. Not a different answer, a better answer: more plausible, more logical, and supported by an enormous body of evidence.
One could easily debate all these claims, but instead, it might be more useful to ponder two questions.
First, will any scientific or anti-ID organization ever write up a public response to such claims that not only disagrees with them, but educates the public about the erroneous nature of these claims by refuting them in detail? If not, why not? After all, Weisberg pays tribute to the fact that there are even "Darwinists who call themselves Christians" and cites Ken Miller as his example. Will Ken Miller take a few seconds from his battle against the "enemies of science" to reply to Weisberg, given that he knows such claims only strengthen the "enemies of science"? If the pattern noted by Weisberg continues, we can expect only silence.
Secondly, where does Weisberg get these notions? Did they just poof into his head or has he been absorbing someone else's message? I would suggest that Weisberg is simply helping to popularize the message of the Darwinian fundamentalists, a message he has uncritically embraced. After all, he admits to getting something from Daniel Dennett's "superb" book. Furthermore, consider this bit of misinformation:
Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch.
Unless Weisberg considers a handful of fuzzy, weakly supported speculations (many which contradict each other) to be a scientific explanation, Weisberg is misleading his readers with this claim. And since Weisberg has probably never read a single scientific paper that speculates about the origin of bacteria, it's likely that Weisberg himself was misled by some Darwinian fundamentalist.
Okay, so now let's turn to the real fun. Weisberg writes:
So, what should evolutionists and their supporters say to parents who don't want their children to become atheists and who may even hold firm to the virgin birth and the parting of the Red Sea? That it's time for them to finally let go of their quaint superstitions? That Darwinists aren't trying to push people away from religion but recognize that teaching their views does tend to have that effect? Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs.
Aha! Weisberg is telling us his real views here that most likely reflect the views of his mentors. But such "brutal truth" is political poison. So Weisberg offers the following advice:
One possible avenue is to focus more strongly on the practical consequences of resisting scientific reality. In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, can the U.S. afford"”ethically or economically"”to raise our children on fraudulent biology?
Well lookie here "“ it's a Trojan Horse strategy. Such irony. Tap into xenophobia, arguing that if some rural community of high school students doesn't understand the Dawkins/Dennett perspective of evolution, the "foreigners" will pass us by economically. It reminds me of James Watson's Trojan Horse strategy of promoting eugenics by selling cures for diseases to the masses.
Okay, just to be sure no one misses the fact that this Rhodes Scholar is peddling the message of Dawkins et al., consider how he ends his article:
But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers. This insults our intelligence
Hey, even the very last words in the footnote section deliver the message, where Weisberg portrays a colleague as showing that ID is "ID is proof that science is winning the battle against religion."
Dawkins, the adored scientist who thinks it is better to sexually molest a child than raise that child as a Catholic, should be proud of his little spawn.