By William Jennings Bryan
About 1922
Excerpt:
"Quietly and unnoticed, the enemies of the Bible have been substituting irreligion for religion. Having excluded the teaching of religion, they are daily teaching that which cannot be true if the Bible is true. They do not always openly attack the Bible, but that which they teach is built upon the theory that the Bible is untrue. Many of these teachers are atheists, and do not believe in either a personal God or a personal immortality, as Professor Leuba, of Bryn Mawr, shows in his book, 'Belief in God and Immortality.' Professor Leuba has himself rejected belief in a personal God and belief in a personal immortality, and presents evidence to show, that a majority of the prominent scientists agree with him.
"Some deny that they are atheists, preferring rather to call themselves agnostics, it being easier to plead ignorance than to defend atheism. Darwin declared himself to be an agnostic, having substituted his hypothesis and its implications for the Bible. Darwin began life a Christian, but finding that his hypothesis was inconsistent with the fundamental teachings of Christianity, he rejected the Bible as an inspired Book, and with it the Christ of whom the Bible tells. Darwin declared himself an agnostic, and said that the beginning of all things, was a mystery insoluble by man.
"The tendency of Darwinism, although unsupported by any substantial fact in nature, since no species has been shown to come from any other species, is to destroy faith in a personal God, faith in the Bible as an inspired Book, and faith in Christ as Son and Saviour.
"The so-called theistic evolutionists refuse to admit that they are atheists, contending that they believe in a God back of creation; they argue that evolution is God's method, but they put God so far away as to practically destroy a sense of God's presence in the daily life and a sense of responsibility to Him. At least, that is the tendency, and since the so-called theistic evolutionists borrow all their facts from atheistic evolutionists and differ from them only in the origin of life, theistic evolution may be described as an aesthetic administered to young Christians to deaden the pain while their religion is being removed by the materialists.
"When the Christians of the nation understand the demoralizing influence of this godless doctrine, they will refuse to allow it to be taught at public expense. Christianity is not afraid of truth, because truth comes from God, no matter by whom it is discovered or proclaimed, but there is no reason why Christians should tax themselves to pay teachers to exploit guesses and hypotheses as if they were true.
"The only thing that Christians need to do now is to bring the enemies of the Bible into the open and compel them to meet the issue as it is. As soon as the methods of the atheists, agnostics, and Darwinists are exposed, they raise a cry that freedom of conscience is being attacked. That is false, there is no interference with freedom of conscience in this country, and should be none. Christians will be just as prompt as atheists to oppose any attempt to interfere with absolute freedom of conscience. The atheist has just as much civil right to deny God as the Christian has to believe God; the agnostic has just as much right to profess ignorance in regard to God's existence as the Christian has to profess his faith in the existence of God. The right of conscience is not menaced in this country, it is inviolable.
"Neither do Christians object to the teaching of atheism and agnosticism by those who believe in these doctrines. Atheists have just as much civil right to teach atheism as Christians have to teach Christianity; agnostics have just as much right to teach agnosticism as Christians have to teach their religion. Let it be understood that there is no attack either upon the freedom of conscience or upon anyone's right to teach religion or irreligion. The real issue is whether atheists, agnostics, Darwinists and evolutionists shall enjoy special privileges in this country, and have rights higher than the rights of Christians. They dare not claim higher rights, though they now enjoy higher rights and are contending for higher rights.
"When Christians want to teach Christianity, they build their own schools and colleges, and employ their own teachers-- Catholics build Catholic schools, Protestants build Protestant schools. Every Protestant branch of the Christian church builds its own schools for the propagation of its own doctrine. This is the rule, and there is no protest against it.
"Why should not atheists build their own colleges and employ their own teachers if they want to teach atheism? Why should not agnostics build their own colleges and employ their own teachers if they want to teach agnosticism? Only a small percentage of the American people believe that man is descendant of the ape, monkey, or of any other form of animal life below man; why should not those who worship brute ancestors build their own colleges, and employ their own teachers for the training of their own children for their brute doctrine? There are no atheistic schools, and there are no agnostic schools-why should there be, if atheists and agnostics can save the expense of building their own schools and the expense of employing their own teachers by using the public schools for the propagation of their doctrine? They even make their living by teaching to the children of Christians a doctrine that the parents reject and which they do not want their children to accept. As long as the atheists and agnostics have the same rights as the Christians, what complaint can they make of injustice? Why do they ask special favors?
"If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense? It is safe to say that not one professing Christian in ten has any sympathy with Darwinism or with any evolutionary hypothesis that takes from man the breath of the Almighty and substitutes the blood of a brute. Why should a small fraction of the Christian church-if they call themselves Christians–insist upon propagating their views of Christianity and their interpretation of the Bible at public expense? If any portion of; the people could claim the right to teach their views at public expense, that right would certainly belong to a large majority rather than to a small minority. But the majority are not asking that their views be taught at the expense of the tax-payers; the majority is simply protesting against the use of the public schools of a MINORITY to spread their view, whether they be called atheists, or agnostics, or are merely teaching their interpretation of the Bible.
"Christians do not ask that the teachers in the public schools, colleges and universities become exponents of orthodox Christianity; they are not asking them to teach the Bible conception of God, to affirm the Bible's claim to infallibility, or to proclaim the deity of Christ; but Christians have a right to protest against teaching that which weakens faith in God, undermines belief in the Bible, and reduces Christ to the stature of a man. The teacher who tells the student that miracles are impossible because contrary to evolution, is attacking the Bible; what right has he to do so?
"Our schools are intended to train the minds of students, but back of the mind is the heart, out of which are the issues of life'. Religion deals with the Science of How to Live, which is more important than any science taught in the schools. The school teacher cannot cram enough education into the mind to offset the harm done to the student if his life is robbed of faith and his ideals are brought down to the basis of materialism. It is high time for the people who believe in religion to make their protest against the teaching of irreligion in the public schools under the guise of science and philosophy....
“The issue is plain: The Evolutionists intend, through our tax-supported schools, to change our Bible and our religion. A prominent Evolutionist has put it plainly: "We intend, first, to reconstruct Bible history in harmony with the theory of Evolution. Second, to eliminate by this process all that is supernatural in the record." Eliminate all that is supernatural, and you have no real Redeemer left....
--------------------
Commentary:
Most alive today have been indoctrinated in Darwinism as children in public school. Is it any wonder that Apostasy has gone mainstream in our generation and true faith hard to find?
6 comments:
Hello Tandi,
This post is very difficult to reply to because it is a moving target. I will state that several of Bryan's positions are no longer even supported by today's Young-Earth Creationists. For example, few YEC's would assert that species are immutable. Most YEC's believe that rapid speciation occurred after Noah's Flood, and they are attempting to developed a discplined research model to test their uniformitarian predictions about this model.
Science is different than religion. Scientific theories can be tested and disproven. Religious dogma cannot. Scientific theory is appropriate for academic settings; religious dogma is not. Dogma leads to stopped-up minds that refuse to look further than dogmatic holdings can reach. Science is self-aware and self-testing. It is capable of falsifying even the most dearly held theories. Scientists once nearly ubiquitously adhered to Catastrophism with the Flood as a major catastrophy if not the major catastrophe shaping the geology of the Earth. Science moved away from this model because it does not harmonize with the observable evidence.
BTW, Bryan was not a Young-Earth Creationist. He believed in an old-earth catastrophism of sorts.
Hello Peter,
The point of my post is that scientific theories should be taught as theories, not fact. Scientific theories taught as fact and that serve the purpose of destroying Biblical faith should not be taxpayer supported. Religious theories can be discussed and disproven in the public arena as well. You are right that dogma that cannot be challenged is dangerous. However, in this day and age, with free access to information and books of all kinds, many challenges to strongly held religious and scientific beliefs can and do exist. This is healthy.
The individual is free to choose, however, what she allows into her mind and what she chooses to reject. I choose not to indulge my mind in atheism. That is my choice. I consider atheism mental porn, spiritual adultery. “The fool hath said there is no God.” I do not want to be a fool.
I have a book suggestion for you to consider. It should provide the intellectual brain candy you crave, with the freedom from religion you seek. It might at least put a chink in your Darwinian armor. The book is called The Devil’s Delusion, by David Berlinski..
You could lead the way in showing me how to have an open mind, Peter, by adding this to your reading list.
From a review at Slate.com.....
Berlinski is a critic, a contrarian, and—by his own admission—a crank. But he is not a religious man. He's a zealous skeptic, more concerned with false gods than real ones. According to The Devil's Delusion, the emergence of the New Atheists—i.e., Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the others who have lately ridiculed the belief in God—marks the consolidation of science as its own religion, a hateful "militant church" that demands strict adherence to the First Commandment. The scientists speak of incontrovertible fact, but Berlinski wants to show otherwise; he subjects scientific belief to his own rigorous investigation and finds it riddled with uncertainty. Like the theorists of intelligent design, he sees little in the fossil record that would account for sudden leaps in biological complexity. He considers the evidence for the Big Bang and learns nothing about the origins of the universe. In short, he assesses the evidence for the death of God and reports back with reasonable doubt. This is his book-jacket promise: to "turn the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself.".....
A secular Jew born in New York City, the 66-year-old began his career in academia. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton, he spent time teaching at Stanford, working as a management consultant, and completing postdoctoral work in mathematics and biology. Nothing took—as he describes it, he "got fired from almost every job [he] ever had." And then, at some point in the last few decades, he decided to remake himself as a maverick intellectual operating out of a flat in Paris. He's built a reputation writing contentious magazine articles, a series of somewhat less contentious detective novels, and, most notably, an extended run of whimsical and well-reviewed books on mathematics and the history of science...The work on math and science is characterized by a peculiar, mischievous style: Berlinski mixes long, discursive explanations with strange asides, historical re-enactments, and ironic fables; every page is caked over with elaborate metaphors. Some reviewers—including this one—are dazzled, if not exactly charmed, by his excess...
His 1996 essay in Commentary, "The Deniable Darwin," cast doubt on the theory of natural selection, and produced 35 pages of angry letters demanding to know what alternative explanation he might provide for the history of life. Berlinski responded by saying that "the thing is a mystery, and if there is never to be a naturalistic explanation, I shall forever be content to keep on calling it a mystery."...
Hello Tandi,
I am interested in reading this title. Please realize, though, that I have read many more Creationist books in my life than books attempting to promote the theory of evolution. There are few to no arguments out there that I have not assessed. This is not to state that I am beyond being taught. I listen, for example, to Christian radio very often. I listen to Creationist snipets from Ken Ham and call-in, talk-shows that feature both young and old-earth Creationists of many stripes. I listen to learn though I also exercise judgment regarding what I hear. That is, I am critical and enjoy being analytical about what I am listening to.
Much of the learning that I garner through Christian radio is akin to that of case study research. I listen to analyze the rhetoric of religiosity. I find this interesting. I also enjoy being kept current on cultural trends in the Christian, politically-conservative demographic in which I was raised.
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. There is a theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is the method of evolution which is now in its neo-darwinian manifestation with the understanding that the discovery of DNA and genes brought. However, evolution is a fact. Those who deny this also regularly deny that the Bible teaches a mythological, domed cosmos. They have hidden their sights from reality and placed their heads in the sand relative to both biblical exegesis and the physical sciences.
I am in favor of a broader, more open curriculum that allows the presentation of multiple world views. Such a curriculum would allow more series consideration to some of the more prominent forms of Creationism but also teach the Bible (and other scriptures) as literature. Of course, if such a curriculum were taught, students would not be expected to agree with every nuance of teaching. Christians, for example, who believe the Bible is divine, would not be expected to agree with the teaching that the Quran is divinely revealed. Likewise, Christians may choose to deny evolution (just like most deny that the Bible teaches a pseudo-cosmos). That is their choice in the free market of ideas. This is their right.
Today’s public education system is somewhat fearful of teaching about matters outside of the realm of science. This is unfortunate but understandable. Few teachers are qualified to dabble in didactics regarding religion and dogma while maintaining a balance of skeptism and respect. Also, many are fearful of violating separation of church and state concerns.
Hello Peter,
I just came across this article on the web:
Source: modernconservative.com
September 23, 2008
Scientist forced to resign by evolution absolutists.........
The theory of Darwinian evolution is one of the least rigorous scientific theories in modern memory.
It cannot address the mathematical probability problems associated with the development of favorable new structures by means of successive mutations.
The fossil record looks nothing like it should look if Darwinian evolution were actually the mechanism for the creation of new species.
Scientists have never been able to reproduce the development of a new species in a laboratory, even with the simplest life forms.
There are no indications, in the laboratory or the fossil record, of anything other than micro-evolution (change within a species).
The record of Darwinian science is also rife with hoaxes, including
the peppered moths
the existence of a computer simulation of the development of the eye
archaeoraptor
Earnst Haeckel's woodcuts of embryonic development
piltdown man
Ardepithecus ramidus
And yet, if you deviate in any way from belief in this theory, you put yourself at grave risk. Even scientists who merely approach the question with scientific skepticism are at risk. You can lose your job, your funding, be denied tenure, have your career ruined or be sued by the ACLU.
But how about if you are a scientist who SUPPORTS the theory of evolution yourself, but suggest that maybe it would be okay if kids in a classroom were allowed to ask challenging questions?
Nope.
Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution
This week, in Britain, we have had the highest profile proof that even a hint that your views on evolution might differ from those of the scientific establishment is enough to force you out. Prof. Michael Reiss, an evolutionist and the Royal Society’s director of education, resigned under pressure (given the push) within a couple of days of merely suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms—even if it was in order to explain why they were, in his view, wrong.
Immediately, atheistic scientists called for him to be ousted, claiming he was wanting creationism to be taught as an alternative to evolution. This was not his position, so he was not pushed out because of what he actually said, but because other people misrepresented what he had said. The Royal Society should have defended Reiss against those who were twisting his words, but instead they gave in, thus saving their own reputation for evolutionary orthodoxy.
Note, at the risk of repetition, that Reiss is an evolutionist himself. He was simply saying it was OK for pupils to express their own opinions. He said, ‘There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have—hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching—and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion.’
You don't have to be a six-day creationist, or any kind of creationist at all, or even a believer in God to see that at least some of the believers in Darwinian evolution are members of a self-created orwellian cult.
I will put the link to this article on my sidebar.
Any commentary?
Anyone that can make the statement that “Darwinian evolution is one of the least rigorous scientific theories in modern memory,” is willfully ignorant. The rigorous and technical level of the sciences that converge with the theory of evolution demonstrates this quite well. Creationist material, in contrast, is pathetically lacking in rigor and technicality.
The mathematical “problems” are the creations of the Creationists. There are no mathematical problems with evolution.
The fossil record demonstrates evolution very very well. It would only take one fossil to completely disprove the theory of evolution—only one fossil. This fossil would be an out-of-place fossil that is allochthonous (i.e., not transported from later sediments) and precede taxonomic time placements. For example, a mammal, grass, flowers, or bees in Paleozoic sediments would work.
Science has made mistakes before, but those mistakes were uncovered by science. Some of the examples of “fraud” were not even science to begin with. Piltdown man became popular for a time, but, few if any scientists endorsed him. Science eventually disproved him. Archeoraptor has gone to the wayside but a dozen more bird-to-dinosaur transitionals have surfaced.
This is so much ignorance on these matters. People who write this material are just plain ignorant. They have not swum in the depths available—probably by their own choosing.
Hello Peter,
The point of this article, though, is that even an Evolutionist is not allowed to challenge the status quo by allowing discussion of alternatives such as 6-day Creationism or Intelligent Design. Don't you see this as a hindrance to free speech and freedom of thought? A "free thinker" should invite dialogue and debate, not censor it in the classroom and in society. Who is the bigot these days--the Christian fundamentalist or the Darwinist elite?
Post a Comment