How liberals and Darwinians excluded religion from public life

The exchange comes from a May 2009 entry, “Tyrannical atheism.”

Jack R. wrote:

… Public education is wrong as it relies on confiscated and redistributed wealth. But given today’s sad context that there is public education and also given that there is separation of religion and state, as there should be, then no supernaturalism should be taught in public schools. Religious parents can send children to religious schools or teach them superstition after school. Lastly, if there were any genuine scientific critique of Darwinian evolution then it should be taught as a competing scientific theory and science means only naturalism. But there isn’t any. Darwinian evolution has been confirmed by at least 15 different other scientific fields. There are debates amongst Darwinians to be sure but the overall theory is confirmed. The only objections it gets are from supernaturalists that believe in theistic explanations; i.e. “God did it.”

LA replies:

Here we go again. Something that is manifestly NOT proved is declared as PROVED, and any disagreement with it is called irrational and excluded from respectable and public society, as “religion.” If Jack R. is so sure that Darwin is proved, why then have so many Darwinists, whom I have quoted many times, admitted that it is not proved? It is one thing to argue for your position. But it is tyrannical to declare as proved and as beyond debate a position that is so obviously NOT proved, a position that has staggering, well-known inadequacies. Furthermore, as someone said in earlier this thread, the effort to silence all criticism of Darwinism and exclude it from public life, betrays the knowledge and the fear that it is not proved.

LA continues:

Let’s consider what the liberals-Darwinists-atheists have done.

First, they take the leftist, “living Constitution” view of the Constitution that there is “separation of church and state.”

Next, they have the state take over more and more of the society, so that the state is everywhere.

Next, they declare that any disagreement with Darwinism is “religion,” and, as religion, must be separated from the state.

But since the state is now everywhere, since the state has become virtually co-extensive with public life, this means that disagreement with Darwinism is effectively banned.

So thank you, Jack R. for proving my point. Darwinism-atheism has become a tyrannical movement.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2010 04:48 PM | Send