Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.8.DOO Y61~
JAVA-MAlii'
>....'.
~IO
.IIN
PH
EV
s: !'1{t././oN
Ylii1RS
IS
S,A
*************************i*********************************************~*~*~*********************
AMERICAN ATH~ISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of state
and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment" to the Constitution of the
United States wits meant 'to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists is organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiryconcerning religious
beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data, and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of.them, their origins, and their histories;
to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church;
to advocate, labor for, and promote in alllawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular
system ofeducation available to all;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy,
understanding, pod interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in
relation to society;
,
to develop andpropagate a social philosophy in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of
strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance, perpetuation, and
enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as willbe useful and beneficial to members of
American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be,defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at
establishing a:life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all
arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own
inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man finding his resources within himself --,.can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his dignity
and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our lifeon earth and strive always to improve it. It holds
that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in man and
man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in its very essence
life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble ideas that
inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an outreach to
more fulfillingculturaldevelopment is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
*************************************************************************************************
American Atheist Membership Categories
Life ....................................................................................
Sustaining
Couple/F arnily
'
Individual
Senior Citizen*/Un~mployed
Student"
~
:
$SOO
$lOO/year
$SO/year
$40/year
$20/year
$12/year
*Photocopy of 10 required
All membership categories receive our monthly "Insider's Newsletter," membership card(s), a subscription to
American Atheist magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional organizational mailings,
i.e., new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.
October 1986
American Atheist
A Journal
of Atheist
Editor's Desk
R. Murray-O'Hair
Director's Briefcase
Jon G. Murray
56
60
Ask A.A.
Poetry
61
62
The creationist's battle against "evolution-science" is no laughing matter, not with a new suit in front of the
nation's highest court. The American Atheist examines the history
and future of that battle in a special
forty-page section.
For details, see page 2.
Historical
Notes
64
Press Conference
Brian Lynch
65
Blasphemy! (part I)
49
Me Too
69
70
Classified Advertisements
72
Second Printing
Name
Address
City
State
Effective Date:
Name
Address
City
_
_
Zip
_
_
State
_
_
Zip
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 1
American Atheist
Editor/R. Murray-O'Hair
Editor Emeritus/Dr. Madalyn O'Hair
Managing Editor/Jon G. Murray
Assistant Editor/Gerald Tholen
Poetry/Angeline Bennett, Gerald Tholen
Non-Resident Staff/John M. Allegro, Burnham
P. Beckwith, Margaret Bhatty, Nawal EISaadawi,
Merrill Holste, Lowell Newby, Fred Woodworth,
Frank R. Zindler
Production Staff/Laura Lee Cole, Christina Ditter, Shantha Elluru, Keith Hailey, Brian J. Lynch,
Jim Mills, John Ragland, Jes Simmons
Officers of the Society of Separationists,
Inc.
President/don G. Murray
President Emeritus/Dr. Madalyn O'Hair
Vice-President/Gerald
Tholen
Secretary/R. Murray-O'Hair
Treasurer/Brian J. Lynch
Chairman of the Board/Dr, Madalyn O'Hair
Members of the Board/don G. Murray (Vice
Chairman), August Berkshire, Herman Harris,
Ellen Johnson, Scott Kerns, Minerva Massen,
Robin Murray-O'Hair, Shirley Nelson, Richard C.
O'Hair, Henry Schmuck, Noel Scott, Gerald
Tholen, Lloyd Thoren, Frank Zindler.
Officers and Directors may be reached at P.O.
Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768.
Honorary
Members of the Board/Merrill
Holste, John Marthaler
The American Atheist is published monthly by
American Atheist Press, an affiliate of Society of
Separationists, Inc., d/b/a American Atheists,
2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756-2596, a nonprofit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. (Non-profit under IRS Code
501(c)(3).)
Copyright 1986 by Society of Separationists, Inc.
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in
part without written permission is prohibited.
ISSN: 0332-4310. Mailingaddress: P.O. Box 2117,
Austin, TX 78768-2117.
The American Atheist is indexed in IBZ (Internatiorial Bibliography of Periodical Literature, Osnabruck, Germany).
Manuscripts submitted must be typed, doublespaced, and accompanied by a stamped, selfaddressed envelope. A copy of American Atheist
Writers' Guidelines is available upon request. The
editors assume no responsibility for unsolicited
manuscripts.
The American Atheist Press publishes a variety of
Atheist, agnostic, and freethought material. A
catalog is available free upon request.
Page 2
A SPECIAL ISSUE
hen you picked up this issue of the
W
American Atheist, you might have
noticed that it's is just a bit thicker than
usual, with seventy-two instead of the usual
forty-four pages. And you might have wondered why American Atheists, a cause organization with little money to spare, went to
the extra expense of a special issue on
creationism.
We did it because it was time that some
periodical give a history and overview of the
legal battle over creationism. Various organizations, periodicals, tracts, leaflets, and
books had "debunked" creationism - but
seemingly all had ignored the application of
the concept to our school system.
American Atheists deals constantly with
reality, and the reality of the current situ a-
October 1986
American Atheist
'\~~'
/'" ", --.
SCIENCE - UNABRIDGED
~-"---. ----------------------
. .;
~n~ \'
.1....
Austin, Texas
16%
27%
57%
7%
29%
61%
Acceptance of evolution:
"Human beings as we know them
today developed from earlier species
of animals."
47%
7%
46%
Agree
Not sure
Disagree
40%
4%
56%
43%
11%
46%
53%
4%
October 1986
Disagree
44%
What It Means
Page 3
ulary or comprehension of concepts .to utilize a wide array of scientific communication .... If terms like molecule and DNA are
not acquired during formal schooling, it is
unlikely that they will be acquired later
through the media or other informal education channels." He also said that greater
misunderstanding of science and more
superstition among those who did not complete high school have contributed to a feeling that they have "little control over their
own fate." Mr. Millerbased his survey on the
principle that one indicator of the degree to
which the public feels comfortable with
science is in understanding of its basic
vocabulary. Mr. Miller also feels that his findings are an indictment of the public precollege educational system's preparation of
Americans for an increasingly scientific and
technological world.
So What?
These findings from Northern IllinoisUniversity did not come as a total surprise to
me. I have been doing radio and television
interviews for years and dealing with the
public and students at colleges, universities,
and social group forums. In so doing, I had
come to the conclusion on my own that
science and science concepts are rather foreign to most of the population. I try not to
include scientific vocabulary in my presentations, as I know that the average reading skill
level for general audiences in this country is
about sixth grade. I find that appalling in the
twentieth century, but it is nonetheless a
fact. The main impact of the statistics I have
just shared with you is that they reaffirm my
personal experience in a major way. One of
the things that Mr. Miller pointed out - and
I want to particularly emphasize - is that a
misunderstanding of science, combined with
superstition, contributes to feelings that
people have "little control over their own
fate."
One of the bedrocks or religion in general,
and Judeo-Christianity in particular, is the
notion that we all have "little control" over
our "own fate." It is the task of religionists to
foster this mind-set in upcoming generations
so that they will continue to be part of the
"churched," as the statisticians say, rather
than the "unchurched." Science, on the
other hand, is nothing but the application of
human reason, in a systematic way, to problem solving. I used to have a mathematics
instructor during my public school days who
told her class that even the poorest student
could usually do the arithmetic from a given
problem after someone else defined the variables and set up the equation. She often
said, "Don't worry about being off with your
addition or subtraction, make sure first that
you have defined your variables correctly
and assigned the relationship between them
properly." It always amazed me that most of
Page 4
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
tration at the time of the space shuttle disaster. Graham has been on the research and
technical staffs of various military contractors since 1961and is hardly a luminary in his
field. Needless to say, these kinds of appointments by Reagan of political kindred
rather than field leaders are not going to set
a very good example for the nation or the
nation's educators.
The Solution Is No Problem
I also think that the solution is not to
blame the public school system for declining
interest and proficiency in science, as did
Mr. Miner in his address to the AAAS in
Philadelphia. Instead, the public schools and
the educators and administrators who run
them need to be encouraged about teaching
science and asked to teach more instead of
being intimidated into teaching less by a
bunch of religious fanatics. We as Atheists,
particularly because we base our worldview
on the scientific method, must initiate and
sustain pressure on the educational system,
both public and private, to increase the
teaching of science and make more science
topic areas available to young people.
We can no longer afford to take a backseat to the Gablers of Longview, Texas, or
~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A second generation Atheist,
Mr. Murray has been the Director
of The American Atheist Center
for ten years and is also the Managing
Editor of the American Atheist. He
advocates "Aggressive Atheism."
October 1986
Page 5
ASK A.A.
<:""~
What should we Atheists say when someone sneezes?
John Sikos
Michigan
"Do you need a tissue?"
<:""~
Several months ago, you changed the
format of the magazine's listing of the editor
and the entire staff of the magazine.
Very good and very professional looking.
However, under the heading "Members of
the Board," the name "Richard C. O'Hair" is
listed.
Who is this? Is this the same person who
died several years ago and was buried at
Arlington?
Or are you iisting the name to check to
see ifanyone troubles to read this part of the
magazine?
Otherwise, the magazine is better than
ever.
William Axelrod
California
What a long memory you have!
You are thinking of Richard Franklin
Page 6
<:""~
A talk show hostess recently, when asked
if she were religious, replied, "No, but I am
spiritual." I hear this double-talk often.
Alcoholics Anonymous tells us they are not
a religious organization but one that is "spiritual." Ifone is "spiritual," doesn't that mean
they believe some supernatural entity invested in them a spirit? Doesn't it mean they
subscribe to some religious supernatural
spiritualism? Why the doublespeak?
Herb Ault
Florida
Very often individuals who are reared in a
religious home or environment upon maturity realize that the formal religion which they
were taught is not fully compatible with reality. They therefore reject that "orthodox"
theism.
But religion is very often like a tick - you
cannot get it out of your skin without some
effort.
Such persons may be able to divest themselves of the surface symptoms of religion
(genuflecting, saying the rosary, going to
church, praying), but not the mind-set. They
October 1986
American Atheist
ABOUT CREATIONISM
Supreme Court reconWhenvenestheinU.S.
October 1986, one of the
cases on its agenda willbe titled Edwards v.
Aguillard, which concerns itself with the
question whether or not the biblical story of
the creation of the universe and humankind,
should have equal treatment with evolution
in the public schools of the nation.
In order to introduce the Judea-Christian
mythos, the presentation of it to the legislature of Louisiana (the source of the case)
and to the Supreme Court has been couched
in terms of "science." The claim, currently,
is that creationism is supported by the principles of science as well as by a group of
professional scientists in the nation. This
group relies on educational credentials and
upon the theorists' of evolution attempts to
clarify points for which solutions are stili
being sought. The latter is interpreted by
creationists to be signals of the failure of the
principal underlying the Darwinian "theory
of evolution," and extensive negative analysis is made of each.
Both the legal and the political outreach of
the creationists has become more sophisticated and more intense with the passage of
time. The financial stability of the organized
groups of creationists now being assured,
their position as an institution in the culture
having been attained, the threat that they
pose becomes more and more awesome.
The case in Louisiana - currently before
the U.S. Supreme Court - has not been
seriously viewed as a threat. The law at issue
was identical to that which had been thoroughly discredited by a federal district court
in Arkansas in 1982. There, an antievolution
law had been passed on March 19, 1981, and
immediately challenged by the American
CivilLiberties Union on May 27 of the same
year. The trial was had in December 1981,
and an opinion was issued on January 5,
1982, declaring that the antievolution law
was unconstitutional as an establishment of
religion. Later in 1982, the governor of
Arkansas seized upon creationism as a
campaign issue estimating that "75 percent
of Arkansas supports Creation Science." If
he had it to do all over again, he would sign
the Creation Science bill again.
A senator in Louisiana, also in 1981, after
simply making some minor modifications in
it had introduced the same law in the Louisiana legislature. A challenge was also, immediately, made to the Louisiana law. The legal
proceedings there, however, were somewhat more complicated since the challenge
was made in a state rather than a federal
court and media coverage attendant to it
was not as great as that given to the same
law in Arkansas.
When the case in Arkansas was lost by
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 7
or
!Johann Salomo Semler, 1725-1791, University of Halle biblical critic and "the father of
German rationalism."
Page 8
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation
thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof
for beverage purposes is hereby
prohibited.
SECTION 2. The Congress and the
several States shall have concurrent
power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
After the old demon rum and the saloon
scourge of the nation had been defeated,
there was another target: evolution.
A New Devil: Evolution
Evolution had always been a prime enemy. It had but slowly made its way across
the Atlantic. During the first two decades of
the twentieth century there were, in fact, but
two evolution texts available for use in public
schools. Biology, a ten-volume set by Caroline Stackpole, appearing in 1909, was only
for the general reader. A Civic Biology, by
George W. Hunter, was published in 1914 by
the American Book Company as a highschool text and it was far from thorough.
Biology for Beginners, by Truman J. Moon,
was published in 1921 by Henry Holt and
Company. Both texts were available to the
public school systems. This latter was by far
Page 9
the best.
Immediately after World War I, a World
Bible Conference
was called for Philadelphia. During this conference,
the World
Christian Fundamentals
Association
was
formed. The Fundamentalists
were adamant
that the Five Points of Fundamentalism
were indispensable
elements of the true
Christian
faith. This larger association,
however, could not hold itself together and
during the Depression
simply ceased to
exist. The Fundamentalists
then continued
to exist as dissenting and dissatisfied factions within each denominational
body.
Most of the established churches had been
forced to reconcile their faith with science,
accepting evolution as compatible with the
god idea. Incumbered as the Fundamentalists were with a fight against their own specific "liberalized" denominations,
they yet
saw the need to repudiate evolution, and
they managed to go to the attack. They
determined that the arena of the fight was
. going to be in the public schools, and it was
there that they struck.
Their chief spokesman was William Jennings Bryan." During the entire decade of
the 1920s he stumped the country demanding that antievolution
laws be adopted to
protect the nation's public schools from evolution, or any doctrine which would be in
conflict with the Genesis story. He had
model laws which he introduced to the legislatures. Often he asked, and gained permission, to address the legislative bodies himself. The speeches were of the revival genre.
He was one of the so-called "silver-tongued
orators" of the day, a speaker of considerable impact. Hitting the southern states, he
found defeat in Kentucky - but only by one
vote. It was then 1922, and the debate was
hot when Kentucky was chosen as the posSIble state for the first antievolution
law,
which read:
It shall be unlawfu! in any school or
college or institution oi learning maintained in whole or in part, in this state,
by funds raised by taxation for any
one to teach any theory of evolution
that derives man from the brute, or
any other form of life, or that eliminates God as the creator of man by
direct creative act.
On March 9, the defeating vote was cast by a
member of the legislature who viewed antievolution as "an infringement on personal
liberty."
It was in 1922, also, that in Fort Sumner,
New Mexico, a superintendent
of schools
lost his job for teaching evolution. No other
Page 10
Contribution
October
1986
American
Atheist
legal fees for any person who would challenge the Tennessee antievolution law, the
first one passed in the nation. When no takers came forward, it contrived with two
members to have them swear out warrants
in May 1925 against John T. Scopes, a
science teacher in Rhea County High
School. He was using George W. Hunter's A
Civic Biology in his class as a textbook. Hunter was the former science chairman of the
DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx.
His text hardly could be said to have a thorough explanation of evolution, but it was
enough to bring an indictment against
Scopes. It is difficult now to admit that the
famous trial had as its raison d'etre a bid for
publicity. The warrant for arrest was a
scheme to force a trial. Although it has never
been spelled out, it is apparent that Scopes
agreed to have the arrest warrant sworn
against him. Few historians or reporters
emphasize that what followed was a criminal
trial of Scopes. He retained for his attorney
the former dean of the University of Tennessee Law School, Judge Randolph Neal. William Jennings Bryan, since the law involved
was one which he had sponsored, volunteered to represent the World's Children's
Fundamental Association as chief religious
prosecutor. Clarence Darrow was in New
York when he heard of Bryan's decision. Of
it he says, in his The Story of My Liie:"
At once I wanted to go. My object,
and my only object was to focus the
attention of the country on the programme of Mr. Bryan and the other
fundamentalists in America. I knew
that education was in danger from the
source that has always hampered itreligious fanaticism. Tome it was perfectly clear that the proceedings bore
little semblance to a court case, but I
realized that there was no limit.to the
mischief that might be accomplished
unless the country was roused to the
evil at hand. So I volunteered to go.
The American Civil Liberties Union got
what it wanted: publicity. Darrow, however,
thought that the media handled the case "as
a farce, instead of a tragedy." The Baltimore
Sun newspaper dispatched H. L. Mcnckento cover the trial. Reporters came from
around the world, and it was estimated that
about 150 of them were in residence to cover
the event. Later it was calculated that two
million words were dispatched, via Western
Union, by the media in the twelve days of the
trial. Eight telegraph operators were called
to the job. At least 175,000 words were
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 11
Science's Loss
Although the publicity battle was won, the
war was lost. Scopes was found to be guilty,
and this made a marked impression on the
school textbook industry of the .day. The
year following, Hunter rewrote his textbook
to delete all mention of evolution. The word
did not even appear in the glossary. It was a
symbolic beginning. After 1926,Moon's pub
lishers began to emasculate the treatment of
evolution in his book, Biology for Beginners.
Antievolutionist laws began to find acceptance, the next being passed in 1926 in Mississippi. Arkansas followed in 1928. The men
of science in the nation were not about to be
embroiled in the issue. It continued to be
fought out only on the legal and political
front.
A quote from the Scientific American
magazine of August 1929, which illustrates
well the timid, albeit knowledgeable, position of the scientists, reflects well that they
knew what was occurring.
Many have sincerely been misled
into the belief that there is a broad
cleavage between scientists who accept evolution and those who do not.
To them our reader may find it advantageous to show the following statement quoted in part: "The Council of
the American Association for the
Advancement of Science has affirmed
that so far as the scientific evidences
of the evolution [of] plants and anima!s and man are concerned there is
no ground whatever for the assertion
that these evidences constitute a
'mere' guess. No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by
thoroughly tested evidences than is
that of organic evolution. The Council
of the Association is convinced that
any legislation attempting to limit the
teaching of any scientific doctrine so
well established and so widely accepted by specialists as is the doctrine
of evolution would be a profound mistake, which could not failto injure and
retard the advancement of knowledge
and of human welfare by denying the
freedom of teaching and inquiry that is
essential to all progress."
The statement, of course, was ignored.
In the 1930s the Fundmer:talists had
already begun to approach teachers, textbook publishers, libraries, and local communities with their concerns about and
attacks upon evolution. By 1933 the schools
of the nation were using evolution-free biology books, placating the Fundamentalists.
The 1933 edition of Moon's Biology for
Beginners did not mention the word evolution. Even the index did not list it.
In the 1940s there was some mention of
Page 12
evolution in the texts, but one-third of American teachers feared being identified with
evolution as the content in biology books
decreased. In the 1950s there was again a
slight de-emphasis in the texts, probably
because of McCarthyism. At this time, the
general statement could be made that the
schools focused on drill teams, band, and
football instead of scholastic achievement.
Communism And Evolution
Everything changed in October 1957
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik,
the first artificial earth satellite. There was an
immediate outcry for greater emphasis on
the teaching of science in the public high
schools. Later biologists were to state that it
was only then that they became aware of
how disastrously school administrators and
textbook publishers had sabotaged biology.
In response to it, the National Science
Foundation funded several programs to
modernize the teaching of science in the
nation's schools. The Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study (BSCS), a nonprofit
organization, was hurriedly put together and
was among those receiving grants for curriculum study and textbook revision. Working with scientists and teachers, the BSCS
developed a series of fivehigh school biology
texts-which, although emphasizing different
aspects of biology, incorporated the theory
of evolution and natural selection as major
themes. The Texas State Board of Education, naturally, asked for a special edition for
that state that would mitigate these frightening ideas. The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study refused to compromise. The fat
was in the fire, and ironically it was the
U.S.S.R.'s space program which saved the
science programs in American schools.
Three of the BSCS texts which were developed received acceptance by biology teachers, generally.
The Fundamentalists leapt to the challenge. Henry Morris published his Genesis
Flood in 1960 and invented the term "scientificcreationism," which by the middle 1960s
had gained currency in the nation. He was
primarily responsible for the organized creation science movement. In doing so, he
found enough allies from the Missouri Synod
of the Lutheran church to make up a third of
the original steering committee for an organization which he founded.
Rather than attacking evolution, the Fundamentalists now took a different tact. The
grand strategy which they developed was to
make the biblical account of creation appear
to be rational and meritorious. They asked
for "equal time" in the apparent hope that
the school systems would refuse to teach
evolution rather than to introduce the Bible
as a text into the schools. From antievolution laws the move was toward laws that
would forbid teaching of evolutionary biol-
October 1986
American Atheist
.-5- --
~~~
_ __
__ ~~';;;._'''~J''~A./':'''+'--''''''''''-'''~r..
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 13
Page 14
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
m~.
Meanwhile, the Second Creation Convention was held August 17-21 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The theme of it was "A
Challenge to Education - II." Forty highly
qualified scientists were guest speakers.
October 1986
In Nebraska, the Lutheran Women's Missionary League purchased 309 student sets
of Science and Creation Series booklets and
distributed them to public elementary and
junior high schools in a forty-five county area
in that state.
The California Board of Education also
was buying, for six-year periods, books for
kindergarten through eighth grade. Something designated as "Life-science" rather
than "biology" books began to appear for
courses usually taught in grades seven and
eight. (California, which does not adopt
books for use in high school, therefore does
not adopt biology books.) In the lower grade
books there was no competent account of
either the principles or vocabulary of evolutionary biology. As an example, the words
evolve and evolution were no longer used. In
their place were the words change and
changing. Charles Darwin was not mentioned in the books at all.
In Georgia, a bill was introduced into the
legislature which provided for equal time for
special creation whenever evolution was
taught. With one such billfinally attacked by
some education authorities, the legislature
decided to have a special committee hold
hearings in various parts of the state to measure public reaction and to find out where
the sentiment in favor of the legislation was.
In Florida, there were elaborate plans
being made to introduce an "equal-time" bill
in the legislature.
In Washington state, legislation was pending which would require that the biblical
creation account be treated on an equal
basis with the "theory" of evolution.
On March 24, 1975, the Irving, Texas,
School District, at the order of the Irving
School Superintendent received copies of
scientific creationist biology textbooks. Having read the book upon recommendation of
a friend, the superintendent simply ordered
the district's science consultant to order the
books for all of the Irving schools. The
school board was not asked to approve the
text.
There were seemingly no impediments,
and the 1970 decade was only at the halfway
mark. But, in April of 1975, the federal Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of
Daniel v Waters, (See page 26) handed
down an opinion that the Tennessee statute
which required that any textbook expressing opinion about the origin of man should
be prohibited from use in the public schools
unless it specifically stated that the opinion
was a theory and was not represented to be
a scientific fact, and which also required the
biblical account of creation and other theories of creation be printed at the same with
commensurate attention and equal emphasis and that only the biblical account of creation as set forth in Genesis might be printed
without any such disclaimer violated the
First Amendment prohibition on establish-
Page 15
The National Association of Christian Educators declared that its members "vow to teach
Christian fundamentalism in public schools
wherever they can find an opening."
ment of religion.
Seemingly no one paid any attention to
the court.
In May, the Dallas school board asked the
state board and the Texas Education Agency
to approve at least one biology text that
would include the Bible's version of creation.
Later in the year, the Seminole, Texas,
Common Consolidated School District was
found to be using the same texts.
In West Virginia, the Kanawha county
schools (this county includes the major city
of Charleston) introduced the "two-model"
approach of teaching both creation and evolution. Columbus, Ohio, at this time, was
using the same.
Early in 1977, it was revealed after an
investigation in Seattle and Spokane, Washington, in Portland, Oregon, and in San
Francisco, California, that the Moody Bible
Institute was distributing films to 1,600 public schools as "teaching aids" in biological
science. These ignored the immense geologicallife span of the earth and suggested that
various species of animals did not evolve
from lower forms. The films accounted for
all livingthings as the result of a single act of
divine fiat. At that time, the American Humanist Association sponsored a statement
affirming evolution, but felt compelled to
include on the statement signatures of clergy
from most major religious denominations, all
of whom believed that "there is no conflict
between evolutionary principles and the biblical descriptions." Such a statement, of
course, flies in the face of reason.
The school board of the Paul Pewett
Independent School District of East Texas
(near Dallas) voted 6-3 to include the use of
Creation Life Publishers' text Biology: A
Search for Order in Complexity and its
accompanying laboratory manual as the
primary biology book for its schools. In the
text the explanation of "species" given,
using the word kinds, contends that god
created the various "kinds" with latitude for
a certain amount of variation. Still, the publishers asserted that:
For too long, people have tried to
relegate creation to religion. This
book is written on a scientific rather
than theologicalleve!.
We have been totally indoctrinated
with evolution, which many texts
Page 16
October 1986
American Atheist
At The Universities
It never stopped. In March 1978the media
began to report that John N. Moore had
been including the theory of creation by god
in his introductory science courses at Michigan State University. He backed down
opposition under the banner of academic
freedom. At the same time it was found that
Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio,
and Iowa State University both had similar
college-level courses.
The Chicago Tribune newspaper in
March revealed that was just the beginning.
Michigan State University students were not
alone in taking Moore's rational alternative
creationist science course for credits; the
West Virginia College of Graduate Studies
was offering a crash course for both views,
and noncredit seminars on the same were
being held at University of Vermont, Oklahoma State University, San Diego State College, University of Michigan, Northwestern
University, Fresno State College, University
of Texas, and Iowa State University.
On April 11, 1978, the National Bible
Knowledge Association, Inc. filed a suit in
the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.,
to bar the Smithsonian Institution from
promoting evolution. The organization
asked that the Smithsonian be enjoined
from its scheduled $463,200 display on evolution. If the display was not stopped, the
organization asked that an equal amount of
money be spent to present the biblical
account of creation. The suit claimed that
the Smithsonian received 90 percent of its
financing from federal funds and that it was
"establishing a religion of secular humanism
to the complete and utter violation of the
government's role of neutrality in religious
matters."
In July the chairman of the English department at Crow High School in Springfield, Oregon, requested that creationism be
taught in the public schools of that city. His
basic premises were simple:
No one can prove scientifically how
the universe or life originated. These
unrepeatable events occurred before
human observation.
Only two possibilities exist. Things
either made themselves, or were made
by something other than themselves.
Organization either arises spontaneously from the nature of the universe,
or the universe was organized by a
power other than itself. These alternatives are irreconcilable opposites. One
of them must be true; both cannot be.
Evidence for either is automatically
evidence against the other.
The evolutionists had the general reply of
stating that creationism was a religious
explanation; that it was not science nor
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 17
Page 18
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 19
Page 20
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ... "
State Universities, who monitored the revised books, expressed great disappointment in them, complaining that they were
not "worth the taxpayers' money." Most
added a few sentences or paragraphs, a few
added entire chapters. Of these changes,
one review panel member said that the
books are "just as equivocal, as misleading,
and as deliberately phony as the original
texts." The California state book review
panel had no biologists on it, and, consequently, the scientists felt that the changes
approved were, in several cases, "incoherent, incompetent and generally inane." Noting that the books still"tiptoe" around topics
so that Fundamentalists in Texas or creationists in California are not offended, the
scientists point out certain phrases, such as
"many scientists believe" that the Earth was
created billions of years ago, or that "most
scientists believe" that dinosaurs roamed
the Earth millions of years ago. One scientist
curtly complained, "What is that supposed
to mean? If dinosaurs are just a 'belief' that
some of us have, what are those bones in the
museum? These matters are as factual as
gravity or relativity, but they are treated differently because they impinge on the beliefs
of the Fundamentalists."
The California Board of Education formally adopted the ten new junior high textbooks on December 12, 1985, after rejecting
the criticism of the scientists. The scientists
retaliated by proclaiming that the state was
"pandering to the creationists" by using
October 1986
Page 21
Page 22
dozen or so biggest houses publish in a variety of fields for all grades. Texas adopts
books for all grades, kindergarten through
high school, and limits to five the number of
books on a given subject or for a given
grade.
Science textbooks, history textbooks,
social science textbooks are insipid, banal,
bland, middle-of-the-road, diffident, tenuous,
inadequate, fearful. Evolution has been
driven from them. Often there is no mention
of human reproduction at all. History is
skewed. Grammar has been forgotten.
In regard to equal access of creationism
and evolution into the public schools, the
case before the U.S. Supreme Court is
ominous.
Our students for three generations have
wallowed in an abyss of scientific ignorance.
It is criminal that this situation has been
permitted to exist, to fester, to deteriorate
further. The media has refused to inform;
the government has refused to act; parents
have cowered against this outrage. It is
probably too late. With the fervor of the
Fundamentalists and the apathy of the Atheists, our nation has nowhere to go but to a
retreat into the new Dark Ages. The upcoming decision of the bellwether U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of Edwards u. Aguillard
will be the signal for that retreat if it is supportive of the creationists and the State of
Louisiania.
And, the unfortunate situation is that we
have only ourselves to blame. Even today,
even among the Atheist population of our
nation, there is a reluctance to face religion
head on and to thrust it from the seat of
power which it has. The situation is insane.
Atheists should opt out of it by direct and
open confrontation with every religious idea
in the land. There is no one to save our
nation but us. The job is ours. ~
October 1986
Summary
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 23
Most Americans have forgotten the Arkansas evolution battle of the 1960s.
But when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of science in 1968, many thought that was the
end of the battle.
level, there was an upsurge of "fundamentalist" religious fervor. Oklahoma had immediately enacted an antievolution law, but it
was repealed in 1926. The Florida and Texas
legislatures, in the period between 1921 and
1929, adopted resolutions against teaching
the doctrine of evolution. In all, during the
period of the 1920s, antievolution bills were
introduced in the legislatures of twenty
states. Mississippi also had an "antievolutionary" law on its books from 1942. And, in
1928, the state of Arkansas passed an adaptation of the famous Tennessee "monkey
law" of 1925 which had brought on the
Scopes trial, Arkansas' law was adopted by
popular initiative three years after the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in the
Scopes case. I Everyone seems to forget that
the constitutionality of the Tennessee law
was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme
Court. On appeal, Scopes was no longer in
the state's employ, and the Supreme Court
saw "nothing to be gained by prolonging the
life of this bizarre case." It directed that a
nolie proseoui be entered in the interests of
"the peace and dignity of the State." (A nolle
prosequi is a formal entry on the record by
the prosecuting officer by which he declares
that he willnot prosecute the case further.)
During the 1928 Arkansas campaign to
have the law enacted (by public referendum), the following advertisement was run
in the Arkansas Gazette on November 4,
1928 (p. 12, cols. 4-5). It is typical of the
approach taken.
THE BIBLE OR ATHEISM,
WHICH?
AUatheists favor evolution. If you
agree with atheism vote against Act
No. 1. If you agree with the Bible vote
for Act No. 1. ... Shall conscientious
church members be forced to pay
taxes to support teachers to teach
evolution which will undermine the
faith of their children? The Gazette
said Russian Bolshevists laughed at
Tennessee. True, and that sort will
laugh at Arkansas. Who cares? Vote
Page 24
October 1986
American Atheist
cause dismissed.?
By this reversal, of course, the Arkansas
Supreme Court upheld the 1928 antievolution law.
The case was appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, where it was heard on
October 16, 1968, and which rendered a
decision on it on November 12 of that year.
The decision is known as Epperson u.
Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
Basically, the Supreme Court reaffirmed
general state/church separation rhetoric
from a prior decision:"
Neither [a State nor the Federal
government] can pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another.
The decision went on that the test for constitutionality had been stated in another
decision:"
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 25
TENNESSEE, SATAN,
AND ANTIEVOLUTION
n 1973, the creationists were able to have
an antievolution law passed in Tennessee
again. That was translated into statute Chapter 377 of the 1973 Public Acts of Tennessee
to amend Sections 1 and 2 by adding two
paragraphs, below excerpted.
Page 26
gave the
The antecedents
of today's decision are many and unmistakable. They
are rooted in the foundation soil of our
Nation. They are fundamental
to
freedom.
Government
in our democracy,
"
When attempting to apply the third prong
of the Lemon test as to unconstitutionality,
that which requires that any law must not
foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion," the court expressed the
opinion of the judges with some amazement:
Throughout human history the God
of some men has frequently
been
regarded as the Devil incarnate by
men of other religious persuasions.
It
would be utterly impossible for the
Tennessee Textbook Commission to
determine
which religious theories
were "occult" or "satanical" without
seeking to resolve the theological
arguments which have embroiled the
frustrated
theologians
through
the
ages.
The
appellate
court
ordered
the case
October
1986
American
Atheist
~
4Daniel v. Waters, 399 F. Supp. 510 (1975).
A future president, the California Board of Education, and a state judge helped make
a lethal mix for science education in 1981.
A NO-WIN SITUATION
The creationist movement got its first big
political boost in California during the
administration of Governor Ronald Reagan
in the years 1966 to 1974. In 1969, a notably
religious state board of education, with
seven of its ten members appointed by Reagan, voted to accept a statement that creationism was a valid theory for inclusion in
school curricula, although to be taught only
in social science courses. In 1972 the California Board of Education approved a special commission's textbook-content revision
which reduced the concept of evolution
from "dogmatism" to speculation.
The California Board first approved the
teaching of creationism side by side with
evolution. Then after much pressure from
creationist scientists, the board decided
instead to revise biology textbooks to indicate that evolution is only a theory and is no
more verifiable than creationist doctrine.
Since the revision of biology books for
California - those California texts were
used all over the country in their revised
form - publishers, teachers, and biologists
have been battling the "equal time" argument in many states.
From 1979 to 1981 a situation developed
in California which remained very obscure
because of media handling.
Once again the media was too anxious to
equate a scheduled court hearing with the
original Scopes trial. Pre-billed as the California version of the "Monkey Trial," the
media so muddied the waters that from literally scores of media reports it is impossible
to put together a coherent story. Reporters
came from as far away as London, and each
had a axe to grind. On the day that a hearing
in Sacramento began, March 3,1981, spectators could not be accommodated in the
48-seat courtroom, but watched the proceedings on a television monitor in an adjoin-
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 27
Page 28
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
scription of "evolution-science," the terminology of Genesis was used, that god had
created every living thing each "after their
kind."
The evidence introduced at the trial indicated that the creation-science to be taught
had as its carefully unmentioned reference
the first eleven chapters of Genesis. In the
many creation epics of human history, the
Genesis story, the judge thought, was
unique, for it alone has an account of sudden
creation from nothing, creatio ex nihilo, and
the subsequent destruction of the world by
flood.
In this case, as in all other recent attacks
on science education by the Fundamentalists, an attempt was made to tone down a
connection of the law with religion and the
Bible. As currently in American law a doctrine of original intent has been and is being
stressed, it is necessary for legislatures
involved in such religious shenanigans to
hide the real attempt. Often laws have
worked into them disclaimers that they have
been inspired by religious ideology. When
the laws are challenged, the courts at any
level are constrained to discover the "original intent" of the legislative body which
passed the act and to take this into consideration when attempting to analyze if a particular law is or is not constitutional. No one
seems to understand that underlying the
basic premises of democracy is the theory
that the majority actually rules. The current
exercises in deceit seem to be a somewhat
idiotic method of lawmaking and judicial
review since all actions of all legislative
bodies are presumed to be inherently legitimate and in accord with both the basic laws
of the land and the desires of the persons
who elected to office those persons passing
such laws. Legislators now go to some considerable length to hide their real intent
(pandering in exchange for votes), and
courts parade though comic opera trials to
rationalize away criticism of unconstitutional legislative forays into theopolitical mass
controls. This has been particularly evident
in the rash of "prayer" cases concerned with
public schools in the nation. Sometimes the
evidence given has been little less than ludicrous as attempts have been made to hide
the politico-religious incentive for the legislative enactments. The courts recently have
begun to make determinations that legislative "statements of purpose" or legislative
"disclaimers" cannot bind the courts which
may consider instead (1) evidence of the
Page 29
/
.
~'pe
Page 30
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
~--
rC'I:~
October 1986
Page 31
Page 32
October 1986
American Atheist
The public schoolsmay see the end of science as they know it if the Supreme Court
, ", is convinced of the inadequency of evolution. And "experts" have lined up to
do the convincing.
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 33
Page 34
October 1986
presentation of creation-science.
(B) The governor shall designate
seven creation-scientists who shall
provide resource services in the development of curriculum guides to
any city or parish school board upon
request. Each such creation-scientist
shall be designated from among the
full-time faculty members teaching in
any college and university in Louisiana. These creation-scientists shall
serve at the pleasure of the governor
and without compensation.
That no textbooks were available was a
compelling indication that the object of the
act was to influence teachers and administrators from teaching evolution altogether,
rather than to give equal treatment to
creation-science.
The Courts' Say
The district court held that the act was
unconstitutional and enjoined (stopped) its
implementation. It reasoned that the doctrine of creation-science necessarily entailed
teaching the existence of a divine creator,
and the concept of a creator was an inherently religious tenet. Therefore, the court
held that the purpose of the act was to promote religion and that the implementation of
the act would have the effect of establishing
religion, which is prohibited by the First
Amendment.
The case was again appealed to a Fifth
Circuit panel of three judges: John R.
Brown, Henry A. Politz, and E. Grady Jolly.
This panel approached the argument headon, attempting to resolve the question as to
whether or not the act had a secular legislative purpose. It found the act did not and
summarily stated in the first paragraph of its
opinion, written by Jolly and issued on July
8,1985:
We affirm the district court's judgment. In truth, notwithstanding the
supposed complexities of religionversus-state issues and the lively
debates they generate, this particular
case is a simple one, subject to simple
disposal: the Act violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment
because the purpose of the statute is
to promote religion.
The court agreed that individual states
have the right to prescribe the academic
curricula of their public school systems, that
the federal courts must exercise great care
and restraint against intervening in such
state systems, but that the federal courts
must protect against violations of the First
Amendment.
The difficulty inherent in the position of
protecting the concept of state/church sep-
American Atheist
and-
by the mere existence of some secular purpose if it is shown that the legislature's action
was dominated by religious purpose.
The Fifth Circuit then set about to look at
the act itself. But it began with the statement
that "We must recognize that the theory of
creation is a religious belief ... , We must
recognize
that evolution has historically
been offensive to religious fundamentalists
because the theory cannot be reconciled
with the biblical account of the origin of.man.
... Through the years religious fundamentalists have publicly scorned the theory of
evoiution and worked to discredit it."
To determine legislative purpose in this
case - that is, the "original intent" of the
lawmakers - it was necessary to inspect the
historical context of the act and the sequence of events leading to its passage. The
stated purpose of the statute under inspection was to "protect academic freedom."
Academic freedom embodies the principle
that individual instructors
are at liberty to
teach that which they deem to be appropriate in the exercise of their professional
judgment.
The Balanced Treatment
Act
,
r
'
Austin, Texas
October
1986
Page 35
Page 36
October 1986
American Atheist
(2) There are technical, procedural reasons which must be considered in making a
decision.
With its request for review, Louisiana
included five "uncontroverted" affidavits
from the record of the case, two of which
were from theologians, two from scientists,
and one from an educator - about which,
more later.
As viewed from the standpoint of the educators who were challenging the act, the
single question placed before the highest
court in the land was:
Whether the Court of Appeals
properly struck down a Louisiana
Balanced Treatment law as violating
the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment when incontrovertible
facts, including the plain language of
the statute, its legislative history, and
the historical background from which
it emanated, all demonstrated that the
purpose of the statute was to promote
a religious belief.
The educators-parents-scientists-taxpayers were so certain that they would prevail in
the U.S. Supreme Court that they simply
filed a Motion to Affirm what the Fifth Circuit had already decided: that the act was
unconstitutional. In an offhand statement
they noted merely:
The state's affidavits did not raise
genuine issues of fact with regard to
the genuine legal issues in this case.
No number of after-the-fact affidavits
from "experts," none of whom is, or
was, a member of the Louisiana legislature, can change the basic facts.
Those facts - the iaw itself, its plain
language, its legislative history, the
social facts surrounding "creationscience" - are not open to dispute.
The Motion to Affirm was filed on April 14,
1986. In a stunning defeat, the Supreme
Court refused that motion when two weeks
later it granted review. The Louisiana battle
was to be heard formally, and in full, in front
of the Court. The case as it came to the
United States Supreme Court was titled
Edwards u, Aguillard, since Edwin W.
Edwards had replaced David Treen as governor of Louisiana.
Reasons For Review
Austin, Texas
October 1986
At this point, given the theopolitical climate of the United States in early 1986, the
educators-parents-scientists-taxpayers
in
the case should have perhaps attempted to
analyze, even refute, in a succinct way what
was offered to the Supreme Court justices.
Kenyon's affidavit statement is cleverly
constructed to be disingenious. The act
focuses on "equal treatment" for "equal
theories," and whoever fashioned the statement concept for Kenyon used this as a
pattern throughout. There is no derogatory
treatment of evolution, as often is the case
with the fundamentalist theists. Evolution
theory is artfully handled in a friendly, understanding way. Creation-science is also carefuliytypified as a theory. Kenyon, as a distinguished scholar of the subject, emphasizes
that what he respectfully submits is only his
"professional opinion." At no time in his affidavit does he characterize creation-science
as a product of religious thinking, but
approaches it only from a nonreligious point
of view: "Presentation of alternate scientific
explanations has educational benefit, and
balanced presentation of creation-science
and evolution does exactly that."
He goes to explanations of both.
Creation-science
means origin
through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological
creation, biochemical creation (or
chemical creation) and cosmic creation. . . . Creation-science does not
include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a worldwide
flood, a recent inception of the earth
or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo),
the concept of kinds, or any concepts
from Genesis or other religious texts.
Evolution-science is equivalent to
evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some
would disagree) to include biological
evolution (or organic evolution) from
simple life to all plants and animals,
biochemical evolution (or chemical
evolution or pre biotic evolution of the
first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe).
There! Isn't that nice: clear, unbiased,
open, intellectual. The only difficulty is thai
Page 37
Page 38
October 1986
American Atheist
r:txv'f FRET
JUST
REPLN. THEM" .
Austin, Texas
words.
Miethe explains that creation-science refers to the abrupt appearance in complex
form of biological life,lifeitself, and the physical universe. Now, this has changed content, he says, over the past decade and is
different from the religious views of creation
that prevailed over the last centuries although it is strikingly similar to the scientific arguments raised by Agassiz a century
ago, Pasteur just before that, and Newton
several centuries ago.
Here, again, are revered names:
(Jean) Louis (Rodolphe) Agassiz, (18071873) American (Swiss born) naturalist;
Louis Pasteur, (1822-1895) French chemist;
Sir Isaac Newton, (1642-1727) English
mathematician and physicist.
There is a neglect to say that these were
men just breaking free of the domination of
total cultures by militant Judeo-Christianity,
which had reduced the Western world to the
Dark Ages, times of the most gross superstition, inquisitions, crusades, and religious
wars which had lasted for well over a thousand years. None of these men, in their
entire lives, had access to as much scientific
information as any youth now has in a high
school in the United States. Any criticism of
the church, or the basic tenets of JudeoChristianity, could have brought total repudiation of their works, and for themselves
ostracism from any academic community. In
addition, Darwin had first published his
work, On The Origin of Species, in 1859,and
Newton, particularly, who had died 132
years before it was published, cannot be said
to have opposed it.
.
Evolution-science is, this first of the
Roman Catholic theologians, Terry L.
Miethe, states in his affidavit, generally
termed evolution. Evolution includes not
only fish to fowl, reptile to mammal to man,
but also includes the origin of the first life
October 1986
(biochemical or chemical or pre biotic evolution) and the origin of the universe (cosmic
or stellar or solar evolution).
The theory, here used by Miethe, is that if
one repeats a lie often enough the general
public will accept it.
Creation-science, nowadays, he claims,
consists of scientific data and interpretations in the fields of paleontology, molecular
biology, anatomy, biochemistry, thermodynamics. It does not serve as an equivalent to
any religious doctrine of origin such as the
Genesis account.
The originator of the bill in the Louisiana
state legislature, (then Senator) Bill Keith;
the man who provided the prototype of the
act to the senator, Paul Ellwanger of the
Citizens for Fairness in Education; and the
Scientific Creation Institute, would be in
complete disagreement with this statement.
Once this far on the threshold of the U.S.
Supreme Court, however,the idea is to win
so that the pissants at the local school board
level can move Genesis into the schools,
once the way is gained by the scientists and
theologians who toady to the dominant
church.
Not alone is creation-science not both
Genesis and god, science is not really
science. Miethe continues: "There is no
definition of science on which philosophers
of science are agreed ....
"This insistence on natural law as prerequisite to science ... " is not acceptable to this
theologian. This is simply stunning. Allthere
is - is nature governed by natural laws. We
know nothing beyond nature. We have
never known, nor can we know, what is
beyond nature: Yet, he wants to deal with
something "outside of nature, outside of
natural laws," and he does not want to have
this recognized as the fantasy of religion. It
boggles the mind.
He is quite incensed over the definition of
science given in the Arkansas case of
Page 39
The concept of creation is not inherently religious and is nonreligious when defined as abrupt
appearance in complex form. The concept of a
creator is also not inherently religious. . . .
- William G. Most
Page 40
In his opinion, therefore, both creationscience and evolution-science are consistent with ancient and modern religions and
with various religious beliefs, both include
scientists with religious motives, both include scientist advocates with religious publications and activities, both involve nontestable and nonfalsifiable aspects that require
"scientific faith," and both involve concepts
of teleology. IS
In addition, Miethe does not care for the
definition of "fundamentalism" which has
been given:
An academically acceptable definition of Fundamentalism would require
not-just belief in inerrancy of scripture
but also ecclesiastical separatism,
moral separatism, pre-millenia! views
of prophecy, dispensational view of
theology, active evangelism, opposition of non- Evangelicalism, and the
charismatic movement, insistence on
private religious education, and political conservatism, as well as possibly
other elements.
What would a justice on the U.S. Suo
preme Court think when faced with such a .
statement? He may even think that it is true.
Such a sophisticated laundry list of what is
or what is not acceptable to fundamentalist
Christianity is a product of Jesuitical thinking, and it is doubtful ifknown Fundamentalists such as Swaggart, Falwell, Robertson,
La Haye, etc., would recognize themselves
in the definition.
The attack, however, has hardly begun.
Who is pushing what? The pure- minded
creation-scientists are hardly to blame at
this juncture. The bad guys in the black hats
who have mounted lobbying programs
against truth, justice, the Bible, god, and the
American way are the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way,
Committees on Correspondence, the American Humanist Association, the American
Association for the Advancement of Sci-
October 1986
American Atheist
Darwin says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have
been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory
would absolutely break down." ...
An animal - particularly the human animal - is a beautiful example
of a carefully contrived and subtly
engineered design. The word "design"
comes naturally even in evolutionist
books. The Designer must know infinitely more science than we shall ever
know. He started off with a few simple
examples and, learning from them,
introduced new and improved species. He gradually incorporated new
properties, imagination and free will
being the latest ones. He is probably
learning that these are not enough,
since they seem to cultivate a propensity to self-destruction.
What's Ahead?
19"APhysicist Look~ at Evolution,"from 31
Physics Bulletin 138 (1980).
r~~~
.~rk
.:
0.
DIAL~+ATHEIST
The telephone listings below are the various services where you may listen to short comments on state/church separation
issues and viewpoints originated by the Atheist community.
Tucson, Arizona
Atheist Hotline
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
Doubting Believers Anonymous
South Bay (San Jose), California
God Speaks
Denver, Colorado
Greater District of Columbia
South Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Northern Ulinois
Lexington, Kentucky
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan
Austin, Texas
(602) 623-3861
(602) 624-1079
(619) 465-8701
(415) 668-8085
(415) 751-8752
(408) 377-8485
(408) 257-1486
(303) 692-9395
(703) 280-4321
(305) 474-6728
(404) 662-6606
(312) 506-9200
(606) 278-8333
(617) 969-2682
(313) 721-6630
(612) 566-3653
(201) 777-0766
(505) 884-7360
(914) 338-0162
(718) 392-0556
(518) 346-1479
(614) 294-0300
(503) 771-6208
(215) 533-1620
(412) 734-0509
Austin, Texas
(512) 458-5731
DIAL-THE-ATHEIST__
Houston, Texas
Outspoken Voice of Freedom
Salt Lake City, Utah
October 1986
(713) 522-5964
(713) 527-9255
(801) 364-4939
Page 41
If you were a Supreme Court justice and you were told by an articulate, respectable
scientist that the theory of evolution was just as good as the "theory" of creation, how would
you rule? That's just the question at hand.
KENYON'S CONTENTIONS
he State of Louisiana, in its appeal to
T
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
case of Edward v. Aguillard relied on five
affidavits which it submitted with its appeal.
All five affidavits are discussed in "Making a
Monkey Out of the U.S. Supreme Court."
But the most compelling of those five was
that of Dean H. Kenyon. Because his affidavit may have had the most effect on the
justices, a fuller discussion of it is given here.
Summaries of Kenyon's contentions appear
in italics; we have of course taken the opportunity to rebut them.
Leading scientists of Europe and the United States were creationist scientists and
they defended their views with scientific evidence and arguments (Sir Richard Owen,
Baron Georges Cuvier, Louis Agassiz)
before the publication of Darwin's naturalist
views in On the Origin of Species.
There is no mention given of what a sorry
state "science" was in at the time "prior to
1859" because of the hostility of the predominant Judeo-Christianity of that era; the
many battles which the scientific community
had to fight in order to have its ideas
accepted at all; the need for any person to
embrace religion in order to achieve publication of his works.
Paleontological Considerations
In regard to the "problem" of macroevolution, fossils are the only direct evidence as to whether or not macroevolution
actually happened. In order to prove that
there have been changes it is necessary to
show "transitional forms" in fossils. Darwin
and Huxley were well aware that there
were none:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain, and this is
perhaps the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged
against my theory. The explanation
lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record. (On the
Origin of Species, p. 280)
Kenyon goes on that Darwin "went to
great lengths" to explain why he thought the
fossil record was highly fragmentary and
incomplete. The "earlier" Darwinians expected the gaps to be filled in future paleontological work.
Adequacy Of The Fossil Record
Page 42
They were all, however, bound to disappointment for the next 120 years of paleontological research have not provided any
"missing links." There are now 250,000 fossil
October 1986
of the Upper
American Atheist
species, which may represent at least 1 percent of all the species that ever lived. Some
paleontologists consider this fossil record to
be reasonably complete. Therefore, either
macroevolution did not occur or it has left
no direct evidence.
Living organisms are biodegradable. It is
usually only in most unusual circumstances
that any remains, much less fossils, are
found. In addition, most of the fossil remains
found have not been studied and classified.
Archaeopteryx
As Best Link
The evolutionists state that the archaeopteryx demonstrates the macroevolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. However, fossil forms of archaepteryx had
(asymmetric rachis of primary flight) feathers and no fossil forms of reptiles show
beginnings of feathers.
Since there is hardly a complete record of
reptilian forms this is a specious argument.
Punctuated
Equilibrium
Austin, Texas
Comparative
Biochemical Considerations
Recent comparative studies of proteins
and nucleic acids, amino acid sequence
data for the protein, cytochrome c, molecular information, and nucleotide sequences in DNA yield phylogenetic (i.e.
molecular) trees which are broadly consistent with those based on comparative
anatomy. "But there are some impressive
anomalies."
We, and the justices of the Supreme
Court, are left in the dark as to what these
"impressive anomalies" might be. But, it
sounds wondrously mysterious, especially
from a scientist whom Oparin respects.
Other Considerations
Not all scientists agree on all aspects of
evolution.
Scientific creationists deny macroevolution and attempt to find scientific evidence
"to undermine" it. None of the evidence is
cited. In regard to absolute agreement of
scientists on evolution, or other theories in
any scientific fields, the retesting of initial
theories is extremely important. That this
healthy skepticism exists, that all theories
are constantly challenged, is a plus in the
scientific method rather than an error.
Conclusion
"Biological evolution is not compelling,
and infact is less scientifically plausible than
biological creation."
This is a statement unsupported by either
argument, logic, or facts.
Kenyon next considers "biological creation" as opposed to "biological evolution."
This, in the professional opinion of Kenyon, is supported by "affirmative scientific
evidence" and scientific interpretations
thereof.
He neglects to state that in the professional opinion of literally thousands of other
scientists, it is not supported by affirmative
evidence either scientific or fanciful.
Paleontological (Fossil)
Considerations
Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould
is quoted as having stated, "The extreme
rarity of transition forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
We now have "vastly more fossils" species than were known in Darwin's day and
the gaps have not been filled. There are
fossil forms found which apparently remain
essentially unchanged for millions of years
and then disappear. This supports creationscience.
Here again Kenyon reaches out to a scien-
October 1986
Page 43
Page 44
The Haldane-Oparin
Hypothesis
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
At this point Kenyon goes into an extensive non sequitur. Having introduced the
Haldane-Oparin hypothesis, its support by
the Miller experiments, and indications of
his inability to upset the hypothesis, he
charges full ahead with a statement that
there might have been a problem in the
primeval age of "potentially interfering
cross-reactions" as inorganic was turned to
organic in the primitive soup. He whines
(the only applicable word) that this problem
has been largely neglected in much of the
published work on the chemical origins of
life. He then concludes that "the possibility
of . . . laboratory simulation of chemical
events likely to have occurred on the primitive earth is extremely remote."
One can only ask, then why did he bring it
up? It was a red herring so that he could use
confabulation to impress the lay readers of
his affidavit. In addition, he puts himself in a
posture of being assisted in his theoretics by
Haldane, Oparin, and Miller. The uninitiated
would have a difficult time unraveling his
sophistry.
(4) Problem of Origin of Information
Content.
Kenyon continues that from all of the
above he has had personal "growing
doubts" concerned with life on earth having
begun by purely chemical and physical
means. The "naturalistic" origin of life has
not been demonstrated to him. He is, however, open to acceptance of the theory that
"god did it," by spontaneous creation.
Nature could not; god could. And, that is the
summation of his argument. How god could
manage allof this out of nothing when nature
at least had random chance and primitive
soup is not explained.
Feeling he has cleverly destroyed the ideas
of biochemical evolution he turns to the theory he desires to advance:
Biochemical Creation
Again, on the theory that the bigger the lie
the more quickly it will be received and
accepted he states uncategorically that:
The creation-science theory of the origin
of life is based on a detailed analysis of
laboratory information from molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, the
simulation experiments on chemical evolution, as well as relevant aspects of physics,
geology, astrophysics, probability and information theory.
He, himself, or the theorists he follows,
have put forth no information from any of
these disciplines! These are the fields in
which true scientists labor. This is, however,
only the beginning. He goes on from this
relatively mild (for him) false statement to
discuss what he labels "information content."
At the heart of the molecular activity of all
October 1986
living cells is the genetic coding and proteinsynthesizing machinery which stores and
translates biologic information: the DNA.
Whence the DNA? His answer is that there
is no experimental evidence now to tell us
how these formed then.
Scientists have postulated that DNA
formed abiotic ally in the primitive soup or
that prebiotic DNA contained the biologic
information. Rather than accepting the uncertain, attempting to speculate theoretically with information at hand, he can only
accept the god solution. Casting back in
one's imagination, one can see god sitting on
a cloud stringing together - from nothing at
all - the proteins and the aminoacylsynthetases needed to link the amino acids to
their respective transfer RNA molecules.
Kenyon reverts next to the old, old religious argument of analogy. All of the words
on the page that the justices of the U.S.
Supreme Court are reading did not get
there by chance.
On the contrary, we know that the pattern
of ink markings on the page you are reading
was impressed on the ink by the printing
device. Preexisting, intelligently designed
type was intelligently arranged to form the
text. The information was impressed on the
matter from the "outside."
And, we are back to god, again. It all
requires "intelligent design and engineering
knowhow [sic]." God had it all: "the characteristic order of the system must be
impressed on matter from the outside" by
that great outsider - god.
Another standard religious reply is that of
probability.
Kenyon calls upon this also, casting back
to Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe and their Evolution from Space (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1981).
These authors argue that the probability
of the "spontaneous" origin of living matter
can be no greater than one chance in 10 to
the 40,000 power "and is probably lower."
Therefore, they conclude, the origin of life
must have required an intelligence of some
kind which was the source of the original
biologic information. This intelligence designed the enzymes and other molecules of
the living cell.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe further maintain that this preformed genetic material
had "an extraterrestrial source."
God did it ail, carefully, as he peered
through his electronic microscope, sitting
on a cloud out in the far, far universe.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that
one wonders why it is not widely accepted
as being self-evident, Kenyon remarks:
Obviously, in their view, one's reasoning about the origin of the first life
Page 45
Will science go under down under as well as in the U.S.? It seems that Australian universities
are also contaminated with creationism if this article from the Australian Post- Times of
August 8, 1986, is an example.
A CREATIONIST UPSETS
THE EVOLUTIONISTS AT LA TROBE
dvocating creation rather than evoA lution
has made La Trobe University
senior lecturer, Dr. Charles Pallagy, something of an outcast among his colleagues.
But he feels his stand is paying off.
Dr. Pallaghy is a cheerful and pleasant man
who would probably fit in at the university's
biological sciences school with no fuss but for his belief that God created life.
More particularly, it is his outspoken
stance on the topic that has put him offside
with other staff on philosophical or scientific
grounds if nothing else.
"I have lost most of my scientific friends,
because they don't really want to be associated in public with me," Dr. Pallaghy
says. "But it's paying off after many years of
effort."
Dr. Pallaghy says many opposing the creation theory have told him he has been of
real value to them because they have always
been teaching evolution without ever investigating it themselves.
He is not yet satisfied. He and other "creationist" lecturers at Australian universities
have been forbidden to criticise the theory of
evolution in lectures or to mention creation.
"Well, the university tries to present education on a very broad base to encourage
Page 46
October 1986
absolutely from the creationist views expressed by Dr. Pallaghy in Nature and elsewhere ....
"We wish it to be placed on record that Dr.
Pallaghy's creationist pronouncements are
strictly his own personal opinions and are
not part of our school's curricula."
Dr. Pallaghy is convinced the public has
been hugely deceived and misled about the
origin of lifeand believes God wants him and
others to put the "true" position.
But surely creation has been shown to be
at loggerheads with science?
Not according to Dr. Pallaghy, who believes the Bible and science are in agreement.
He joined the university in 1971 as a plant
biologist and through research began to
believe that life is all its complexity could not
have arisen by chance.
Dr. Pallaghy decided there must be a God
and "started talking to this unknown God
each night."
Dr. Pallaghy came to believe in the Bible
and became a Christian in 1975.
Believing in God had a devastating effect
on his research for a couple of years.
"I had always prided myself that as a scientist Iwas here to explore and discover things
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
Educational Merit
~
Flaws in the theory of evolution cannot be
overcome, Dr. Charles Pallaghy believes.
He says one flaw concerns the origin of life
and the belief that living things will only
come from other living things.
"Evolutionists claim that they know the
origin of life but they don't, because each
experiment only shows up more problems,"
Dr. Pallaghy says.
The famous Uri-Miller experiments were
supposed to have synthesised molecules
which could lead to proteins and nucleic
acids.
"But what they don't say is that they have
only managed to synthesise a few of the
components - and that's a long step from
an organised code (in cells) like DNA."
Another "flaw" was that people claimed
they could artificially synthesise segments
of DNA which could be inserted into organisms and still function.
"So they say this proves that life can be
actually synthesised from just ordinary
chemicals.
"But what they never say or point out is
that in order to make this DNA and some of
the other components, they have to extract
October 1986
Page 47
A response to the creationists down under by American Atheists member Ian Bock as it
.
appeared in the July 15, 1986, Post- Times -
Page 48
October 1986
American Atheist
BLASPHEMY!
n1886, C. B. Reynolds was tried in
IMorristown,
New Jersey, for blasphemy; Robert G. Ingersoll, the "Great Ag-
PART I
Austin,Texas
October 1986
Page 49
August 7, 1886
Reynolds Arrested For Blasphemy.
When C. B. Reynolds pulled up the stakes
of his tent and left Cayuga county, N.Y., to
fulfill an engagement in New Jersey, he
wrote "I go to Boonton, N.J., cheered and
encouraged by the good success at Montezuma." He willhardly say the same when he
takes the remains of his canvas tabernacle
out of Boonton. The tent has been wrecked
by Catholi'c and Methodist roughs, the lecturer mobbed and arrested on a charge of
blasphemy.
Owing to a week's delay on the part of the
railroad, the tent was not pitched in Boonton
until Monday, July 26th. When the lecturer
stepped upon the platform that evening he
faced a fair-sized audience. The Booth family, five ladies and two gentlemen, sang an
introductory song, and Mr. Reynolds delivered his lecture. He also distributed some
seventy-five copies of The Truth Seeker, giving the latter only to those who asked for
them. There was little more that evening
than premonitions of coming trouble, in the
form of stones thrown upon the roof of the
tent, and one rope broken.
Tuesday night the tent was full, and outside was a howling mob of some two hundred
and fifty roughs, led and urged on by a pillar
of the church holding the position of section
boss on the railroad at Boonton. Another
ringleader was one William Brown, a coal
merchant. Mr. Reynolds, accompanying the
ladies of the Booth family, made his way,
with some difficulty, through the crowd, and
mounted the platform. The mob howled,
and threw stones at the tent. It speaks well
for the courage of the young ladies of the
choir that, in the face or this demonstration,
they arose and calmly sang the songs which
had been selected for the occasion. The lecturer then attempted to address the audience, but could scarcely make himself heard.
As the crowd grew more rabid and noisy,
the lecture was shortened, and the exercises
closed with a song. The continuance of the
meetings was announced from the platform.
Then the tent was cleared of the rabble.
Upon examination, it was found that two of
the smaller guy ropes holding the center
pole in position had been cut. Had the main
guy been severed the pole would have fallen,
and loss of life must have resulted. The lecturer did picket duty until midnight, dodging
an occasional stone that came through the
air from the hand of some friend of Christianity.
Wednesday morning the air was full of
threats against the Secular lecturer. Mr.
Reynolds, knowing the names of the leaders
of the mob of the previous evening, went
before a justice and entered complaint
against them. The justice was apparently
somewhat bewildered by this move. He so
far forgot his plain duty that, instead of issu-
Page 50
October 1986
American Atheist
indictment reads:
State of New Jersey, SS.
Morris Co.
Wm. Brown, of said county, on his
oath saith that on the evening of July
27, 1886, he was at a public meeting
held in a large tent for that purpose
situate on the westerly side of Washington street, Boonton, N.J., and was
addressed by one C. B. Reynolds; and
said Reynolds publicly blasphemed
the holy name of God by denying and
contumaciously reproaching the being
and existence of God and of the scriptures as contained in the books of the
Old and New Testament by speaking
of man in [sic] "being made of the
dust" and saying that used the dust up
so he put man to sleep and took a rib
out of him and made woman and
remarked in a ridiculous manner (who
believes such nonsense) and spoke of
the Bible saying of birds and fish were
made out of water and said the Bible
spoke in another chapter of the same
animals being made of clay and remarked (who believes such nonsense)
trying to prove the scripture false and
making fun of and ridiculing the Bible
and diverse other remarks, therefore
the deponent prays that said Reynolds may be arrested and dealt with
according to law.
William Brown.
Sworn and subscribed 28th day of
July, 1886, before me, John A.
Van Orden, Justice of the Peace.
To enable the reader to reach the gist of
this remarkable document without the labor
of analyzing it, the charges against Mr. Reynolds may be enumerated as follows:
1. He addressed Brown in a large tent for
that purpose.
2. Blasphemed the holy name of God.
3. Denied and "contumaciously
reproached" the being and existence of God
and the Bible.
4. Spoke of man as being made of dust.
5. Said "that used the dust all up."
6. Put man to sleep.
7. Took a rib out of him and made woman.
8. Remarked in a ridiculous manner.
9. Ridiculed the Bible and diverse other
remarks.
The examination was held in the ballroom
of the United States Hotel, and the room
was crowded. At the head of the justice's
table sat Mr. Van Orden, locally known as
"Old Tootyache," once noted for possessing
all qualities but virtue, but now a stanch
Methodist; next to him sat Mr. Garrison, the
editor of the Boonton weekly Bulletin, a
deacon in the Methodist church, upon
whose cheek is a perennial color akin to the
bloom of peaches. Opposite the justice was
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 51
Page 52
October 1986
American Atheist
At The Universities
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 17
October 1986
American Atheist
A~~r
~~~r
1987
of
't
Austin, Texas
~~~p
~merican Atheists
Conven tion
Denver, CO
April 17-19
arrange-
October 1986
Page 55
Page 56
October 1986
American Atheist
3Since I have not had access to the cuneiform records, I have had to draw upon the
work of S. R. Driver mentioned above.
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 57
Page 58
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 59
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 59
Page 60
A Girl Is Born
The prejudice against females begins at
birth. The girl child is a burden destined to
drain her family's resources at marriage.
The birth of a son is a matter for jubilation
and distribution of sweets. The girl baby's
arrival is greeted with gloom, and the mother
herself is assailed by feelings of personal
failure.
During the past two years a small feminist
group has been touring districts in this state
of Maharastra staging a play called Mulghi
Zhali Ho (A Girl is Born). The response it
received from village women has astonished
the group. Every show was packed, and posters and booklets sold out. Village schoolgirls
were its most avid supporters. But the
regional press reflected the traditional male
bias against feminist activities. It denounced
the group as anti-men, anti-children, westernized (meaning degenerate!), and a jeanclad bunch given to smoking, drinking, and
promiscuity. (A lack of virtue is the most
serious character defect an Indian woman
can have!)
As long as the excessive prejudice against
females remains rooted in traditions inspired
by religion, not much willchange. A young
American sociologist, married to an Indian
trade unionist and settled in western Maharastra, told me how upper-class feminists
she had worked with in Bombay were once
unprepared to accept this premise. Now,
ten years later, many realize that religion
must change - or go.
In a patrilineal society such as ours it is
obligatory to have sons for purposes of
inheritance. In many families they are potential wage-earners and will bring wealth by
October 1986
American Atheist
POETRY
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 61
Page 62
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 63
HISTORICAL NOTES
Page 64
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
October 1986
Page 65
Page 66
October 1986
American Atheist
Austin, Texas
"Another
October 1986
Page 67
Page 68
October 1986
American Atheist
ME TOO
"Me Too" is a feature designed to
showcase short essays written by readers in response to topics recently covered by the American Atheist or of
general interest to the Atheist community.
Essays submitted to "Me Too" (P.O.
Box 2117, Austin, TX 78768-2117)
should be 700 to 900 words long.
acknowledge that I myself
FirstonceI must
belonged to one of the more or
Austin, Texas
FlhriOiE
October, 1986
Reactions To Weddings
Page 70
October 1986
A Response To A Reader
Having just read Edward Piers' letter to
the editor in the June issue, I feel compelled
to respond.
Mr. Piers evidently considers himself an
Atheist, since he refers to others as "theists." I am astonished by his lack of understanding of the term "Atheist." As most of us
know, an Atheist does not believe in any
kind of supreme being. Benevolent or cruel,
self-sustaining or vampiric, physical or intangible; it does not matter. Ifyou attribute a
supreme being with any philosophy or existence, you are a theist.
Mr. Piers, you are a theist; a complete,
absolute, and unadulterated theist.
IfMr. Piers' references to "juices" (mental
and/or physical) and "scientific thought"
were not so ludicrous, they would be amusing. I presume he also reads his horoscope
and has his palm read daily!
Mark Spencer
Maryland
American Atheist
Amazed
On the Ted Koppell show the other night,
they did a report about the drought cur
rently overtaking some of our southeastern
states.
Some woman in Georgia (l think) said the
followingambiguous statement:
"I go to church every day to pray for rain.
If it wasn't for God, I don't know what I'd
do. "
I'm constantly amazed at the ignorance of
most people.
Bob Glenn
Florida
Arms Race
My kingdom - alas - for a crew of
U SA. leaders in positions of power, authority, responsibility, and decision-making with
the intelligence, logic, reasoning ability, and
Atheistic mind-set of Mr. Brian Lynch,
author of your two-part series, "Arms
Race," in the May and June 1986 American
Atheist.
I concur with Lynch one hundred percent
because he's right on all counts. I respect
and admire - and envy! - such a mind. I
Austin, Texas
would vote for him for U.S. president even a world president.
Ifyou should ever reprint his" Arms Race"
in tract form, I'd like to order 1,000 copies to
include in all my outgoing mail.
Andy Vena
Pennsylvania
No Porn, Please
Iam appalled at your article on pornography which more or less hailed Penthouse
publisher Bob Guccione as a hero. Since
one of the main defenses of Atheism is that
people can - and must - behave ethically
without religion, I would like to point out to
you that Bob Guccione is one of the least
ethical individuals in existence. The material
in his publication bears little resemblance to
normal, natural human sexuality. As an
example, he published an issue that contained sadistic pictures of an Asian woman
being tortured. Soon after publication, an
8-year-oid Chinese girl was found raped and
murdered by methods very similar to those
shown in the Penthouse feature. Guccione's
handling of the Vanessa Williams case
revealed his true motivation - pure greed
and self-glorification, untempered by any
ethical concern for the person involved.
Yes, pornography does hurt women, and
there is ample evidence of it. What about my
feelings when I walk into a 7-11 and am confronted by a picture of a woman with a meat
stamp on her bare buttocks? What about
my daughters, who are forced to look at it
and to deal with boys and men who have
been influenced by it? Boys who continually,
day after day, year after year, are bombarded by images of women presented as
pieces of meat are affected in their attitudes
and behavior toward women. Rape, sexual
Atheism:
the 'show-me state of mind
Atheists hardly take anything for granted, even if it's in their own
magazine, the American Atheist.
So if you have a question; objection, projection, speculation,
comment, or critique, don't just say it to yourself. Say it in the American Atheist. Write a letter to the editor. Or compose a short essay for
"Me Too." Or, if something puzzles you, send a note to "Ask AA"
Remember, the American A (heist can't be the voice of all Atheists
unless you add your voice too!
October 1986
Page 71
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENTS
Classified Rates: 25<rper word, $6.00 minimum. No boxes available.
Frequency Discount: (For classified) 10%
for three insertions, .20%for six.
Payment: Classified ads must be paid in
advance.
Publication policies: The American Atheist reserves the right to reject or cancel any
advertisement at any time for any reason.
No advocacy advertising will be accepted.
Samples of products may be requested.
Tear sheets of ads willbe sent to all clients.
We require street addresses for all advertisers using box numbers.
Organizations
American Atheist Addiction Recovery
Groups, Inc.: America's only alternative to
AA faith healing. Publishers of the world's
only monthly newsletter for Atheist alcoholics and other addicts and their families and
friends. Membership/subscription:
12 issues/$25. Sample/25<r. AAARG!, P.O. Box
6120, Denver, CO 80206-0120.
1&p1
American Gay Atheists - AGA membership is restricted to Atheists and only Atheists. Membership rates set at $15/year.
Write: P.O. Box 66711, Houston, TX 77266,
or P.O. Box 248, Vlg. Sta., NYC, NY 10014.
Outspoken Voice of Freedom: (713)527-9255.
Products
Publications
State/church
separation as interpreted
by the U.S. Supreme Court is fully shown in
Fourteen Leading Cases on Education, Religion, and Financing Schools. This 689-page
paperback contains the fulldecisions by the
Supreme Court on some of the landmark
cases in this area of constitutional concern.
Murray v. Curlett, the case that removed
mandatory prayer in public schools, is included. $6.00 postpaid. Write for product
5500, A.A.P., P.O. Box 2117, Austin, TX
78768.
Atheist Anarchists will be interested in
The Match, called "The Apex of Atheistic
Anarchism." Available at the astonishingly
low price of only $6/year. Write: The Match,
P.O. Box 3488, Tucson, AZ 85722.
READER SERVICE
(please print)
City
State
_
'.,...-,
Zip
*By taking advantage of this special gift subscription offer, you save
$5.00. You may send the American Atheist magazine to anyone in the U.S.
for $20.00 for a period of one year. (For orders outside of the U.S. add $5.00
for postaqe.)
TO SUBSCRIBE TO AMERICAN
A THEIST MAGAZINE OR TO RENEW
YOUR PRESENT SUBSCRIPTION!
(Please print)
City
Zip-
1 year subscription
Page 72
o Life, $500
o Couple Life**, $750
o Sustaining, $l00/year
o Couple**/Family, $50/year
o Individual, $40/year
_
_
City
State
_
Zip,
Bank Code
Signature
State
Spouse or Partner
Address
Enter your name and address (or attach your old magazine
label) here:
Name
Address
Date
October 1986
Exp. Date
_
_
_
American Atheist
o Yes, Iwant
o
I am
$__
o Charge my
credit card:
o Visa
Name
Address
City
Expiration date
State
________
0 MasterCard
Zip
Signature
---'-
_
_
~-----------(5364)
AMENDMENTI
CONGRESS
SHALL
:z
..
u.l
LM
en
-l
CO
-l
u.l
-:r:
ren
VJ.
VJ.
o
t>-l
~
LM
-l
CO
o
'Tl
Ie'
<
u.l
m
r-
u.l
c,
-l
c,
o
u.l
c,
~
::r::
t~
o
t-
::r::
c
0:::
u.l
::r::
t-
o:::
o
VJ.
VJ.
u.l
0:::
-z
a
o
u.l
It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion
that creationism, with its accounts of the
origm of life by supernatural means, is not
science.
Science and Creationism
National Academy Press (1984)
o
Ie'
""0
Ie'
::r::
-~
-a
-l
-l
:r:
m
'Tl
Ie'
m
m
m
~
c,
u.l
::r::
t-
Ie'
en
tT1