My apologies for the delay in getting this out there. I modified this Capstone Paper I wrote for college somewhere around May of 2013 so the info maybe dated some but if anything is different it is definitely not for the better, be sure of that. I wrote the paper itself in November of 2002.
When I wrote the paper back in '02 Kent Hovind returned a call to me in order to help me with advice as to how to handle the situation with creating and delivering the paper as it was not going to go over well. I give much thanks to Kent's gracious assistance on this and more importantly I give all glory to Jesus!
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Further below is a paper I wrote regarding the question ‘should Creation Science be taught in public schools’. It was the final requirement for my degree at a Catholic university (St. Edwards University, Austin, Texas). The purpose of the paper for the school was for me to demonstrate my ability to think critically and that purely at a natural or atheistic level when addressing moral issues in society.
The professor for the class was a professed liberal as was his wife, who was a professor for one of my other classes. I later discovered through conversations with him that he had actually read this paper to his wife. His final comment on this paper was that he felt my argument was “cohesive” and that he could not argue against my position but that he still completely disagreed with my conclusion. Despite this he was very fair in giving the work an ‘A’.
I thought I was being severely hamstrung when I learned of the restrictions placed on writing the paper. The class was instructed to take a moral issue in society and define both sides of the argument. Then we were to pick a side and defend it but our arsenal was limited to only the secular ethical theories developed by men such as Kant. We were restricted from the usage of religious writings and arguments to defend our positions. The Bible was singled out as an example as to what we were not allowed to use.
As I concluded my paper I realized that is was quite simple to use secular man’s so-called ethical theories to demonstrate the flaws in the reasoning (so-called logic) that were used to develop the public policies regarding the teaching of Creation Science in public schools. But my discovery, at the completion of this work, was that I was asking the wrong question. The right question is “Should there be Public Schools? Or any schools at all”
My wife and I have been home schooling our children for many years now and we thank the Lord that he has allowed us to do so.
Needless to say, I was relieved with the grade I received but I was amazed at the same time to see a man willfully reject the obvious right answers. This is a clear demonstration of what Peter stated in 2 Peter 3:5 that people would be “willingly ignorant” when it came to things regarding the creation and the flood.
Please bear with the lack of scriptures used in the paper itself but read it to see the faultiness of the world’s logic. The premises set forth by the instructor in his requirements to write this paper were based upon evolutionary presuppositional thinking or, in other words, an evolutionary world view in that only “natural” or “man derived” sources and conclusions could be used and sought for in dealing with this moral dilemma.
I will provide the paper in its original form and then provide a clearly modified conclusion without restraints as in reality not all sources possible (IE. The Bible) were allowed to be referenced and thus the conclusion was indeed faulty. Interesting that it shows the inadequacies of natural man being able to answer the highest of problems without consulting the Almighty God.
A Quick Biblical definition of the on-going conflict between the dark (Evolution) and the light (Creation):
Psalms 2:1-12 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.
The following is for the self-proclaimed theistic evolutionist with darkness being evolution a world-view that demands that there are only natural answers void of God.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Paul saw it happening, people will choose to worship the creature rather than the Creator (man is God in the evolutionary chain):
Romans 1:20-25 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Peter said it would happen in the last days. He said that scoffers would come denying the word of God in what it claims regarding the creation and the flood and the second coming of Jesus. He was also the first one to predict global warming but he was much more correct in focus and method than what the scoffers who worship the creation today state:
2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Should Creation Science be Taught in Public Schools?
By John Hicks
BANG! Two cars collide and the crunch of metal is horrific. Now the task of sorting out the details is at hand. First the drivers emerge from their vehicles to inspect the results of the collision. Then they ask each other, “Did you see me coming?” Both answer “no” and begin to think about what had just happened. Neither one can admit truthfully what had happened because they just did not see each other coming. That is when they begin to look for possible witnesses. Not a soul could be found. As they recalled just prior to the accident, not a car was in sight. This accident somewhat resembles a dilemma debated on in society today where some people ask whether creation science should be taught in Public Schools.
This evolution/creation debate has been waged for sometime in the United States. This is the controversy regarding the origins of human existence in the universe and the origin of the universe as well. This battle has been popularized under the generic title of the “evolution versus creation” conflict and both sides have fought for the right to be able to teach their own theory in the public schools. Both theories involve different perspectives regarding the interpretation of evidence just as the two drivers will be busy trying to interpret the evidence left over from their accident that went basically unseen. In fact the accident parallels the actual core of the evolution/creation debate regarding the beginning of the universe. Whereas no one actually witnessed it, they both believe they have strong and accurate interpretations of the evidence that implicates their idea as being the correct one.
The two drivers will no doubt be forced to bring in their lawyers to help sort out the interpretation of the evidence beyond what the police investigators came up with. Ultimately the struggle over who has the correct stance regarding the evidence in the evolution/creation debate and whose theory can be taught in public schools has always been determined in the courts of U.S. society. As a side note it must be said that the police investigators in this analogy, to some extent, represent the scientists and experts who have been busy on both sides in the past and in the present finding evidence and performing experiments to prove their conclusions. The lawyer analogy carries over nicely to the evolution/creation debate as they represent themselves.
In regards to the present situation here in the universe, a legitimate question exists about the benefit or importance in knowing the origin of human existence. The National Academy of Sciences answered this question in that “deeper questions” arise as a result of addressing the issue of origins. These questions could lead to explaining things in the world such as “What is the advantage to birds of flying?” and “How did desert plants come to differ from others?” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 1). Both creation and evolution offer similar answers to these questions but to take these questions further to explain how or why these things occur or to explain the origins of the universe and human existence then the answers differ in opposing ways.
The significance of addressing these issues basically can be summed up in one word and that is knowledge. Webster’s defines science as knowledge (“Science”). As people collect more knowledge of the world around them, advancements can be made to better their lives and the world or universe as a whole. The issue at stake within the evolution/creation debate is the validity of the knowledge obtained in either theory. Webster’s defines theory, in the scientific sense, as “considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena” (“Theory”). Evidence abounds, just as it would after the car accident that needs to be interpreted. The National Academy of Sciences encourages public
school children to investigate the evidence and to engage “in inquiry” and to “describe objects, ask questions, construct explanations,” and to “test those explanations against current scientific knowledge” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 47). When examining a theory within science assumptions need to be identified and critical as well as logical thinking must be used to “consider alternative explanations” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 47). Both sides of the issue believe they have interpreted the evidence correctly and thus believe that their theory must be presented in the schoolrooms of America.
The issue has arisen above one argued at the personal and private level. It has found itself at the highest decision making level in society, the U.S. Supreme Court. In the law of the land both sides have claimed victories but the monopoly over teaching the idea of origins in schools has changed hands and is currently owned by the proponents of evolution (Thorndike 104-116).
What the legal system has succeeded in doing is that a decision was made and restrictions were put in place so that the perceived right ideas may be taught in the public schools of America (Thorndike 116). Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas defends the Supreme Court’s decision to include evolution in the classrooms of America when he wrote, “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.” (Thorndike 98). The decision of the court regarding the case Epperson vs. Arkansas, that determined the legal course of the issue today was that the current law at that time violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The issue evolved
into one regarding interpreted violations of Freedom of Speech and Establishment of Religion. They determined that not including evolution in the classrooms violated the
Freedom of Speech clause and teaching creation instead of evolution violated the Freedom of Religion clause (Thorndike 94-104).
Through the further workings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and mainly by that of Justice Hugo Black, the Establishment clause or the idea of separation of Church and State was formalized down to the state level of law (Larson 249). The Establishment clause, which interprets the First Amendment principle, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Thorndike 16), as religion being taught in public schools, became an effective tool in challenging antievolution statutes under the federal constitution (Larson 249). In effect, the teaching of the creation theory was successfully labeled to that of being an establishment of religion and today finds itself the underdog in the battle it had once dominated.
Some basic definitions need to be given at this point to add clarity to the issue of creation versus evolution. The definitions will be accurate enough but it must be kept in mind that each party has played a major role in defining these terms. This aspect is hard to overcome as even the textbooks tend to be influenced by the prevailing party of the moment. This was found to be true on both sides of the issue (Thorndike 9, Natl. Academy of Sciences 47-53). Regardless, the defining process and its products will be useful in understanding the issue.
Evolution is the theory created by several people but the main credit today for its creation is attributed to the works of Charles Darwin. Evolution is the idea that Darwin called “descent with modification” and this is the “change in the heredity characteristics of groups of organisms over the course of generations” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 13). The idea of evolution as supported by the National Academy of Sciences is one that is that “Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world” (56). In short, the fundamental theory of evolution today does not include the intervention of any supernatural power or being but involves the process of “natural selection” (Darwin 66). Some thus believe evolution is more than plausible and they state “there is no other scientific theory that has proven to be useful…” so that “…for this reason evolution is now accepted as true beyond all reasonable doubt” (Moore 92).
Creationism, at its core, is a belief that a supernatural being created the Earth about ten thousand years ago (Behe 5). Creation science is another label used in this area and it is “a theory concerning the origin of the universe, which states that the literal biblical account of creation can be scientifically verified”(“Creation Science”). Creationism involves the concept of intelligent design and claims that the universe and all that it contains reveals design and this required an intelligent designer. There are two thoughts in this area and one is that we can know the designer specifically named in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The other is that there is an intelligent designer that is not known or does not have to be known (Behe 197; Booher 10).
Due to the issue involving religion, this term as well as belief and faith needs to be defined. Religion, is “any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy” and “any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system—humanism as a religion.” (“Religion”). Belief can be defined as “faith” or “the state of believing” or “anything believed or accepted as true; especially a creed, doctrines or tenet” (“Belief”). Faith is the “unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence” or “anything believed” or “complete trust” or “allegiance to some person or thing” (“Faith”). Both sides of the issue question to some extent the validity of each other as being true scientists. Webster’soffers somewhat of an un-biased description in that a scientist is “a specialist in science; especially a person whose profession investigating in one of the natural sciences, as biology, chemistry, physics, etc.” (“Scientist”).
The attacks and accusations on creation by evolutionists and on evolution by creationists seem to be endless and to document each argument or to pick one above the other in effectiveness would require much more time and resources than are available for this research. Some evolutionists see creation science as an evolving idea that has currently been redefined under the label of Intelligent Design (Pennock 373). Robert T. Pennock states that creationism continues to have one goal and that is “to defeat the evolutionary account of the origin of species and replace it with one or another supernatural, divine account of special Creation” (373-74). Thus the scope of research regarding the question “should creation science be taught in public schools” has many complicated and information packed layers. The more pertinent ones will be addressed by extracting the most useful of information required from each area to reach a conclusion. Both sides continue to attack each other with accusations of inaccuracy (Martin 4; Dawkins 316) and the legitimacy of some of these claims will be addressed, as it will be shown how biases, presuppositions, and assumptions are utilized. The issue today has been decided in the courts on up to the Supreme Court of the United States whose current decision is based on their interpretation of separation of church and state. This needs to be addressed along with its implications of application. Also, the realms of science, faith, and religion are quite expansive but some investigation is needed here as well, due to their roles in this debated question. Financial costs are also relevant to the issue as it involves all individuals who pay the taxes that support the public schools. Philosophy has its place in considering this question at different levels but the proper and more prevalent place for this should be more so at the conclusion.
The question, when asked to the average American—such as to the writer of this paper—, immediately conjures up the implications of separation of church and state. The answers differ in interpretation from person to person. As for the legitimacy of either theory in the minds of
Americans today, the numbers have remained consistent for some thirty years. “Polls show that under 10 percent of the American public believes in the official scientific orthodoxy, which is that humans –and other living things- were created by a materialistic evolutionary process in which God played no part. The remaining 90 percent is more or less evenly divided between biblical creationists and theistic evolutionists —who think evolution was God-guided—” (Johnson 10).
The interpretation of the history of the debate varies according to which side is reflecting on the past events and how these events affect their position today (Moore 147-166; Booher 5-11). Intelligent design, a concept accepted at several different levels (Booher 10-11), has been thrust to the forefront of creation science’s argument in the 1990s (Moore 176). Evolution began its major development in the early 1800s, but due to the lack of a “plausible mechanism” it did not immediately take hold of any popular support (Natl. Academy of Sciences 11). In the 1830s, Charles Darwin first arrived at his idea but he kept it from the public view until he had more support in 1858. It was then that Alfred Russel Wallace arrived at the same idea. Darwin and Wallace were then able to provide the world with the mechanism needed to persuade believability (Natl. Academy of Sciences 11, 13).
In 1925, John Washington Butler introduced a law and it was passed as state law by the Tennessee legislature. This law mandated that no “theory that denies the story of the Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible” could be taught in public schools (Moore 148-149). Immediately the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), out of New York City, contested the law at the state level in Tennessee. The ACLU recruited a public school teacher named John Scopes and arranged for him to be charged with breaking this law. The charges were that Scopes taught evolution and their purpose was to bring attention to this law at the national level so it could be challenged and reversed. The result of the trial was that Scopes was found guilty and the law remained in place but the issue was far from being settled (Moore 148-165; Booher 5-11).
The issue found itself back at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 after twenty states attempted to pass laws that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools (Thorndike 13). The case that was reviewed by the nation’s highest court and that marked the turning point in the resistance in evolution being taught in public schools was Epperson v. Arkansas. The Court found Arkansas’ antievolution law unconstitutional based mainly on its perceived conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Thorndike 97).
Creationists then approached the legal environment once again in Arkansas but this time with the “equal time” argument (Moore 182). In 1981, supporters of creation science pleaded for the ability to teach their theory wherever evolution was taught and in equal proportions. The effort was successful (Ruse 283) but the next year it was found unconstitutional in McLean v. Arkansas at the United States District Court level (Ruse 327). Then in 1982, Louisiana passed an equal opportunity law that gave creation science equal bidding wherever evolution was taught. The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 19, 1987, found this law unconstitutional based on an interpretation of the First Amendment (Thorndike 112-113). Other more minor conflicts have occurred since 1987. The current situation today is basically hinged on the two pro-evolution/anti-creation rulings at the Supreme Court level (Thorndike 114-115). Creation Science has found itself, today, outside the doors of public education and not allowed in based on its theistic approach in explaining the origin of the universe.
Today the battle involves many groups and individuals. The main players in support of evolution are arguably the National Resource Council, National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Science Teachers Association (Natl. Academy of Sciences 47), and the National Association of Biology Teachers (Johnson 15). The Institution of Creation Research (Ruse 245) is one of the main proponents of creation and has led the way for much of creation science’s efforts since the 1960s. The ACLU has played an aggressive legal role in opposing the teaching of creation science in the public classrooms (Johnson 50; Booher 6). The debate has placed the Supreme Court as the pivotal decision maker in the public policies regarding education and science.
The values held by each side of the debate reflect similar goals but these goals are different in their end products. Creationists and evolutionists both want to preserve and protect their differing worldviews. The evolutionist worldview is that of naturalism and void of supernatural influence. The creationist worldview is one involving a supernatural influence in a natural world. The evolutionists believe the evidence can only lead to natural explanations where as the creationist believes the evidence points to a supernatural intelligent designer. Evolutionists and creationists both value inferences based on presuppositions. This reflects on the need for inferences in explaining the unobservable on both sides as they strive to explain origins. As with the car accident mentioned earlier, there were no human witnesses. Ultimately both sides value education as a valuable tool to explain their ideas. Evolutionists do not want any theory or idea presented other their own, especially one such as creation that incorporates supernatural elements. Creationists originally pushed for laws to do just the same but more recently they desire open debate and free and equal access for both theories in the educational system. At this moment the values of only one side dominates the landscape of public education in America and these are the values held by the supporters of the theory of evolution.
The basic idea of evolution, things evolving from one state to another, did not actually begin with Darwin. Evolutionary ideas existed in past cultures such as the Greeks around 2,500 years ago. A Greek philosopher named Anaximander entertained the thought that the world evolved out of formlessness and that animals that lived in the water gave rise to terrestrial animal (Natl. Academy of Sciences 11). Then the idea of creation took more of a popular hold in societies throughout the world. The acceptance and popularity of creation resulted with the spread of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Natl. Academy of Sciences 11). It was Charles Darwin who is accepted as the one who began the break from the hold creationism had in the world, but it was not immediately successful.
Before and after the famous Scopes trial, the idea of evolution was labeled in such a way that any law that prohibited the teaching of the idea was referred to as a “monkey law” (Harrison and Gilbert 126). During this time the monopoly of the teachings of origins in the public schools was held in the hands of creationism. The supporters of evolution had an uphill battle to fight in order to win the opportunity to present their idea in the classrooms of America. Lawyers and judges thus settled the battle. Harold R. Booher saw the Scopes trial of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee as the turning point as it began the process to silence “any legitimate, continued resistance to the theory” (6). The Dayton trial began the ultimate change in the ownership of the monopoly of ideas of origins in the Public Schools.
The force behind the push for evolution being the only idea of origins being taught in public schools lies in the belief among some scientists that “descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong” and in this sense “ the occurrence of evolution…is a fact” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 56). John A. Moore stated that “ There is no other scientific theory that has proven to be useful, and for this reason evolution is now accepted as true beyond all reasonable doubt” (92). He also saw the Big Bang Theory, an explanation of the origin of the universe accepted by some evolutionists, as the “best explanation” offered by astrophysicists (92). Dr. Allan Hook, a biology professor at St Edwards University, claims that the evidence is overwhelming for evolution and thus the theory has stood the test of time for some 130 years.
Despite the broad acceptance of the basic idea of evolution, evidence continues to emerge that has created many disagreements and debates within the camp of evolutionists, Stanley Miller recognized this when he said “ What the field needs now…is not more theories or far-flung searches for alien life but more experiments” (qtd. in Horgan: 125).
A definition of the scientific method is appropriate at this point. This method is a “logically ordered procedure for solving problems and answering questions” and “for results to be considered valid, they must be predictable and repeatable” (Mix 19). The steps in the scientific method include:
1. Develops an inquiry about a phenomenon
2. Formulates a specific problem statement
3. Develops a hypothesis
4. Investigates the phenomenon
5. Gathers data
6. Interprets data
7. Draws conclusions about whether the hypothesis is correct or needs to be refined or reformulated.
8. Publishes the results for at least three reasons:
a) to communicate scientific information to all of the scientific community
b) for the scrutiny of his or her peers, and
c) to provide others the opportunity to expand on what has been learned.
(Mix 21)
To be true to the scientific method scientists have attempted to prove the theory of evolution by means of experimentation. They have attempted to create life from inorganic material. Stanley Miller, in 1952, recreated what he believed to be the atmosphere of what it may have been like on earth millions of years ago. He added a spark to simulate what he suspected was the process that originally prompted life, ages ago, out of a soup of non-living material. What happened was not life but a mixture of tar and some amino acids. Many were excited but the results lacked a complete collection of all the amino acids essential to life and life itself. These experiments are being repeated even today. With many manipulations and changes in these experiments scientists continue to fail to bring life out of non-living substances as was supposed to have happened eons ago (Wallace 339-440; Horgan 125).
Stanley Miller continues his pursuit of the answer to origins according to the scientific method but has yet to discover the answer. He believes the answer will be best found in “earthbound laboratories” than in “rampant speculation” (qtd. in Horgan 125). Despite his inability to prove how life emerged from inorganic material in the laboratory Miller continues to hold an optimistic view. When asked if he would ever consider the miraculous as the explanation he replied “not at all. I think we have not learned the right tricks yet” (qtd. in Horgan 125).
John Horgan gave a good summary of evolution. He allowed for the inclusion of a few of the ideas debated on amongst evolutionists and it is as follows:
Scientific version of Genesis begins with the condensation of the solar system from a cloud of gas and dust 4.5 billion years ago. Organic chemicals could have been delivered by impacts or synthesized in the atmosphere, tidal pools or deep-sea hydrothermal vents. These chemicals combined to form more complex organic compounds, including proteins and nucleic acids. Impacts and a stifling greenhouse effect, caused by carbon dioxide spewed from volcanoes, could have rendered the earth’s surface unfit for life until 3.8 billion years ago. But by 3.5 billion years ago—give or take about 300 million years—photosynthetic microbes resembling blue-green algae had emerged. These primitive organisms sometimes formed dense mounds, called stromatolites, along the shores of shallow seas. (117)
Stanley Miller pointed out there is differences in thought involving the origin of life here on earth. These ideas vary somewhat greatly among the evolutionists. Some believe life occurred with simple organisms that consisted of RNA. This view is called the RNA world hypothesis and has already found a place in some textbooks despite its being “seriously challenged” (Horgan 118). Other speculations involve life originating from outer space (Hoyle 51) while others believe life began in hydrothermal vents or on the surface of iron pyrite as a “gummy film” (Horgan 118). Horgan pointed out that although none of these ideas have been completely rejected, they have not been accepted enough to qualify as a “new paradigm” either
(118). He included that “the one belief almost everyone shares is that matter quickened through a succession of steps, none of which is mildly improbable” (118).
Controversy and disagreement continues to exist among evolutionists in how to interpret data or evidence. This includes disagreements in interpreting the evidence involving new fossil discoveries that may indicate that whales evolved from the land to the sea (Rose 2216). Another example of internal controversy arose over some grooves just recently discovered on sandstone. Some believe that these grooves are that of worms dated back to 1.6 billion years in the past. Others have rejected these as worm tracks because to do so “strains credulity” (Kerr 1210). To interpret the evidence as being worm tracks is not acceptable to some because it violates their accepted and presupposed time line of biological evolution. This is because dating these worm tracks that far into the past would put a complex organism almost a billion years before their accepted appearance (Kerr 1210).
This gives rise to the foundation on which science today is taught in public schools. Science is approached today with the belief that evolution is a fact and that the earth is billions of years old. It has been so well established within the sciences that all branches to some extent view the evidence available to them through evolutionary presuppositions. Biology and Sociology are just two examples where this is occurring and the textbooks demonstrate this. For example, one biology textbook begins by introducing life as “an outcome of ancient events by which nonliving materials became assembled into the first living cells” (Starr 2). In some Sociology textbooks the subject is approached with evolution being the light in which all studies within that area of science are conducted. This is demonstrated in the first pages of one textbook where it states the differences separating human and animal behavior is “the products of millions of years of human evolution” (Thio 2). It has been this way for some time now, with evolutionary presuppositions accepted within the teaching and practice of science.
A seventh grade science textbook used in a public school in Texas begins the approach of the subject without any apparent presuppositions. The teaching of scientific concepts and the interpretation of evidence is done without any detectable perceived bias until page 276 where there it describes an ice age occurring some 2.5 million years ago. On page 318 it presents the age of the earth 4.5 billion years old, the age accepted by most evolutionists. The remainder of this science textbook views the world via the evolutionary model. (Padilla, Miaoulis, and Cyr 276, 318).
Timothy H Goldsmith said:
If I were to give a prize for the single best idea anybody ever had, I’d give it to Darwin for the idea of natural selection. Ahead of Newton, ahead of Einstein, because his idea unites the two most disparate features of our universe: the world of purposeless, meaningless matter in motion on the one side, and the world of meaning and purpose and design on the other. He understood that what he was proposing was a truly revolutionary idea. (2209)
This is the effect evolution has had on not only science but in the public schools of America as well. Newton and Einstein have both made huge contributions to science but it is Darwin’s idea that has influenced the vast majority of science today.
The National Academy of Sciences, one of the powerful supporters of the evolutionary theory, has led the way in directing how to teach the theory of evolution in public schools. They released a book in 1998 that was intended to help teachers do a more efficient job in teaching the theory. This book attempts to answer difficult questions with hopes to clear up any possible misunderstandings. The question ‘what is creation science?’ is answered and this answer frames the position that most supporters of evolution have taken against the idea of creation. It describes creation as a “the conviction that God created the universe…all at once in the relatively
recent past” and that “scientists from many fields have expanded these ideas and have found them to be scientifically insupportable”(Natl. Academy of Sciences 55). Einstein said “to be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot” (48). The National Academy of Sciences builds on this idea because they state that these ideas cannot be tested on and that they “do not meet the criteria for science” (55). This is the premise on which the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that creation science is based not on scientific, but on “religious views and cannot be taught when evolution is taught” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 55).
Some supporters of evolution point out, there is more than one interpretation of the creation account available (Pennock 349-352). As they consider this to be a critical problem, they also find themselves with more than one interpretation of their own theory from which to choose. The Genesis account in the Judeo-Christian Bible is considered by some to harbor two completely different creation accounts. Bungee Garrett, a creationist and a pastor of a Christian church, states that the differences are not unreasonable but that they compliment each other. He points out that one is a “categorical listing” such as a “grocery list”, while the other compliments it with a more “narrative” style of approach. In evolution variations of the theory is evident as well as pointed out by Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Here, as he tries to reconcile the two main views in evolution, he is effective in pointing out the fact that there are at least two different and separate accounts in explaining evolution; these are punctuationism and gradualism (Dawkins 223-252).
Due to the inability to demonstrate origins in the laboratory and the lack of directly observable evidence, science has allowed room for inferences. This is explained by the National
Academy of Sciences in that “Science is practiced in many ways besides direct observation and experimentation” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 55) and that “much scientific discovery is done through indirect experimentation and observation in which inferences are made, and hypothesis generated from those inferences are tested” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 55-56). The National Academy of Sciences states that science can thus make inferences on the evidence despite the evidence’s inability to be “directly observed or experimented on” (Natl. Academy of Sciences 55).
The American National Association of Biology Teachers in 1995 stated: “the diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments” (Johnson 15). Phillip Johnson cites this definition as being one that is true by its own definition and it rejects any possibility of the supernatural (15, 22) that, as already noted, is a concept that cannot be proven by science. Thus creation science’s major difficulty lies in not being allowed to challenge the theory of evolution and that in order for evidences to be considered correctly interpreted they must be presupposed in order to fit what has been predefined as a product of an evolutionary process that is “unsupervised, impersonal,” and “unpredictable” and “natural” (Johnson 15). Because of this definition of evolution, no other view on the available evidence is allowed even though some evolutionists admit to some degree that there are possible alternatives.
Some evolutionists look at the fossil record as being unquestionable proof of evolution (Natl. Academy of Sciences 39) but others such as Richard Dawkins hint at the possibility of another way of interpreting the evidence. He wrote:
Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 500 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (229)
Isaac Asimov also admits that the finding of seashells on mountaintops is possible evidence for creation. He wrote “sea shells on the mountain tops would certainly be evidence for that theory, since the biblical account of the Deluge states that water covered all the mountains” (772). However, Dawkins and Asimov prefer to accept the interpretations of the evidences via evolutionary presuppositions.
The collective works and publications by evolutionists that have been used in this research demonstrate a theory that is allowable to be challenged only from within. Dr. Hook echoed what others have said in that evolution is the best idea on origins available and if something better arrives, and then it will take over as the reigning theory of origins and how things are observed in the universe. Despite the monopoly within education, the theory of evolution has failed to convince everyone in its ability to explain origins and this will be further explained in more detail later. Creation science continues to attempt to challenge the theory of evolution but supporters of evolution refuse to give creationists much time, if any, to criticize or debate against evolution or to present their ideas. Some immediately dismiss the idea of creation science as purely religion such as Dr. Hook who went even further to state that creationists were “not thinkers.”
Evolution is considered the correct idea to believe in order to be considered a progressive thinker or a scientist in the establishment today that includes science, public schools and society as a whole. Dorothy E. Kreiss Robbins challenged this view by presenting historical examples of “wise and learned men who believed in a creator”. She cited men such as Christopher Columbus, John Calvin, William Bradford, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Quincy Adams, Noah Webster, Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, William Samuel Johnson, James Madison, George Mason, Andrew Jackson, and George Washington as great thinkers of the past who were creationists. She stated these men were “wise and learned” and it would take some effort to refute their “wide and benevolent influence” (Robbins).
Thus, as previously stated, challenges to the theory of evolution are not permitted from outside of the theory. Dr. Hook stated that he would not take the time to debate with a creationist. He prefers to accept evolution until a better idea comes along. He was quite certain in associating creation with Christianity and voicing his disgust with Christianity, which he described as “useless” (Hook). Eugenie Scott wrote: “avoid debates, if your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution’ please decline…you probably will get beaten” (25). The basic purpose of this statement was to advise evolutionists not to get into any situation that would give reasons for someone to reject the theory of evolution and to accept something more inferior such as creationism (Scott 25).
Bungee Garrett, a creationist, held a multimedia event called Evolution vs. Creation. This event included videos on Intelligent Design and a lecture that followed with an open discussion period. Fliers that advertised this event, which was held at the University of Texas at Austin, were widely distributed on the campus and around Austin. Despite the organizer’s
efforts to attract evolutionists, very few attended. Garrett described evolution as an idea that explains the material that makes up the world but fails to explain adequately where this material came from and more importantly the purpose involved with the organization of the material. He saw evolution as being religious in nature. He spoke of evolution as a theory upon which today’s branches of science have been founded on. He gave biology as a specific example of this point. The religious aspect of evolution, to Garrett, was that it is the foundation of Humanism. He stated that evolution does not allow itself to be challenged from any outside theory and that this is inconsistent with how theories ought to be handled in science. He said that theories should be rigorously challenged, but evolution does not allow this to be done, it is just accepted or manipulated but never rejected.
Pennock and other evolutionists see the Institute of Creation Research, headed by Henry Morris, as the “largest and most influential creationist organization” (4) so it would be prudent to examine the credentials of those in this organization. A list of their eleven faculty scientists is offered on the Institute of Creation Research website. It also lists the degrees and schools of the scientists as well. Between the eleven there are 25 degrees including eight PhD’s in areas ranging from biology, geology and biochemistry to Hydraulics, Mathematics and Atmospheric Physics. Their schools of learning include Harvard, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Duke to name a few and one scientist studied while at Harvard, under Ernst Mayer who is “often considered the dean of living evolutionists” (Morris). Pennock charges that these and other creationists do not understand the theory of evolution and cites that “creationists are also wrong to say that natural selection has no predictive value…” (98-99). The list given on the Institute of Creation Research website and the credentials offered along with their mentioned research and works have demonstrated that creationists are highly learned and quite familiar with the theory of evolution and perhaps they should be considered thinkers as well. Regarding the claim that evolution has “no predictive value” (99) a review of the American National Association of Biology Teacher’s definition is in order here. This definition claims that “the diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution” (Johnson 15) and that it is “an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process” (Johnson 15).
No doubt both sides of the issue involve many brilliant people. Some of the past and present creationists have already been mentioned and many are very well known, as are the supporters of evolution. Some of these include Charles Darwin, Richard E. Leakey, Julian Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Eugenie Scott.
As each side struggles for their place in explaining human origins, the struggle reveals one that consists of opposing worldviews that ultimately encapsulates the most important value at stake for both sides. Duane T. Gish highlights this as he quoted evolutionists R. Lewontin in saying: “Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism. They are irreconcilable worldviews” (qtd. in Gish 4). These worldviews have clashed vigorously and as reported earlier, the Supreme Court of the United States crowned the current victor. Initially it was the creationists who claimed the victory in the battle that was the Scopes trial and a scramble afterwards ensued to enforce anti-evolution laws. During this trial “Clarence Darrow thundered that it was bigotry to teach only one theory of origins” (Gish v). This law in question specifically stated that in Tennessee “too teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals” (Harrison and Gilbert 127) was not to be permitted and the laws that followed in other states were identical in nature. Darrow, John Scope’s lawyer, was proven correct over time as the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1968, reversed the anti-evolution law in Arkansas (Harrison and Gilbert 135). This case was the turning point or the exchange of the monopoly in public schools. Creation was thus excluded as evolution took its place as the only allowable idea of origins. This was challenged as the concept of equal time was initiated in Louisiana in order to balance the decision made in 1968. The Supreme Court reviewed the Louisiana law that mandated equal time for creation and evolution in Edwards v Aguillard. This law attempted to offer balance in the teaching of origins in public schools and was decided on by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. The decision was that “requiring public schools that teach evolution to teach “creation science” as well, held to advance religious doctrine in violation of First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause” (Edwards v. Aguillard). Evolution won its place in public schools on decisions based upon this interpretation of First Amendment more commonly known as separation of church and state.
The Lemon test is a three-prong test that was used to determine whether or not something violates the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Establishment clause. This test was extracted from Lemon v. Kurtzman and it includes three aspects: “First, the legislative must have adopted the law with secular purpose. Second, the statute’s principle of primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion” (Edwards v. Aguillard). The basic purpose overall is to ensure what some perceive to be the government’s neutrality regarding something of religious nature. Chief Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the usefulness of this along with Justice Scalia (Edwards v. Aguillard). After a concise and thorough historical tracing of the concept regarding the separation of church and state, Phillip Hamburger, the John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago concluded that this current application is not only lacking constitutional authority but it has “departed from the religious liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution” and has gone so far as to “undermined this freedom” (483). He continued to state that “It even has discriminated among religions, for it has placed especially severe limitations upon persons whose religion is that of a “church” or religious group rather than a mere individual religiosity” (484). He also wrote that the purpose of the First Amendment was to “limit government” and that it has failed to do so and “it has been interpreted directly to constrain religion” (484). In this context the Principles of Impartiality and Equality where equality is strived for is violated. This contradicts the basic value system as held traditionally by liberals where equality is first, freedom second, and order places last in priority. If the current interpretation of the First Amendment is being taken apart from constitutional authority as Hamburger claims (483) and liberties and freedoms are being constrained then it violates the three ethical principles developed by Immanuel Kant. These are the Principle of Ends, which is that people should be treated as ends in themselves and not as means to an end (Ursery 23), and the Categorical Imperative, which is “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 88), and the Principle of Autonomy, which is “Every rational being is able to regard herself or himself as a maker of universal law, and everyone who is ideally rational will legislate exactly the same universal principles” (Ursery 23).
This is the proposed aim of the ACLU, which being a liberal organization states that:
For seventy-five years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been dedicated to upholding First Amendment protection of civil liberties. Consistent with the requirements of the Establishment Clause, the ACLU policy on religion in public schools or by use of public resources is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and must be opposed…” In 1980, the Board of Directors further clarified this policy by stating, “ACLU also opposes the inculcation of religious doctrines even if they are presented as alternative to scientific theories.” “Creation Science” in all its guises, for example “abrupt appearance theory” or “intelligent design theory”, is just religious doctrine. (“ACLU”)
The ACLU has played a leading role in all of the major cases regarding creation and evolution in public schools (Larson 259) and have proven successful overall in encouraging the current interpretation of separation of church and state. Even though it is not specifically forbidden by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to mention creation science in public schools. It is interpreted to be unconstitutional when to do so (mentioning creation science) it excludes or puts restrictions on evolution on behalf of perceived religious motives (Edwards v. Aguillard). However, the ACLU aggressively pursues creation science whenever it is mentioned in the schools. This is consistent with their position statement on “Creation Science” (“ACLU”). This aggressive pursuit to enforce the current interpretation of separation of church and state is evident in court cases throughout the country (Foster) including the major ones already discussed (Larson 259).
As evident in the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings involving the teaching of creation science, the precedent has been set to exclude this theory from public education (Foster). Evolution has been declared the only theory permissible to be taught regarding human origins, and this violates the current interpretation of separation of church and state where one religion is supported while another religion is prohibited. This activity is not allowed according to the First Amendment but this is the position that has been accepted by the majority of the U.S.
Supreme Court. It has effectively prohibited “the free exercise” (“The Establishment Clause”) of one or more religions while it allows another to be freely exercised without any challenges.
The American Humanist Association is an organization that claims to be religious in that it is “a religion adequate to the twentieth century” (“American Humanist Association” 574). They accept both the original Humanist Manifesto and the Humanist Manifesto II, as the basis for their purposes, which specifically strive for “a defense of human rights, religious liberty, and freedom of thought, and separation of church and state” (“American Humanist Association” 574). Their purposes are supported over all theistic religions by the U.S. Supreme Court’s enforcement of separation of church and state. The resulting outcome is, only evolution can be taught in public schools as the means to define origins as a “natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments” (Johnson 15).
This very definition that guides the teaching in the science classes of today’s public schools denies any possibility of supernatural intervention. This one-sided position supports, if not advances, the American Humanist Association over all religions who claim supernatural intervention. The American Humanist Association claims that their “religion adequate to the twentieth century regards the universe as self-existing, not created, and regards humanity as part of evolved nature.” (“American Humanist Association” 574). They completely reject “mind-body dualism, supernaturalism, theism and even deism.” (“American Humanist Association” 574). Thus by failing to see that evolution is a tenet of a religion just as creation is claimed to be, the U.S. Supreme Court has violated their own application of separation of church and state. Ultimately they have failed to promote or protect religious liberty or to limit government
(Hamburger 484). The evidence supports that the claims to protect religious liberty by supporting separation of church and state by the ACLU and the American Humanist Association have done just the opposite.
John J. Dunphy wrote this in the Humanist, a publication of the American Humanist Association, regarding religious motives in the public schools:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.” (Dunphy 26)
In conclusion the issue remains unresolved with both sides fighting vigorously to either defend their position or to gain equal and just ground. Claims from both sides hint to or flatly accuses each other in attempting to either maintain or acquire a sort of monopoly within the public schools. History has proven this to be true. Evolutionists generally claim that creation science is of little or no scientific value and that it is based purely on religious concepts. The theory of evolution is a stated foundational belief or tenet of one official religious organization and perhaps more as well (Gish vi). Both rely on inferences to interpret the evidence available to explain their origins due to some events such as life emerging from non-living material or abrupt appearances done via a supernatural being. Evolutionists admit that evidence such as the Cambrian explosion offers good proof for creationists (Dawkins 229) but some evolutionists, such as Dawkins, flatly rejects this possibility because they “despise so-called creationists equally” (230). Einstein unequivocally stated, “I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without profound faith” (46) and he also saw a very religious nature regarding scientists overall (40). This is proven in how the two widely accepted but argued theories are the basic tenets of religious organizations regardless of how they are labeled or packaged and they are defended rigorously as demonstrated.
The obvious solution is to opt for educational freedom where all ideas held throughout society can be shared. E.D. Hirsch stated, “We should teach children current mainstream culture” (28). Charles Hunt, the principle of a middle school in Austin, TX, stated that religious education is important in this regards in that it has cultural value. Especially after September 11, 2001, with the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York City, this type of education would be very valuable in helping children to understand all of the cultures which surround them. Many of these cultures are deeply embedded in religion or contain religious aspects, which are vital to the culture. To understand these cultures an understanding of their religion is needed as well. Some may argue that home is where this should occur but as Warren A Nord stated “ home and church provide all too little of what a well educated person should know about religion” (190). A.C. Grayling in his book Meditations for the Humaniststates, “Education…opens the possibility for us to live more reflectively and knowledgeably, especially about the range of human experience and sentiment, as it exists now and here, and in the past and elsewhere” and “that, in turn, makes us better understand the interests, needs and desires of others, so that we can treat them with respect and sympathy, however different the choices they make or the experiences that have shaped their lives” (158).
Contrary to the position taken by the U.S. Supreme Court on excluding from public schools religion and topics perceived to be linked to religion such as creation science, sixty-three percent of Americans believe religion has “too little of a presence” in the public schools according to a Gallop poll in March of 2001 (Saad 4). It appears that the monopoly of the theory of evolution in the schools since the 1960s, has failed to convince everyone as it is currently being presented. Despite the mention of a supernatural presence not being allowed when teaching the theory of evolution, people, when asked, seem to be not entirely convinced in its truth. Around 10 percent of Americans accept the literal explanation of origins as taught through the public schools and that is evolution by purely natural means. The rest is nearly split over creation and theistic evolution, which is evolution with supernatural intervention or causation (Johnson 10). A full explanation of how things were, how things are or how things may be is being excluded from the public schools and this detracts from what should be a complete or well-rounded education that would encourage the true meaning of educational freedom. As demonstrated, the presentation of only a completely natural version of the evolution theory results in just this sort of inferior education.
Even the scientists do not accept wholly the notion of no supernatural presence in the natural world. A highly respected researcher named James Leuba demonstrated this in 1916. He conducted a survey of scientists and found that 41.5 percent of the scientists did not believe in a God and 16.7 percent were agnostics with doubts regarding the supernatural. This survey showed that the remaining 40 percent or so accepted that there was a God. Leuba predicted that over time the percentage of the scientists who disbelieved would increase. His prediction proved in error when some 80 years later, Nature repeated this survey using the identical methods Leuba had employed to gather the information. The current results echo that of the initial survey and it again indicates that some 40 percent of scientists do not accept the rejection of a supernatural being (Larson and Witham 435).
The utility of only one view of origins and existence, one void of supernatural influence, falls short of what is best for or desired by all of U.S. society. One person’s or group’s ideas should not be held superior to another’s as this violates not only the Principles of Liberty and Equality but also disagrees with Immanuel Kant’s Principle of Ends in that advancing one’s view over another requires the suppression of the other’s views. This results in using individuals as a means to and end in that only one worldview is allowed to monopolize the public schools. A monopoly of indoctrination results in a person’s inability to think and form opinions based on all information available. This subtracts from or perhaps completely violates the autonomy of an individual.
The current situation regarding “should creation science be taught in public schools” is being answered ‘No’ by the courts in America. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote “The law is at best an inexact science, and the cases our court takes to decide are frequently ones upon which able judges in lower courts have disagreed” and that “there simply is no demonstrably ‘right’ answer to the question involved in many of our difficult cases” (291). Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion in the Edwards v. Aguillard U.S. Supreme Court case in 1987. Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in stating “The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it” (Edwards v. Aguillard).
Financial costs regarding where individual’s needs or desires are being or not being met are also a vital concern within this issue. The current interpretation of separation of church and state has resulted in some taxpayers, if not many, being constrained in having their needs or desires met in the public schools. This has resulted in a surge of home schools and private schools emerging to meet these needs (Larson 261). The financial costs are greater to these individuals who have to pay tuition or other costs and pay the taxes to support the public schools as well. Ensuring the maximum level of liberty for all would mandate opening the doors of what should be taught in public schools and this includes all ideas prevalent in the cultures of U.S. society. This would not include tax supported proselytizing but instead the tax supported dispensing of vital cultural knowledge important to the concept of tolerance, which depends upon knowing and understanding what others believe. The minority of people who oppose the idea of religion being mentioned in public schools will have plenty of options available such as the already mentioned private and home schools as well as having a choice in the topics parents want their children to be exposed to in the public schools. This solution meets the consequence-oriented concept of Utilitarian ethics that the greater good is achieved for the greatest number of people over the greatest amount of time. To oppose this solution would involve the denial of individual liberties and overall autonomy of the citizens who pay these taxes. This denial arises when theirmoney is applied only to support the religious concepts or beliefs of strict humanism without the inclusion of their own beliefs and ideas being presented.
Principle Charles Hunt stated that the financial costs involving the inclusion of creation science would be too great to implement. The logic of this thinking fails in that the precedent has already been set beginning in the 1960s that this is a cost that is worthy and acceptable to be met. Clarence Darrow was correct in that evolution should be included in the curriculum and that it would be prejudiced to present only one theory of origins in the public schools (Gish v). Another point to consider regarding this line of reasoning is that these costs are endured and met every year as the textbooks are reviewed or changed or exchanged for something newer or different.
So the answer to the question ought to be ‘yes’ in order to provide the ultimate possibilities for individuals as well as societal freedom as strived for by the Constitution of the United States. A monopoly of ideas or the suppression of ideas, popular ones at that, can only result in less liberty for everyone. Just as it would be unfair to allow only one of the individuals to interpret and make conclusions on the evidence regarding the previously mentioned car accident that no one witnessed and that had involved another person other than just himself or herself, it is unfair and unjust to exclude other individual’s ideas of origins regarding the universe and life as well. Creation science should be taught in public schools.
Works Cited
“ACLU Position Statement on ‘Creation-science.’” American Civil Liberties Union Website.
11 March 2002. 27 Oct. 2002. <http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.
cfm?ID= 9894&c=29>.
“American Humanist Association.” Encyclopedia of American Religions. 6th ed.
Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 1999.
Asimov, Isaac. Asimov’s New Guide to Science. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box-The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution. New
York: Free Press, 1996.
Booher, Harold R. Origins, Icons and Illusions-Exploring the Science and Psychology of
Creation and Evolution. Saint Louis: Warren H. Green, 1998.
“Creation science.” Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rded. 1988.
Darwin, Charles. The Illustrated Origin of Species. Richard Leakey. Abr. New York:
Hill and Wang, 1979.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker-Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design. New York: Norton, 1986.
Dunphy, John J., “A Religion for a New Age”. Humanist, 43 (1983): 26.
Edwards v. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578 US Supreme Court. 1987. Cornell University Website.
28 October 2002. < http://www.law.cornell.edu/>
Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. Ed. Carl Seelig. New York: Bonanza Books, 1954.
“Faith.” Defs. 1, 4, and 5. Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rd ed. 1988.
Foster, Julie. “Brave New Schools-Unatural Selection-Science Teachers Under Fire For
Criticizing Evolution Theory.” WorldNetDaily. 03 March 2000. 15 Oct. 2002.
<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17819>.
Garrett, Bungee. Telephone interview. 01 Nov. 2002.
Gish, Duane T. Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools. Institute for Creation Research:
El Cajon, California, 1995.
Goldsmith, Timothy H. “The Everyday Impacts of a Most Influential Theory”. Science
293.5538 (2001): 2209.
Grayling, A. C. Meditations for the Humanist-Ethics For a Secular Age. Oxford: Oxford
UP, 2002.
Hamburger, Philip. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2002.
Harrison, Maureen and Steve Gilbert, eds. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme
Court III. La Jolla, CA: Excellent, 1992.
Hirsch, E.D. Cultural Literacy-What Every American Needs To Know. Boston: Houghton, 1987.
Hook, Allan. Personal interview. 23 Oct 2002.
Horgan, John. “Trends in Evolution-In the Beginning”. Scientific American 264 (1991): 117-
18,120,125.
Hoyle, Sir Fred, and N.C. Wickramasinghe. Evolution From Space-A Theory of Cosmic
Creationism. New York: Simon, 1981.
Hunt, Charles. Personal interview. 11 Oct. 2002.
Johnson, Phillip E. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1997.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. and analyzed by H. J. Paton.
New York: Harper, 1964.
Kerr, Richard A. “Earliest Animal Tracks or Just Mud Cracks”. Science 295.5558 (2002):
1210.
Larson, Edward J. Summer For The Gods-The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing
Debate Over Science and Religion. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1997.
Larson, Edward J., and Larry Witham. “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith.” Nature.
386 (1997): 435.
Martin, Jobe. The Evolution of a Creationist. Rockwall, TX: Biblical Discipleship, 1994.
Mix, Michael, Paul Farber, and Keith I. King. Biology-The Network of Life. New York:
Harper, 1992.
Moore, John A. From Genesis to Genetics-The Case of Evolution and Creationism.
Berkley: Univ. of CA, 2002.
Morris , Henry M. “The ICR Scientists.” Institute For Creation Research Website. 2002.
Impact No. 346. 26 Oct. 2002 < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-346.htm>
National Academy of Sciences. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science-
Washington D.C.: Natl. Acad. Press, 1998.
Nord, Warren A. “Public Schools Should Teach Religious Studies.” Education in America-
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David L. Bender. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1992.
Padilla, Michael J., Ioannis Miaoulis, and Martha Cyr. Prentice Hall Science Explorer Grade 7.
Needham, MA: Prentice: 2002.
Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel-The Evidence Against The New Creationism. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court-How It Was, How It Is. New York: William Morrow,
1987.
“Religion.” Defs. 2a, and 2b. Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rd ed. 1988.
Robbins, Dorothy E. Kreiss. “Wise and Learned Men Who Believed In a Creator.” Vital Articles on Science/Creation. 1996. Institute For Creation Research Website. 26 Oct. 2002
<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-271.htm>.
Rose, Kenneth D. “The Ancestry of Whales.” Science293.5538 (2001): 2216.
Ruse, Michael, ed. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question In The
Creation/Evolution Controversy. Amherst: Prometheus, 1996.
Saad, Lydia. “Use of Schools for Student Religious Meetings is Acceptable to Most Americans.”
Gallop Poll Monthly. 426 (2001): 4.
“Science” 1. Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rd ed. 1988.
“Scientist” 1. Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rd ed. 1988.
Scott, Eugenie C. “Monkey Business.” Sciences 36.1 (1996): 25.
Starr, Cecie. Biology-Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Belmount, CA: Wadsworth, 1994.
“The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A legal Bulletin.” American Civil Liberties Union
Website. 11 March 2002. 27 Oct. 2002. <http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/
ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9881&c=29>.
“Theory.” Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rded. 1988.
Thio, Alex. Sociology-An Introduction. 3rded. New York: Harper, 1992.
Thorndike, Jonathan L. Epperson v. Arkansas: the Evolution-Creation Debate-Landmark
Supreme Court Cases. Berkley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 1999.
Ursery, Danney. Moral Reasoning Values-Morality-Ethics. Austin: St. Edwards Univ., 2002.
Wallace, Robert A., Gerald P. Sanders, and Robert J. Ferl. Biology: The Science of Life. 3rd ed. New York: Harper, 1991.
My modified conclusion:
The public schools demand that the students understand (believe) the basis of their existence and how they came into being solely via evolution. An evolutionary world view is enforced in all areas of instruction from biology to sociology. The teachings mandate that no deity is part of this process as it insists on a purely natural mechanism. This is an assault on the truth and many casualties include the falling away of those children whom their parents believe that it could never happen to their “spiritually grounded” offspring or they pray that it doesn’t and thus they live in fear, of man. Remember the “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”? (2 Corinthians 6:14)? Try to imagine two oxen yoked to the same plow. One is dead and the other is alive. Which way is the plow going to go, toward the dead side or the live side? The incredible weight of the massive dead ox will burden the live ox so much that the live ox will be forced to go in circles, in the direction of the dead ox, the dead side. It is sad that this is exactly what is happening or has happened to these well meaning individuals who gave into the unscriptural and ungodly institution of public schools.
Keep in mind that the Bible is full of scriptures that demands that the instruction of the children in all things, especially spiritual matters, is the direct responsibility of the parents, not the village as the majority of liberals and so-called conservatives believe today. I say conservatives as many of these do not hesitate to place the instruction of their kids in the care (I use this term very loosely) of the village whether it be public or private schools.
Private schools are just as dangerous as I went to private schools for much of my instruction and I learned and adopted my most sinful habits from the “fools” I was forced to be around all day long. Proverbs 22:15 states: Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Deuteronomy 6:5-7 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Romans 12:1-2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
If anyone doubts that the schools force children into believing in evolution I have provided the requirements from two of the states we have lived in. These may or not be current but whatever guidelines are current they will either equal or be more intense towards the dark side, if that is even possible:
Texas:
TAKS or TAAS
As a Graduation Requirement
The current Texas Administrative Code (TAC) answers most questions about whether
students must take TAKS or TAAS exit level tests to meet their graduation requirements.
TAC 101.7(b) states, “Beginning with the 2003—2004 school year, students who were
enrolled in Grade 8 or a lower grade on January 1, 2001, must fulfill testing
requirements for graduation with the Grade 11 exit level tests.”
To clarify the graduation status of off-track and accelerated students graduating in the
2003—2004 school year, commissioner’s rule 101.3003 has been filed with an expected
effective date of February 16, 2003 (prior to the February 25—27, 2003, administration
of the TAAS retests). The key part of this rule states, “Regardless of whether they were
enrolled in Grade 8 or a lower grade on January 1, 2001, students who fulfill all
graduation requirements other than passage of an exit level test before September 1,
2004, may fulfill their testing requirements for graduation with the Grade 10 exit level
TexasAssessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test.”
This means
􀂉 TAAS is the graduation requirement for students enrolled in Grade 9 or a
higher grade on January 1, 2001, regardless of when they graduate.
Note that this covers students in Grade 9 or a higher grade on January 1,
2001, who are on a regular track toward graduation and also protects the
testing status of TAAS students who were retained in Grade 9 or a higher
grade.
􀂉 TAAS is the graduation requirement for students graduating prior to the
2004--2005 school year regardless of whether they were enrolled in Grade 8
or a lower grade on January 1, 2001.
Note that this covers off-track and accelerated students who will graduate
before the 2004—2005 school year.
􀂉 TAKS is the graduation requirement for students enrolled in Grade 8 or a
lower grade on January 1, 2001, and graduating in the 2004—2005 school
year or later.
I included §112.41 as it requires the kids to be able to intelligently design things yet the school never mentions the actually Intelligent Designer, God our Creator:
§112.41. Implementation of Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, High School.
(6) Science concepts. The student knows forces in nature. The student is expected to:
(E) design and analyze electric circuits; and
(5) Science concepts. The student knows about the formation and history of the Earth. The student is expected to:
(B) use current theories to design and construct a geologic time scale.
§112.43. Biology.
(a) General requirements. Students shall be awarded one credit for successful completion of this course. Prerequisites: none. This course is recommended for students in Grades 9, 10, or 11.
(b) Introduction.
(1) In Biology, students conduct field and laboratory investigations, use scientific methods during investigations, and make informed decisions using critical-thinking and scientific problem-solving. Students in Biology study a variety of topics that include: structures and functions of cells and viruses; growth and development of organisms; cells, tissues, and organs; nucleic acids and genetics; biological evolution; taxonomy; metabolism and energy transfers in living organisms; living systems; homeostasis; ecosystems; and plants and the environment.
(2) Science is a way of learning about the natural world. Students should know how science has built a vast body of changing and increasing knowledge described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models, and also should know that science may not answer all questions.
(c) Knowledge and skills.
(7) Science concepts. The student knows the theory of biological evolution. The student is expected to:
(A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities, and embryology; and
(B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior, and extinction.
§112.48. Astronomy.
(a) General requirements. Students shall be awarded one credit for successful completion of this course. Suggested prerequisite: one unit of high school science. This course is recommended for students in Grades 11 or 12.
(b) Introduction.
(1) In Astronomy, students conduct field and laboratory investigations, use scientific methods during investigations, and make informed decisions using critical thinking and scientific problem solving. Students study the following topics: information about the universe; scientific theories of the evolution of the universe; characteristics and the life cycle of stars; exploration of the universe; role of the Sun in our solar system; planets; and the orientation and placement of the Earth.
(2) Science is a way of learning about the natural world. Students should know how science has built a vast body of changing and increasing knowledge described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models, and also should know that science may not answer all questions.
(c) Knowledge and skills.
(5) Science concepts. The student knows the scientific theories of the evolution of the universe. The student is expected to:
(A) research and analyze scientific empirical data on the estimated age of the universe;
(B) research and describe the historical development of the Big Bang Theory; and
(C) interpret data concerning the formation of galaxies and our solar system.
California:
Biology/Life Sciences - Grades Nine Through Twelve
Science Content Standards.
Standards that all students are expected to achieve in the course of their studies are unmarked.
Standards that all students should have the opportunity to learn are marked with an asterisk (*).
Evolution
7. The frequency of an allele in a gene pool of a population depends on many factors and may be stable or unstable over time. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know why natural selection acts on the phenotype rather than the genotype of an organism.
b. Students know why alleles that are lethal in a homozygous individual may be carried in a heterozygote and thus maintained in a gene pool.
c. Students know new mutations are constantly being generated in a gene pool.
d. Students know variation within a species increases the likelihood that at least some members of a species will survive under changed environmental conditions.
e. * Students know the conditions for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in a population and why these conditions are not likely to appear in nature.
f. * Students know how to solve the Hardy-Weinberg equation to predict the frequency of genotypes in a population, given the frequency of phenotypes.
8. Evolution is the result of genetic changes that occur in constantly changing environments. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know how natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.
b. Students know a great diversity of species increases the chance that at least some organisms survive major changes in the environment.
c. Students know the effects of genetic drift on the diversity of organisms in a population.
d. Students know reproductive or geographic isolation affects speciation.
e. Students know how to analyze fossil evidence with regard to biological diversity, episodic speciation, and mass extinction.
f. * Students know how to use comparative embryology, DNA or protein sequence comparisons, and other independent sources of data to create a branching diagram (cladogram) that shows probable evolutionary relationships.
g. * Students know how several independent molecular clocks, calibrated against each other and combined with evidence from the fossil record, can help to estimate how long ago various groups of organisms diverged evolutionarily from one another.
In the paper “Should Creation Science be Taught in Public Schools” I demonstrated the fact that some groups adamantly insist that evolution be the only idea of origins taught in public schools.
There are many other interest groups that are active in this as well such as the NCLR that is “
a national legal resource center with a primary commitment to advancing the rights and safety of lesbians and their families through a program of litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education” and “provides representation and resources to gay men, and bisexual and transgender individuals on key issues that also significantly advance lesbian rights” (http://www.nclrights.org/about.htm). Their opinion in this area is clearly demonstrated by their own words in how they perceive parental rights in opting out of classes or subjects that conflict with their beliefs especially in the area of evolution:
“Do parents have a constitutional right to prevent their children from receiving education in public schools on subjects they disapprove?
Almost never. Parents have filed a number of court cases seeking to prevent public schools from teaching their children controversial literature or subjects such as evolution, tolerance, or human sexuality, and have lost virtually every case. Courts have held that so long as the public school curricula are secular and reasonably related to educational goals, parents do not have veto power over the content of public school instruction. Parents do have a general right to control their children's upbringing, but if parents choose to place their children in public schools, parental rights are generally outweighed by the state's interests in educating students and avoiding disruption in the school curriculum.
When parents raise a specific objection to a part of the curriculum as violating their freedom of religion, the school should evaluate the nature of the claimed burden on religion to see whether an accommodation is feasible. Schools may wish to excuse students from non-essential activities (such excusing a Jehovah's Witness student from a Valentine's Day party) but are not legally required to excuse students from curricular activities such as science or diversity education. The interests of the school and student in education outweigh parents' interests in preventing their children from being exposed to ideas that conflict with religious traditions.” (http://www.nclrights.org/publications/parentoptout1104.htm)
Below is an excerpt regarding Texas’ allowance for parents to have their children exempted from subjects that conflict with their religious beliefs. Take notice of the temporal conditions placed on these. For a time a child can be exempt but not for the entire semester and they cannot be exempt for the purpose of avoiding tests. The child must also finish the class, pass the tests and satisfy “grade level or graduation requirements in a manner acceptable to the school district and the agency”.
Sec. 26.010. Exemption From Instruction.
(a) A parent is entitled to remove the parent’s child temporarily from a class or other school activity that conflicts with the parent’s religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the parent’s child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the class or other school activity. A parent is not entitled to remove the parent’s child from a class or other school activity to avoid a test or to prevent the child from taking a subject for an entire semester.
(b) This section does not exempt a child from satisfying grade level or graduation requirements in a manner acceptable to
Other than pure speculation through wild theories that should actually be classified as speculative ideas versus legitimate theories, there is no proof available to link micro with macroevolution. This is the real missing link that has yet to be found. Supporters of secularism, naturalism, communism, atheism, agnostism, and socialism (naming just the most major players) have had their way and insist on forcing the worldview of a purely natural mechanism that has no room for the Creator of this world. Many who call themselves believers in God have joined in the fight to secure this secular and ungodly agenda. By denying His presence and attributing all things created to accidental chance (2 Peter 3:4, Rom 1:21-25, Psalms 14:1) they have succeeded in planting the seeds of doubt in what is, as Paul stated in the first chapter of Romans, “clearly seen” (Romans 1:20) in the creation around us.
This is the fundamental danger regarding the so-called theory of evolution and since I am one who professes to accept the Bible as the Word of the Living God, I cannot sit idly by while anything contrary to its teaching is propagated in a country in which I am part of and in which the rulers are “We the people”. I am, after all, a contributing taxpayer in a government system that was setup to be led by the people who elect individuals to represent them and their needs, which include beliefs as most needs are dictated at that level. The problem is my interests (beliefs) are not being represented due to the compromises that so-called believers, including myself at one time, have fallen into. God will hold the leaders (which in our country includes myself) accountable and he will hold the individual parents accountable as well for what happens to the children. As for the children the Bible states in Matthew 18:6 that if anyone was to cause just one of the children to stumble it would be better for that person to have a millstone hung around his neck and then drowned in the sea. The word ‘stumble’ refers to the context of eternal life and the child’s walk towards his destiny which should be his being reunited with the only God, the Living Creator.
All around us are signs that the indoctrination of our children and our society in the forced acceptance of evolution has had profound success.
The London Zoo recently started an exhibit that portrays humans as “a plague species”.
(
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45968) The goal is to have a number of individuals dressed in fig leaves act as animals to show our “place in the planet’s ecosystem” and to demonstrate that we are a “plague species”.
This seems silly but they are serious and many accept this view and some, such as Adolf Hitler, have, in the past, taken this concept to the more specific or higher levels of survival of this “plague species”. He took the liberty to play the part as the most fit within the so-called human species and proceeded to destroy humans whom he perceived were not only less fit but actually, in his mind, subhuman.
Many atrocious acts of evil can, if one is honest, be directly linked to evolution such as Joseph Stalin’s bloody actions in Russia, the child murderers of Columbine High School and in other schools as well and many other evil acts throughout our world as a whole. One could be quick to point out that this is proof in evolution and that we are a “plague species” but the Bible clearly defines otherwise in that we were originally created in His image, that we were given dominion over the creation, and that we had rebelled against God and thus are condemned to die and be eternally separated from Him. It is stated in the Bible that when man rebelled (sinned) against God death at that time entered the world and that this creation would eventually be destroyed as a result of this sin. The Bible also states that God is going to create a new world and allow those who choose to be reunited with Him to be participants in this new creation. What we see around us is the clear actions in entropy (order to disorder, Creation pre and post sin) and other natural laws that reinforce what the Bible stated would happen and has happened. We see time slowing down, the earth’s rotation slowing and things in general just falling apart. Al Gore will tell you about things breaking in our world but his is a different focus that is void of God. He does not have the correct conclusion as to true global warming. Peter, however, does as mentioned earlier in 2 Peter chapter 3.
The churches today as a whole fail to give a clear definition as to what sin is. They are preaching (or are they??) that all have sinned and so everyone must repent and turn to and trust in God and He will forgive our sins. That sounds ok but actually it fails to tell anyone what sin is. Some may say it sin is missing the mark but that does not tell us what the mark is. Basically the message is too basic and no one truly understands through this teaching the seriousness of what sin is and its consequences. Paul tells us clearly what sin is in Romans 7:7 and there he points to the law (Exodus 20) to define sin.
The consequences of are vaguely referred to and often just flatly ignored. Hell is a serious place and practically no one is warning of this wrath to come. Jesus , John the Baptist did, Paul and Peter all did so. The entire Bible cries out to men to repent (turn and walk no more in your sin) and trust in Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. What is being taught today is that if Jesus is just your Saviour and that you are ok but the Lordship of Jesus is not emphasized. The Bible teaches that if He is not Lord of all then He is not Lord at all. So with that being said, is He your Saviour when you purpose in your heart to harbor sin and choose to live in it while thinking you can take advantage of the holy, righteous, deliberate and costly sacrifice of God when He gave His only Son as the replacement for us upon the cross? What kind of god is being preached today? Not the God of the Bible that is for sure.
Getting back to the fact that sin is not being preached in its entirety as the actual definition is void in most preaching today. At a revival recently an elderly man in the pulpit said “Sin, you know what that is, when you sat down when you should have stood up. When you went left when you should have went right”. That was it. He left sin unexplained so now it can be up to anyone’s interpretation as to what sin is. That is a slippery slope straight to the pit of hell.
Paul gave us what truly defines sin. God wrote it onto stone and we have it recorded for our use to this day but this law is neglected in the preaching that goes out today. This law is mainly emphasized from the pulpit as good guidelines to live by but rarely, if ever, spoken of as the means to define sin. Paul said “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Romans 7:7). King David said “The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalm 19:7). So the law today is neglected to be taught in its entirety and that is it should be used it to define what sin is and to convert the soul. Instead, the message today is “Jesus loves you and he has a wonderful plan for your life” but Psams 5: 5 says about God: “The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” So yes God may love you but as a sinner but He hates you as well and as a sinner void of repentance, you will not stand in His sight. That is not taught today. An old man once said “If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified”. How true that is.
So with all that in context, there is no justifiable marriage between the ideas of creation and evolution or the light with the darkness. These two world views, evolution and creation, have clearly opposing origins and conclusions and only one can be right. To avoid this dilemma or to lessen its importance could and will have grave consequences in that one of these ideas, if right, demands that one either goes to heaven to be eternally united with their Creator or to hell where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in eternal flames apart from their Creator. To try to state that both world views are valid would violate the law of non-contradiction which basically mandates that two ideas or concepts are completely opposed to each other then they cannot both be true. Simply put 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are not both true in their conclusions and to state that they are would be simply false, only one can be true.
So why would I subject my children to such indoctrination that fanatically opposes how I perceive the world? If I were to place my children in public schools then I would be failing in my duties to raise my children as the Bible directs. The main focus is first and foremost to know God and to believe in the whole of scripture starting with the first verse where it indicates the first thing he ever did in the history of our existence was to create the world that we live in. I would be faced with the impossible task to ensure that all information regarding evolution and anything else unbiblical that was imparted to my children be explained and then corrected in their understanding. Anything missed would be levied towards my accountability when I meet God face to face.
What kind of message does it send to a child when you have the appearance of approving of a purely secular system of so-called education by enforcing that they attend and insist that they do as well as they can while they are memorizing concepts contrary to scripture? The tests are designed to enforce that the child “knows” the material that rejects the existence of God. So if I were to subject my child to the requirement of not just passing these exams and that they do as well as they can then I must ensure that they know beyond a shadow of doubt that they are answering these questions incorrectly so that they may get credit for answering it correctly.
Confusing? No, it’s alarming and this is what I wanted to say in my long and drawn out conclusion. A wise man once posed the question “should we have a public school system?” and basically defended asking this question by citing the unconstitutionality of the system based on the tenth amendment. Karl Marx saw the need but the US Constitution does not. Look for yourself at the ten planks of the communist manifesto.
Someone once said, “we have thrown the Bible out because we have allowed ourselves to be deceived”. The present environment is that God the Creator is not allowed to be presented as a possible cause of our existence and that evolution is the only allowable vehicle to be used to indoctrinate our children on their existence. Some may quickly jump to oppose and cite that a quality education that increases knowledge will provide for a better future and chances for a successful career. This imparting of knowledge in the schools is built on a evolutionary foundation that explains a person’s existence is purely accidental and void of any purpose. This is a foundation full of holes and has proven to be not only dangerous here on earth (Hitler, Stalin, etc, etc.) but to enforce this doubt in God provides for grave eternal consequences. Many are due for an eternal millstone and will be thrown into the eternal sea of flames.
With all my research in regards to this matter of eternal significance, I discovered that my initial assumptions for the sliding of so many Christians into conformity with the world were not completely accurate. I thought that this issue began with public schools and then ventured into the churches but that was only partially correct. I have had issues for sometime now with Sunday school, as there is no Biblical precedent for this institution or concept. That is a study ou can do on your own as I have done. My concern is with the placing of my children under the spiritual tutelage of individuals who I sometimes knew and most of the times I did not know. The point is, they, the Sunday school teachers, are not my children’s parents and I am the one ultimately responsible for the spiritual training of my children (Deut 6:1-9). When my wife and I were allowing our children to attend Sunday school we would have to check on what they learned every time we picked them up by asking them what they had learned and on occasions would have to correct what was taught as it would be either incomplete or out of context or flatly untrue. Again, this would be a much more intense task if our children were in public schools as we would have to ‘undo’ everything that it taught in both the Public and Sunday schools that contradicted our beliefs.
Based on my experiences in public and private schools I am convinced that the majority of retraining or rethinking would have to pertain to concepts delivered by the other children that would be ‘socializing’ with my children. To this day I am still working on ‘undoing’ the damage done by the unhealthy and, more importantly, the ungodly influences I had growing up in the school systems.
This is why I thought that public schools must have come before the Sunday schools but I had it backwards. The reality is that Sunday schools had their beginnings in the late 1700s to early 1800s when the idea traveled from England to the states. The initial purpose was to teach the lower income family’s children on their off work days (Sunday). The teaching covered the basics but mainly reading, as the intention was to bring the unchurched to a point where they could read and understand the Bible.
Sounding like a good idea the public schools system arose out of this concept and by the end of the late nineteenth century the public schools took over the role of teaching basic literacy. Sunday schools continued and were gradually adopted by most American churches. The Sunday schools, contrary to adhering to strict Biblical guidelines, adopted the standards and techniques of the public school’s reward systems, work requirements and overall class structures (http://www.materialreligion.org/objects/nov97obj.html). What I see today is a compromise in that the Churches today conduct Sunday Schools not based on Biblical concepts but after man-made systems such as the Public Schools. Instead of Sunday Schools or the Church being the driving influence on Public Schools we have allowed the exact opposite.
Some will defend Sunday School as a God ordained institution, as I did for many years, but if they were to use scripture to back up there position they will find a lack of support from God’s word as I did about 10 years ago. That was when a dear friend who was a homeschcooler challenged me to go through the Bible and find where it defines and commands us to have Sunday Schools or to have Youth groups. I was at a loss for scriptural support in what I thought to be true.
It is important as you do this or any biblical study that you keep to the context of the word and not make the scriptures say something you want them to say as this is tempting to do and a common practice among people today. Also stick with the one true version, the KJV, as many, such as myself, in the past would pick and choose the versions that I thought said best what I wanted to say. The different versions today do not all say the same thing in different ways as copywrite laws mandate that differences be significant. Check out Psalms 12:6-7 in the NIV and the KJV to see this first hand. This is another point of failure in the church and interesting that the corrupted versions came onto the scene around the same time that public and Sunday schools were emerging. Study it for yourself for the truth and be very discerning in how you interpret the evidence. In other words do it with all sincerity and with a lot of prayer and lean not on your own understanding but listen to what the Spirit of God teaches you. The Word of God is a very serious matter.
I was, at this same time (when my friend approached me with the biblical justification of Sunday school), challenged to examine the scriptures to find where today’s church’s practices, governments and overall concepts have their support. Again, I was unable to find where we, in any way, resemble the early New Testament Church or where we actually are obeying the fundamental commandments given to us as believers in the body of Christ. The churches today get their guidelines first and foremost from the state and anyone who reads the code regarding tax exemption (501(c)(3)) will see the grave conflict between the church and God regarding the state. One of the main requirements is to follow all of the laws written by man, even if it conflicts with God’s law. Remember that abortion is illegal but if you preach against a man who is running for office because he supports abortion then you will be in big trouble with the State. If you do not preach this then you will be in even bigger trouble with God.
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15
I can find support in church history as the modern day church has its roots, not in scripture but in the man driven actions at about and during the time of Constantine’s reign. This was sometime after the foundation of the true Church by Jesus and this was when we moved from the homes and converted synagogues (which was more rare) to the larger public buildings. This was when we placed a man in front of us to keep our attention and entertain us with words. This was when the praise of man was encouraged and justified. How many times have you bragged about your pastor’s abilities and talents to others? How many times have you told your pastor how great he was? This is man pleasing and contrary to what the Bible teaches. The early church had men teaching men to lead in the edification of the body and to teach and preach as well. This was not the job of just one man but the job of all of the men under the leadership of Christ.
All of the men in the Body were discipled and trained to lead as the scripture intended but today we relegate these duties to others. We depend on one man, the pastor, to teach us what God’s word says and we depend on Sunday Schools to teach our children spiritual things and more often then not leave it to just that and not do the teaching of our families in our own homes. The scriptures tell us that this is our job as parents, as fathers and mothers. We are commanded to teach our kids and not leave this task up to someone you may or may not know. Ultimately we as parents are responsible for what our kids learn. Fathers are ultimately responsible for the spiritual edification of their families, Mother and children.
Parents have given up their God commanded duties and allowed the stumbling to occur. I have attended many a Sunday School growing up and know for a fact that the stumbling blocks do come from the teachers at times but more so from the fools that attended these classes with me as: Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child (Proverbs 22:15a). We have somehow found it wise to group a bunch fools together for so called instruction and defend it as “good socialization”. This can be applied to both Sunday Schools and Public schools where there are so many fools present. Somehow we have given in to the philosophies of man and have neglected the teachings of God’s word through Christ (Colossians 2:8).
We are so busy today in the church in focusing on life enhancement and not focusing on the work of the Kingdom. Get in the Word and take it very seriously. Are you going to teach your kids and protect them from the world? Are you going to train them to reach those whom God would rather not perish (2 Peter 3: 9)?
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15
