Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Philosophy Books  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
Stop violence against women
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Creationism in the Classroom
by Jack Wellman
2008-11-15 09:21:15
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
Where do you find the Separation of Church and State? In the U.S. Constitution? In the Articles of Confederation? Perhaps in the Constitutional Amendments? Or is it even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?  You will not find it in any legal document in the Unites States. This phrase, penned by Thomas Jefferson was for a wall of separation between church and state, because in England, the State was the Church. It was a church-state. This is what inspired Jefferson in his memoirs, that a division of labor be established. The government shouldn’t fund religion or impose it at the state level as compulsory. Nor could the State impose it’s ideology upon the churches.
 
The Supreme Court has already been made it crystal clear that the teaching of creation science can not be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it. Incidentally, this is what the Supreme Court calls it: Creation-science. Chief Justice Rienquist & Justice Scalla, "We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation-science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the earth." Edwards vs. Aguillard, Dissent (1987).
 
This decision was based upon the case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court in 1987. It stated that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." The court also indicated that there should be no constitutional crisis created with including creation science so long as it is done with the "intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" and, provided it is not taught to the exclusion of evolution.
 
"Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children," said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We're pleased with the court's decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again. "We are pleased for our client in this case, a father who is now free to establish this."

There are rights for Christians, including students. One such right was recently upheld for Charlie Butts at Shippensburg University in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It indicated that a student's free-speech rights have been and will be protected under a federal civil rights law. “This school had been violating constitutional rights of students in two ways“, according to Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Joseph Martins. "The university had speech code in place that punished students for speaking on topics ranging from religion to race to gender -- things of that nature -- if they simply offended people," the attorney explains. "And the First Amendment doesn't allow those types of speech codes on campus."
 
There was a second offense, says Martins. "The university actually de-recognized a Christian student organization simply because it chose its leaders in accordance with biblical principle," he notes. This was also called discrimination so the ADF filed suit in 2004. Shippensburg University settled without going to trial. But then in a few months, they again reinstated some of the policies verbatim. ADF took them to court again, and the school has now decided to abide by the U.S. Constitution after paying courts costs, attorneys fees, etc.
                                                 
And why shouldn't Creationism and Intelligent Design be taught?  Just look at what alleged evidence scientists have they used to coerce the public school district to teach.  In 1922 a so-called scientist claimed to have found in Nebraska the true "missing link" between men and animals. Dubbed the "Nebraska Man," it was flaunted in text-books and museums of the world as being one million years old. Pictures and models were created, based on the "scientific" studies of experts. Just three years later, in the famous "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, this overwhelming evidence was introduced to prove evolution and show that "ignorant Bible-believers" were wrong! Great "scientific experts" were quoted to prove their case and all who were dumb enough to believe that God created man in His image were mocked and ridiculed!
 
When evidence of the "Nebraska Man" was demanded, the "great scientific experts" reluctantly admitted that their evidence consisted of ONE (1) tooth! But that's not all! After evolutionists and the mainstream media reporters bullied lowly Bible believers for years with their "scientific proof" the rest of that skeleton was found, and guess what? It was the skeleton of an extinct pig!  Many of the so called "missing links" have turned out to be fossil phonies. Here are more examples.
 
Another find in a Sussex gravel pit in 1912 showed promise. With its huge human-like braincase and ape-like jaw, the Piltdown Man "fossil" was named Eoanthropus dawsoni after Charles Dawson, the solicitor and amateur archaeologist who discovered it. For 40 years Piltdown Man was heralded as the missing link between humans and their primate ancestors. But in 1953 scientists concluded it was a forgery. The Britannica says that the Piltdown man was a fraud! An analysis was made to date the bones more precisely and it was discovered that the skull was human and the jaw was that of a monkey with the teeth filed to make them look human. Both creatures had recently died but the bones had been chemically treated to make them look old! Over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown Man and were awarded Ph.D. degrees from outstanding universities of the world! 
 
Assuredly scientists and archaeologists can tell the difference between scientific facts and fakery, can't they? Regardless, over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown Man and were awarded Ph.D.s from outstanding universities of the world! So are they Degrees of fakery?
 
Even Lucy, discovered in Ethiopia 1904 by Donald Johannson, was proclaimed to be a set of fossils that were stated to be 40% complete. Considered a female, she stood less than 3 & 1/2 feet tall. Her skull was not found, but a portion of the lower jaw was full ape-like. Other fossils from the same strata and location have been found which have all been full ape, with the cranial capacity in the range of a modern chimp. Johannson claimed that Lucy was "the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race." He claimed she was three million years old, diagrammed at the very "Y" of the phylum branch that separated man and ape.

The media made an immediate celebrity of Johannson...in fact he was considered a hero. He even got his own institute for human biology at Berkeley (Cal.). But why weren't scientists not allowed to examine, let alone touch, Lucy's bones until 1982? Maybe because, when they finally did, guess what they found upon examination? They discovered that they could not tell the difference between and a present-day rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find at the San Diego Zoo. Remeber Lucy was only 3 & 1/2 feet tall. Look at the skeletal structures of both. Wow! It looks the same. You decide.  Look at what is Lucy and you'll see much is left up to the imagination.
 
Another example was from an 1891 discovery by a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, who was stationed in Java.  He reported finding the "missing link" between man and animals! He discovered the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. But he found them 70 feet apart, among many bones along a creek, over the period of a year! After completing his military service Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home and sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his "scientific" proof.  Dubois called his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.
 
Finally, after about 35 years, the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists met and studied the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a "missing link!" No less an authority than H.G. Wells, the agnostic historian known for his two-volume Outline of History, said they were the bones of an ape. Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the "missing link" between man and animals, proving evolution!
 
The Archaeoraptor, which was dubbed a feather dinosaur, was found in China in 1999.  It was believed to be proof positive that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  In actuality the feathered part and the top part of the fossil were from two different organisms.  When National Geographic featured the Archaeoraptor, they included a model of a T. rex covered in feathers.  Christopher P. Sloan, the curator of the Smithsonian Institute at the time, said the "...National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism (Nov. 1999)."
 
I can see no reason whatsoever, that public schools should not be able to teach Creationism.  Science has been teaching a theory, which is based upon phony evidence.  So the next time someone tells you that "they can't legally teach Creationism in a public school because of "separation of church and state", politely remind them what the United States Supreme Court, the law of the land, has already declared, that we should be "...teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children."  Parents, you have the rights.  So, yes you can teach Creationism in a public school.  Else why would this group of, from Elementary to High School students, present a school program at a public school, and for the general public, like the one below?

www.greatdanepromilitary.com/Battle%20Hymn/index.htm

    
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(10)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Seth2008-11-15 21:19:11
How refreshing! The general belief of separation of church and state does not conflict with the reality that Christians also have rights to freedoms of their faith expressions. Something that even minorities are thereof endowed with in the United States (albeit, not in full perfection).


Sand2008-11-16 12:38:49
It should be noted that the indicated Supreme Court decision the majority did not support the teaching of creationism. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

The church enjoys tax free status on the basis of not interfering in government and if that interference is violated then the tax free status becomes invalid.


Jack2008-11-16 23:38:14
If the Court's decision "did not support the teaching of creationism" neither did it prohibit it either [my point in the article]. If there is "interference" deemed to have occured in a public school, then it is up to the local public within that school district to do something about it or local authorities. It is both their right & priviledge. It is apparent (ie, www.greatdanepromilitary.com/Battle%20Hymn/index.htm) that not all school districts have labeled such programs as "interference". The public School Board works for the voting public, and the ballot builds the Board. It is called Democracy.


Sand2008-11-17 00:05:13
This is a direct quote from the Supreme Court decision.

It is equally clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Indeed, the Court of Appeals found that no law prohibited Louisiana public school teachers from teaching any scientific theory. 765 F.2d, at 1257. As the president of the Louisiana Science Teachers Association testified, "any scientific concept that's based on established fact can be included in our curriculum already, and no legislation allowing this is necessary." 2 App. E-616. The Act provides Louisiana schoolteachers with no new authority. Thus the stated purpose is not furthered by it.


Jack2008-11-17 21:51:59
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard


Sand2008-11-17 22:06:01
Although there is clearly no objection to having reasonable competing scientific theories in an instructional situation, unfortunately, intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory as many noted scientists have indicated. See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html


Jack2008-11-17 23:04:09
Humanist Aldous Huxley expressed in his book Ends and Means that “he and his contemporaries did not want government or morality.” So they chose evolution in order to shut the mouths of those who believe in special creation. Sadly, for more than 100 years, the evolutionists have succeeded in convincing people that evolution is the only logical, scientific, and intelligent theory of human origin.

Part and parcel of this campaign has been fossil hoaxes, well documented, intentional deceit and slight of the hand. We've all seen the creative drawings of supposed ancestors of mankind, built on a few teeth or a piece of a skull…all perpetrated over the last century. So it is no surprise that in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish embryologist, Soren Lovtrup, believes that he believes that some day Darwinism "will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." Yet, despite its lack of credible evidence, evolution holds sway in our schools, the courts, and the public mind. But, not in all of the land, and not universally in all school districts, private schools and home schools, other nations.


Jack2008-11-17 23:18:33
Evolution is an Operational (Observable) Sciencem, which is: observable, testable, repeatable and falisifiable. Evolution can not qualify for this. It's proper place is under Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based upon a presupposed philosophical point of view. So technically, evolution is what is called an Historical Theory, since it attempts to explain past events based on interpretation of evidence of evidence that is available in the present.


Sand2008-11-18 00:44:02
The concept that almost 100% of scientists working working and teaching in biology and actively and successfully utilizing the basic principles of evolution in genetic engineering and biological analysis are total fools is ludicrous.


Jack2008-11-18 01:53:18
Evolution is 100% dependent upon Abiogenesis, described as the origin of life. It is the study of how life on earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research "theorizes" that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 and 3.5 billion years ago. By 2.4 billion years ago the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron,and sulfur points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and that molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis. Abiogenesis is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic and depends upon spontaneous generation.

So the theory of evolution is dependent upon another theory. But Biogenesis does not explain where these elixirs of life came from? Did matter spontaneously generate out of nothing!? What theory will this event require.

This would make three theories, all in a row, to explain everything: matter, the elixir and life. Three theories, like three hopes one must just through, does not allow the word "conclusive proof" to be used with the term "theory [ie, evolution]".

If mankind needs three theories to explain his existence, then that's asking too much: 3 dominoes you know will eventually fall.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi