Should
(or can) creation science be taught in the public school system?
Answer:
This is a good question and it deserves a good answer; however, there are other
questions that must be answered first before this question can be properly
answered.
The first of these is; Should we
have a public school system? The tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people." The interference of the Federal government in the education
of children is unconstitutional. I believe if the government was out of the
education business (as well as welfare and hundreds of other socialist programs
they have gotten into), many other problems would be eliminated and questions
like this would be moot.
If a group of parents want to get
together and hire someone to educate their children in keeping with their
beliefs and values, that is fine and constitutional. It is unfair and illegal
(constitutionally) to force everyone (via taxes) to pay to have all children
taught things contrary to the beliefs and values of their parents.
A second question to answer is:
If we decide to have a public school system, who should run it? This will
further eliminate questions about what is taught. If the local community wants
to impart their values to the students, and they are paying the salaries, then
their values should be taught. The schools became public in the mid 1800’s as
part of a long-range plan for a new world order. See the article, "Why the
Schools Went Public" by Samuel Blumenfeld (310) 391-2245 for more on this,
also www.exodusmandate.org.
Now, to finally answer the
question. Not only can you legally teach creation science in the public
schools, you can teach it right out of the Bible, and teach or devote a class
to religion, and have the textbook be the Bible. We all know the effects of
what happened in 1963 when the Bible was taken out, and evolution put in to the
schools, but we have been deceived by that ACLU again! In 1963, the Supreme
Court banned the use of the Bible to try to get kids saved, which is not good
obviously, but it’s a lot better than what the ACLU has led us to believe. They
did not throw the Bible out! We have thrown the Bible out because we have
allowed ourselves to be deceived by the ACLU.
In the landmark ruling of School
District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) the court
held that, "it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for
its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that
such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a
secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First
Amendment."
In the ruling of Stone v. Graham,
449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), The Supreme Court stated that, "the Bible may
constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization,
ethics, comparative religion, or the like."
In Florey v. Sioux Falls School
District, 619 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Circuit, 1980), the court found that
permitting public school observances which include religious elements promotes
the secular purpose of "advancing the student’s knowledge and appreciation
of the role that our religious heritage has played in the social, cultural and
historical development of civilization."
There are at least two other
cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bible may be used in its
entirety for secular educational purposes such as: history, civilization,
ethics, comparative religion, culture, and the morals on which this country was
founded!
The Supreme Court never kicked
the Bible out of schools in 1963, the problem is we Christians who believed the
lie that they did! The teachers are not allowed to try to convert students
while on school time and property, but they can present creation. Now I
understand that not being able to use the Bible to get people saved is
discouraging, but, being able to use it to teach creation science or the morals
that this country was founded on can and will reverse the current
indoctrination! You can not only teach creation science, you can do it right
from the Bible – verse by verse – or you could go out on a different subject
and teach how the Bible is the only moral absolute that this country has. This
country was founded on the morals in the Bible, and without the Bible, all
morals are in-absolute, and are subject to some human’s interpretation! You can
teach that! If you get in trouble (and there is a risk because so many
principals have been misled by ACLU type lawyers) call up your ACLJ (American
Center for Law and Justice in Atlanta– Jay Sekulow), or the National Legal
Foundation, or the American Family Association Law Center, or the Rutherford
Institute (804) 978-3888, and they should be willing bring it to the courts.
When I speak in public schools, I
purposely do not use the Bible or mention God because I do not want to close
the door for future ministry. I may demand my rights and lose my opportunity to
get anything in the schools.
The courts have always ruled that
states cannot "require" the teaching of creation. The teachers have
had the right to teach it. Even enemies of creation understand this.
"no statue exists in any
state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and
it can be taught now." Stephen Jay Gould, The Verdict on Creationism,
New York Times, July 19, 1987, p. 34
"The Supreme Court ruling
did not, in any way, outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school
classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that, in the form taken by the Louisiana law,
it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject.
'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms if and when
teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate. Numerous surveys have
shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route. And, in fact,
'creation science' is being taught in science courses troughout the country."
Evolutionary biologist Michael Zimmerman, "Keep Guard Up After Evolution
Victory," BioScience 37 (9, October 1987): p. 636
"The Supreme Court decision
says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of
church and state: it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism
- and unfortunately many individual teachers do. Some school districts even
require 'equal time' for creation and evolution." Eugenie Scott, National
Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA 800-290-6006, natcenscied.org.
Nature 329 (1987): 282.
"Teachers and school boards
in public schools are already free under the Constitution of the USA to teach
about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes. Laws can be
passed in most countries of the world requiring discussion of supernatural
origins in science classes, and still satisfy national legal requirements. And
I have a suggestion for evolutionists. Include discussion of supernatural
origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other
schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science
classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of
elitism. Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism
believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide? Shouldn't
students be encouraged to express their beliefs about origins in a class
discussing origins by evolution?" William B. Provine, Biology and
Philosophy 8 (1993): 124
"Teachers may discuss
creation in science classes if they wish. Courts allow states to require
discussing scientific weaknesses in evolution theory but not requiring
discussing evidence for creation." Educational Research Analysts, PO Box
7518, Longview, TX 75607, (903)753-5993, Mel Gabler, TxbkRevws@aol.com
"the Bible may
constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization,
ethics, comparative religion, or the like." Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39,
42 (1980)
In the landmark ruling of School
District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) the court
held that, "it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for
its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that
such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a
secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First
Amendment."
Legal Opinions on the Bible in Public Schools:
"Teaching a variety of
scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be
done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science
instruction.
"Teachers already possess" the flexibility to present "a variety
of scientific theories about the origins of humankind"… and are "free
to teach any and all facets of this subject."
Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987) p. 8-9
"Discussions of any
scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe,
the earth and of life (the "how") are appropriate to the science
curriculum."
California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural
Sciences.