This is not a how-to column or an advice column, but rather a sort of "newspaper" column. The subject? Evolution in the public schools. Written by an anonymous dear friend of mine who was 13 when the paper was begun and 14 when it ended (anonymity appreciated).
Like many young mothers, Susan is proud as she pulls away from the elementary school parking lot, fresh with its repaved asphalt surface and bright yellow lines. School buses are a splash of brilliant paint on this cloudy first day of school. Susan is satisfied with the teachers and students at the public elementary school, and fully expects that her son will come out of first grade with a good education. What Susan does not know as she drives away in her green Honda Accord is that her son is being indoctrinated with the religion that grips the minds of many today; and it all starts with the pretty young first-grade teacher who asks him to draw a picture of the fish he came from.
Susan’s son is one of the millions of schoolchildren each year who are handed a religion disguised as a scientific theory. Despite the government’s promises to keep public education ‘neutral,’ students who pass through the system emerge thoroughly immersed in the greatest secular religion of all time: Darwin’s scientific theory of evolution.
Shocked, parents protest. They have been told that evolution is a scientific theory. They know that creation-science, or creationism, is not taught in the public schools because the courts declared such teaching unconstitutional. The Supreme Court applied certain tests to creation-science, and determined that the teaching of creation-science violates the First Amendment prohibition against laws concerning the teaching of religion. However, when the same tests are applied to evolution, it likewise fails. Because of the government’s policy concerning the teaching of religion in schools, evolution should not be taught in public schools because evolution is, in fact, a religion. To be consistent in the application of their laws, the government must stop teaching only evolution in public schools.
The courts apply a three-prong test called the ‘Lemon Test’ to determine whether a law violates the First Amendment. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
These prongs are often called the purpose prong, the effects prong, and the government entanglement prong. The purpose prong examines the motivations of the legislators in creating the statute, and the stated purpose of the law. The effects prong delves into the effects of the law on the people. And the government entanglement prong is a qualifier intending to keep religion and the state separate.
The laws declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court violate at least one prong of the Lemon Test. For example, the Louisiana Creationism Act was declared unconstitutional because it “had no clear secular purpose”, a violation of the first prong, despite the fact that the framers of the Act had intended a purpose of academic freedom. In another case, the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education in Louisiana decided to teach creation-science along with evolution to provide students with a variety of explanations for the origins of life, understanding that evolution was only a scientific theory and that there were other competing theories. Their decision, too, was revoked by the Supreme Court as a violation of the first prong.
To date, any law that permits creation-science to be taught as an alternative to evolution has been shot down. The courts argue that teaching creation-science violates the student’s freedom of religion and the First Amendment by allowing religion into the classroom. However, by banning creation-science from being taught along with evolution, the government is actually violating the freedom of religion and the First Amendment because evolution itself is a religion.
What is religion? The courts have never clearly set it out in any of these cases, though they use the term freely. This acceptance of vague terminology causes the court to strike down laws without ever clearly defining what it is rejecting. Merriam-Webster defines religion thus:
1b. the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices…4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Definition number four would be a good place to begin to define religion. It is the only definition that does not use the word ‘religion’ within the definition. “Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith.” This definition certainly defines Christianity and the belief in a creator God. Darwinists hold to evolution with ardor and faith; they also defend evolution fiercely despite contrary evidence. They suppress such contrary evidence, and will even continue to promote faulty evidence. Many secular humanists and scientists today devote their resources to defending evolution. Their devotion to their cause has become so arduous that they refuse to consider competing theories.
The evolutionists put up a grand fight every time creation-science is even proposed as a valid theory. If a creationist even lifts his head in protest, he is squashed with calls of First Amendment violations and religious indoctrination. Intelligent Design is also denounced as a back-door attempt by the creationists to enter the curriculum. And yet there are valid points in creation-science and Intelligent Design that evolution has yet to rebut. For example, Michael Behe, a proponent of Intelligent Design, has come up with the theory of irreducible complexity. Behe’s argument is that there are certain organs, systems, and functions that cannot be broken down into simpler parts and still work. One of Behe’s examples is the eye: there are so many parts that interact in such complex ways that it is impossible to remove any part and have it function properly, or even partially. The eye cannot be “un-evolved”; it will simply fall apart. Though the evolutionists grumble at Behe’s argument and claim that he has ulterior religious motives, not one so far has been able to produce a good counter-argument. Instead, they attack Behe himself, a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack, or an attack aimed at the person, rather than their argument. As Ann Coulter clearly articulates: “This isn’t science, it’s treating doubts about evolution as religious heresy.” The evolutionists want to silence Behe, but they cannot find a way to counter the truth of his argument.
There is evidence that evolution, when first hypothesized as a scientific theory, was intended to supplant religion. Thomas Huxley, a close friend of Darwin’s, is often called the ‘Bulldog of Evolution’. He took great strides to have evolution accepted by the scientific community. In the end, he seemed to regard evolution as a faith to die for.
For what Thomas Henry Huxley wanted positively of evolution was a popular science, a kind of metaphysics, or secular religion if you like- one that could be used to challenge and substitute for the conventional religion of Christianity, which he saw embedded in society and standing in the way of those many reforms he and his fellows were attempting.
While all of Huxley’s goals with evolution were not bad, he thought that Christianity was an inhibition to his work. He planned to use evolution as a scientific theory to disqualify a religion. He wanted to reform society using the motto of progress that evolution stood for. Ruse states: “[Huxley] wanted to promote progress, and [he] too looked to evolution as the ideal vehicle.” Huxley’s work in the British public schools still influences their methods of teaching today. He was also an abolitionist. “…no human being can arbitrarily dominate over another without grievous damage to his own nature…” While some of Huxley’s objectives were admirable, he wanted to reform society at the expense of Christianity.
Huxley was famous for his lectures on the values of evolution. He preached his progressive gospel everywhere he went. He won the museums over to his side and created evolutionary monuments of them. And from his work, evolution took on a new hue: "Evolution therefore took on the role of a substitute religion for Christianity, and whereas Christians worshipped in churches, evolutionists worshipped in museums, where one found grand displays intending to illustrate and confirm the faith…Huxley… bought entirely into the view of evolution as secular religion. He preached the gospel nonstop, from every public platform he could find…"
Right from the very beginning, the intent of the proponents of evolution was to create a new secular religion to combat Christianity. Darwin’s theory may have been an entirely valid theory of the origin of the species, but the atheists and naturalists latched onto it as a creation story to top that of Christianity.
Evolution is the creation story to their worldview. As Ann Coulter puts it: "Although God believers don’t need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine…calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."
Why do the atheists and evolutionists needs evolution to be true? Atheists before the 19th century were despised by the community as a whole. No atheist to date had yet produced a believable theory of how the world came to be without a god. This was the flaw in their worldview. All worldviews need a creation story, and atheism lacked that until Darwin proposed evolution as a scientific theory. Suddenly, atheists were clamoring at the gates of museums and schools, waving their new creation story in their hands. They stormed the scientific community and placed themselves squarely in the forefront, where they remain to this day.
Once it is established that evolution is a religion, legal precedent requires that the statues requiring the teaching of evolution must be subjected to the Lemon test. Creation-science consistently fails the Lemon test. But, what would happen if the Lemon test was applied to evolution instead?
First, the purpose prong must be applied to evolution. Is the greatest or sole purpose of the legislature the promotion of religion? As Justice Powell points out, “A religious purpose is not enough to invalidate an act of a state legislature. The religious purpose must predominate.” The purpose of teaching evolution must therefore predominately be a religious purpose in order for it to fail the Lemon test.
Evolutionists want to discredit creationism and only allow their theory to be presented in the public school system. It seems quite clear that the purpose of evolution is to be a secular creation story to displace creation-science. According to the definition of religion, evolution is a religion because it embodies a system of beliefs held to with ardor by its advocates. Evolution fails the purpose prong of the Lemon test.
The second prong is the ‘effects prong’. The government’s actions must not promote or inhibit religion. Since evolution is a religion, presenting it alone does promote religion. However, the origins of life must be taught, so the only logical solution is to teach competing views about origins. Laws that forbid a teacher to discuss any other theory, including but not limited to creation-science, are clearly one-sided and promote a religion while inhibiting creation-science.
The faults of evolution are hardly ever discussed in the public school classroom. In fact, the purpose of the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education in allowing creation-science to be taught alongside evolution in their district was to protect “the basic right of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintain beliefs…on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter.” A teacher in Seattle was laid off his job for presenting the scientific problems with evolution to his science class. It is interesting to note that he was replaced by a teacher with a degree in physical education.
The third and final prong of the Lemon test is: “the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion”. Ironically, laws involving the prohibition of creation-science in public schools are in and of themselves government entanglements with religion. By moderating each battle between evolution and creation-science, the government is swept along by a torrent of religious and scientific theories. In fact, the government, via the courts, has, in effect, defended the religion of evolution and used the schools to indoctrinate the youth against faith in God.
Creation-science is generally defined by the courts to include:
1) creation ex nihilo, 2) mutation and natural selection do not make new organisms, 3) changes occur within fixed limits, 4) man and ape are separate, 5) earth’s geology explained by catastrophism and flood, and 6) young Earth.
This definition may be one of the problems that creation-science faces in its battle against the suppression of evolution. It hardly reflects the nuances and complexity of the multifaceted approaches to creationism held by Christians today. Among the creation-science community, there is a difference over the young Earth and old Earth debate. To blatantly include “young Earth” as part of the definition of creation-science excludes an entire segment of the Christian community.
If the courts would take a more balanced definition of creation-science that did not conflict with scientific theory as much as the Louisiana creationism Act does, part of the government’s entanglement with religion will be gone. Christians who would normally not react
The government’s own tests condemn evolution as a religion. It is ‘a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith’, as proved by T.H. Huxley. The Lemon test’s validity has been called into question, yet the courts continue to apply it anyway. But when the same tests and standards are applied to the ‘scientific’ theory of evolution, it fails the test the government has set because the theory itself is a religion. A new standard is required, one that allows students to be educated about the origins of life and yet give them the academic freedom to decide for themselves what they believe. This new standard would recognize both creationism and evolution as theories, not facts, and leave students with the choice. As long as this violation of the freedoms of speech, religion, and the First Amendment go unresolved, more and more young minds will be exposed to a religion posing as a scientific theory. As Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We stand by in silence while a deeply divided fifth circuit bars a school district from even suggesting to students that other theories besides evolution- including, but not limited to, the Biblical theory of creation- are worthy of their consideration. I dissent.”
Adding your comment:
