The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his066/icr1089.arj/ICR1089.TXT

Text File | 1990-02-13 | 10KB | 226 lines

 No. 196 TEACHERS CAN TEACH
         CREATION SCIENCE
        IN THE CLASSROOM
                         by Robert L. Simonds, Th.D.*

Today, many in public education are attempting to use the government
to censor scientific evidence that refutes evolution and advances the
concept of special creation. It is widely believed that scientific
creationism cannot be taught in a public school science classroom.
This is not true.

The U.S. Supreme Court developed a three-prong test in Lemon v.
Kurtzman as to when government involvement in religious activity does
not violate the establishment clause: (1) The activity must have a
secular purpose; (2) its primary effect must be neither to advance nor
inhibit religion; (3) it must not constitute excessive entanglement of
government with religion.

THE BATTLEGROUND

One would think that rational men of science would want to test,
evaluate, and discuss any reasonable scientific theory on any given
subject, to ascertain probable, testable data to move the theory to
the level of a scientific law.

However, the established scientific community has built an entire
system around a straw house. The irrationality of this position has
created a scientific "house divided," as Dr. Henry Morris has
thoroughly documented.(1)

Not only does the theory of evolution not conform to the criteria for
science, it is also the foundation of many religions, and it totally
fails the Supreme Court test of government non-involvement in
religion.

This is nothing less than a spiritual battle for the minds of all
America's children. Evolution, consistently applied, denies God's
existence and His creative acts. It is the central theme of all
humanist theory. Without evolution, the entire atheist religion of
humanism would fall.

HOW ABOUT THE CHURCH AND STATE ISSUE?

Dr. John Moore, Professor of Natural Science at Michigan State
University for over 30 years, pointed out that in creation science:

No new laws are necessary, there is no possible violation of so-called
separation of church and state, since no religious teaching is
involved.(2)

But would the United States Supreme Court buy that? Yes. In Edwards v.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987), they said:

. . .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.

That ruling also sustained the finding of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, as follows:

No court of which we are aware had prohibited voluntary instruction
concerning purely scientific evidence that happens, incidentally, to
be consistent with a religious doctrine or tenet.

Therefore, the teaching of creation science is solidly supported by
law--as long as the court's rules are followed.

HOW ABOUT ACADEMIC CREDIBILITY?

The main argument of the ACLU in the Scopes Trial in 1925 was that "it
is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins
(creation)." The argument was against "censorship" of evolution. Now
the tables have turned. A liberal educaton, by definition, requires
all sides of every issue to be aired. Truth from any source should not
be feared. That is another academic reason to teach "creation
science." Academic freedom permits a teacher to present whatever views
he or she deems necessary to clarify a subject. Censoring out creation
science in favor of a religious view of evolution would violate
academia's rules against censorship. Not to allow another valid theory
would also violate the academic idea of a liberal education, and to
suppress a teacher's right to freedom in learning would violate the
concept of academic freedom.

HOW ABOUT SCHOOL OR STATE POLICIES?

The ACLU and NEA (National Education Association) have spent millions
on giving school boards, administrators, and teachers the false
perception that Creation Science is a religious doctrine, not science.
However, the Institute for Creation Research has strongly challenged
that perception and has started the decay of the evolutionary death
grip on science. The constituents of ICR are privileged to support and
participate in possibly the greatest single movement in American
church history in this century. Until 1989, no state, to my knowledge,
ever put in writing that it was permissible to teach "creation
science," "divine creation," "ultimate purposes," or "ultimate causes"
in a public-school classroom. However, the proposed new "California
State Board of Education Policy Statement on the Teaching of Natural
Sciences" says: 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 scientific curriculum. Discussions
of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the "why")
are appropriate to the history/social science and English/language
arts curricula: (emphasis mine). The first sentence affirms that any
valid scientific fact, theory, or hypothesis can be taught. That
policy should qualify the theories of creation science. Evolution is
no more "testable" or "falsifiable" than creation.

The second sentence opens up the legitimate teaching of Biblical
divine creation, ultimate purposes, and ultimate causes, not in only
one major discipline, but four (history, social sciences, English, and
English literature).

The recent Texas "Proclamation 66" requires all textbooks to:

1. Present more than one theory of evolution (this shows up the
internal divisions on evolution dogma);

2. Examine alternative scientific evidence and ideas on origins (this
forces the discussion of scientific creationism both as an idea and a
theory);

3. Present evidence to test, verify, modify, or refute each theory of
evolution discussed;

4. Present any other reliable scientific theories of origins. It does
seem that the educational pendulum could be swinging back to center.
However, the battle is not over, by any means.

SUPPORTING THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE

Public school curricula should stay within the true realm of science:
the observable, the testable, and the predictable. However, this would
preclude the dogmatic teaching of evolution. All Christians should
insist on this in their public schools.

Science involves methods, procedures, and practices limited by
specific principles of investigation. These principles are often
violated by evolutionists. You should be kept well informed on
evolution's weaknesses. For example, Dr. Moore writes:

The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the
basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a
scientific principle.... The concept of survival of the fittest itself
does not necessarily imply any evolution. Would not the fittest
survive, whether they evolved or were created?"(3)

Science functions in the realm of the testable, i.e., the falsifiable.
Any proposed scientific explanation must be amenable to a testing
process.

GUIDELINES FOR TEACHERS

If you are a teacher, you should take a step-by-step approach to
maintaining the integrity of science in your classroom.

1. Realize that many school administrators, school board members, and
teachers are closet creationists. In their hearts they believe in a
Creator and many want to support such views but feel their hands are
tied. Your task is to show them that both evolution and scientific
creationism should be presented in the classroom.

2. Provide solid secular information on scientific creationism such as
What is Creation Science? (published by the Institute for Creation
Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021).

3. Document the legality of teaching scientific creationism. In 1987,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (Case No. 85-
1513) that a Louisiana law demanding a "balance" of evolution and
creationism be taught, had an unconstitutional purpose of advancing a
religious opinion. However, the Court also clarified 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
(p. 14) (previously cited).

The Supreme Court noted that teachers "already possess" the
flexibility to supplement the present science curriculum with the
presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life
(p. 8), and are "free to teach any and all facets of this subject" of
"all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" (p. 9).

This is clearly a "green light" for scientific creationism to be
taught, even though its teaching cannot be mandated, and even though
it prohibits the teaching of Biblical Creationism.

4. Sponsor a lecture series at a local public library or auditorium
(not a church) on scientific creationism. Invite teachers,
administrators, and school board members. Organize the local churches
for support of this event.

As a teacher, you are a unique minister of "light." Your work will
"salt" the education process. ICR materials have helped our CEE
parents' groups win scores of creation/evolution-policy battles across
America. Those same materials will strengthen every teacher's resolve
and technical abilities. The creation/evolution war is for the soul of
our nation. Every person will be affected by its outcome.

The Humanist Manifesto I (1933), promulgated by the American
Humanist Association, describes the basis for its atheism in its very
first Tenet, as follows: "(we) regard the Universe as self-existing
and not created."

The Christian Bible supports scientific creation evidence when it
says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis
1:1).

What message will America's children hear? It all depends on you.

REFERENCES

1. Morris, Henry M., "Evolution A House Divided," Impact 149, Acts &
Facts, vol 18, August 1989), 4 pp.
2. Moore, John N., How to Teach Origins, Milford, Michigan, Mott
Media, 1983, p l.
3. Moore, p. 46.

Dr. Simonds is President and Founder of the National Association of
Christian Educators and Citizens for Excellence in Education, P.O. Box
3200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628.