Darwin's Theory of 'Revolution'
The debate over the origin of life on earth, and the theories that should be taught in public schools, has boiled d to religious belief. Whether one believes in science (a.k.a. Darwinism) as religiously as another believes in faith in the Creator (a.k.a. Intelligent Design), in the final analysis we must decide whether or not children attending government-run schools should be exposed to the truth.
From that perspective, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which has revolutionized the way in which we approach teaching biology, needs a closer examination. Those advocates of secular science believe as fervently in Darwin's theory as Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus.
So who is telling the truth ... Darwin or Jesus?
The problem with seeking truth in evolution and the theory of natural selection is not just that it leaves many questions unanswered but it also reveals that even Darwin didn't believe in his theory.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 155).
In one sentence Darwin himself proclaims his theory moot. Yet today his theory lives on, influencing American schoolchildren nationwide with a hypothesis that outright rejects the idea of God being the Creator of all that we see, and simultaneously declaring Darwin's theory factual when, at best, it is merely interesting.
The law: public schools will teach the bible
The truth is that secularists have conducted a coup and now control public education in America. And despite the propaganda that proclaims the public schools must be guarded against the introduction of religious teachings, the reverse is actually true. It is not religion (a.k.a. Christianity) that is new to public schools, but rather a belief in secularism.
The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont and was later moved to School Street. A portrait statue of Benjamin Franklin overlooks the site of the oldest public school in America which Franklin, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock once attended. (www.cityofboston.gov).
When Christians argue that public schools were first created specifically to teach children to read the bible, secularists scoff. That's because they don't know history.
"It being one chief project of the old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures ... it is therefore ordered ... [to] appoint one within their t to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read ..." (Massachusetts School Law of 1647, Documents of American History, F. S. Crofts, New York, p. 29, 1947).
Opinion of the Founding Fathers
The argument that the constitution outlaws religion in public schools is yet another piece of propaganda promoted by the secularists and atheists. While the constitution addresses the role of Congress in the first amendment and is intended to prevent the government from declaring by law an establishment of religion, it does not prohibit religion from being expressed in all areas of the government and nation. In fact, it expressly prohibits Congress from interfering in the free expression of religion. Would that include the expression of religion within public schools as well?
In a 1749 booklet on education, Benjamin Franklin said the teaching of history in schools should "afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion ... and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others." (The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Leonard W. Labaree (Ed.), Yale University Press, New Haven, volume III, p. 413, 1961).
Franklin wasn't the only statesman and leader in this country who made the case for the teaching of religion in public schools. As the anti-religious crowd began to gain a voice loud enough to be heard, and introduce new books into the public school system, another familiar name stepped forward to defend the teaching of religion.
Fisher Ames, an educator and prominent statesman, said, "[I]f these [new] books ... must be retained, as they will be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?"
In a widely distributed pamphlet, Benjamin Rush (the "father of public schools under the Constitution" as well as a signer of America's Declaration of Independence) argued from reason and revelation for the continued use of the Bible as a schoolbook. (Fisher Ames, The Works of Fisher Ames, T. B. Wait and Company, Boston, p. 134, 1809. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, 1806; Union College Press, Schenectady, New York, pp. 55-66, 1988, reprint.).
Thomas Jefferson, to whom many of the secularists attribute their basis of "separation of church of state," which is derived from a letter Jefferson sent to a Baptist congregation, not only attended worship services that were held in the House of representatives during his presidency, but he also weighed in on the debate in a most profound manner.
While U.S. president, he (Jefferson) made the Bible a primary reading text for Washington, D.C., schools. (See David Barton, Education and the Founding Fathers, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, Texas, p. 22, 1998).
So why do so many people claim that there is a separation of church and state in our constitution if the very men who helped create the document were under no such delusion?
The answer is that the very first government document where the words "separation of church and state" appeared are contained within Article II, Section 13 of the 1918 Russian Constitution. There it plainly states that, "the church shall be separated from the state and the church from the school ... ."
One of the underlying basic tenets of a socialist society is that it must also recognize a secular government as supreme. Thus, unlike the United States, where the history of our government is fraught with religion, the Bolsheviks set forth from the outset of their socialist government to ensure religion of the people would not be recognized by the government in any manner, from the school to the court.
Conversely, in the U.S. the courts recognized religion, specifically Christianity, as did many early laws, including the Constitution of Massachusetts, one of the earliest. But over time, as the country began to embrace the notion that the courts would not merely interpret the constitution, but rather help "evolve" the law without the use of a legislature (similar to the socialist construct of governance), the American cultural landscape was irrevocably altered.
The evolution of the Supreme Court
Noah Webster, one of the greatest of American educators, wrote an appendix to his 1832 school history text reminding students of the importance of the Scriptures, and warned that "miseries and evils" result from a lack of following the Bible.
In 1844 the US Supreme Court ruled that a college could not be built that excluded teachings from the Bible. In fact, it was lawyer and senator, Daniel Webster, the famous "defender of the Constitution," who argued before the Supreme Court that Christianity is inseparable from education. (Noah Webster, Advice to the Young, 1832; WallBuilder Press, Aledo, Texas, p. 39, 1993, reprint).
Throughout the 1800s the nation would remain embroiled in a battle between the established religious foundation of the public schools and the secularists who were determined to change the focus of education in America.
In 1860 Edward Hitchcock, a famous geologist, went on the record declaring his opposition to the notion that the origin of man was from "a mere mass of jelly."
Over the next century, evolution was considered a theory that had its place among many of the theories scientists concocted.
One of the most famous cases regarding evolution was the biology teacher John Scopes vs. The State of Tennessee (a.k.a. Scopes Monkey Trial). In that 1925 case in the Rhea County Courthouse with the ACLU challenging, Tennessee's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was upheld.
But the 1900s would belong to the secularists, as the Supreme Court would outlaw prayer and bible reading in public schools and pave the path for the teaching of evolution as fact.
Given today's knowledge, one might look back at what scientists believed in the world of medicine, astronomy, biology and other fields of science and see clearly a rudimentary understanding of this world. But back then, like today, scientists and secularists who are devout believers in man's knowledge, put their faith in the notion that mankind had all the answers. Then along came a book that became the bible for the secularists.
1959: centennial of Darwin's Origin of Species
In the early 1960s a committee calling itself the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) released a new series of textbooks, funded by the federal government, which declared evolution as fact.
Private publishers began to follow suit and flooded the education market with textbooks supporting evolution. From 1960 - 1969 there were more than three times the total number of words about evolution in textbooks than there were in the previous decade from 1950 - 1959 (Gerald Skoog, "Topic of Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks: 1900-1977," Science Education 63, pp. 623-624, 1979).
In 1965 secularists in Arkansas organized with the support of the National Education Association (NEA) to challenge a law that outlawed the teaching of evolution. In 1968 the case reached the Supreme Court and the NEA-backed secularists won.
Science textbooks today still promote theory as fact. According to an online biology textbook from Estrella Mountain Community College in Arizona, "Scientific estimates place the origin of the Universe at between 10 and 20 billion years ago. The theory currently with the most acceptance is the Big Bang Theory, the idea that all matter in the Universe existed in a cosmic egg (smaller than the size of a modern hydrogen atom) that exploded, forming the Universe."
Aside from the obvious wild guess timeline promoted as fact, the theory with the most acceptance isn't the something-from-nothing Big Bang theory, but rather the theory that all creation was designed and made by an intelligent designer. The lie promoted in this textbook is that secular scientific theories are widely accepted by a majority of people ... and that isn't true.
Still, secularists subscribe to the propagandists theory that claims if a lie is repeated long enough and spread wide enough, it will be regarded as truth. Accordingly, the following statement was found in yet another biology textbook:
"But all researchers agree on certain basic facts. We know, for example, that humans evolved from ancestors we share with other living primates such as chimpanzees and apes." (Miller and Levine, Biology, 2000, p. 757).
Rejection of evolution among scientists
Darwin himself disavowed the notion that the human eye could have come about through any accident of evolution. In fact, he considered such a hypothesis as "absurd."
So why do so many scientists subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection? The truth is that they do not.
The secularists have used their power in the leadership positions of the ACLU, the NEA and various areas of government and media to proclaim victory and support of the scientific world. Yet again, they lie.
In a keynote address to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City in 1981, Dr. Colin Patterson, the Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History said this:
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.
"So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?
"I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."
If we are concerned with teaching our children the truth about the origin of the world, and the millions of species that reside in it, we ought to begin by acknowledging the limitations to our knowledge; that is, that we do not know how old the earth is, how it was originally formed or how so many complex species came to be.
We should explain that while the scientific community has its evolving theories and hypothesis, Judeo-Christian religion has served as a fundamental unchanging truth over the past four thousand years; and throughout the history of this young nation it has been regarded as undeniable truth by a large majority of citizens. The bible, which was canonized in the third century, has remained unchanged in its teaching of the history of the world while scientific theories have changed radically over the same course of time.
The truth comes d to what one chooses to believe. And that belief becomes one's faith.
So, if we are going to teach faith in public schools, faith in the ever-evolving industry of science should not be the only option. And if we are not going to teach faith in schools (anymore), then certainly we should stop teaching blatant lies in an effort to convert religious students into secularists.
is an award-winning columnist, the author of two books and the Content Editor at the Ashland Daily Tidings.