|
|
Separation
of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution.
The phrase first appeared in a letter
written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut.
Atheists almost always omit the last part of the letter that shows Jefferson's
intent.
Here is the context of that letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Teaching the scientific evidence for creation in public schools has always been legal (see note)*. Nevertheless, many teachers wonder how to do this. Schools should be places of inquiry, where students are taught to analyze all sides of an issue. Few academic subjects have greater inherent interest for high school or college students than the origins question. The fact that it is controversial is, therefore, not a liability but an asset. The origins question, then, is an ideal vehicle for developing analytical skills.
*In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United
States held: "Moreover, requiring
the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers
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."
Edwards, Governor of
Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al., Supreme Court of the United States,
No. 85-1513, argued 10 December 1986, decided 19 June 1987, p. 1.
What do the experts say?
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.
"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
"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 a part of a secular (public
school) program of education, may not be effected consistently with the
First Amendment."
U.S. Supreme Court: School
District of Abington Township vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 225 (1963).
"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
"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
"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.
Creationism
as religion? Is Evolutionism really religion?
Scientific
creationism is not a religious doctrine, and unlike classroom
prayer and Bible reading it can be taught in public schools. Instruction
in scientific creationism involves presentation
of the scientific evidence for creation rather than use of Genesis
in the classroom. For example, it discusses the evidence that man does
not have an ape-like ancestor rather than the Biblical statement that God
created Adam and Eve; it summarizes the scientific proof that a worldwide
flood shaped this planet's geology rather than the scriptural teaching
that Noah and his family survived the flood in an ark. As Dr. Henry M.
Morris has said so well, "creation is as scientific
as evolution and … evolution is as religious as creation."
Scientific
creationism indeed is as scientific as evolution.
There are many scientists who are creationists:
the Institute for Creation Research has seventeen creationists with doctorates
in science on its staff and advisory board, and the Creation Research Society
includes more than six hundred creationists with postgraduate degrees in
science. And there are textbooks that present scientific evidences for
creation: for example, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
was sponsored by the Creation Research Society, and Scientific Creationism
(Pub. Sch. Ed.) was sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research.
Evolution
is indeed as religious as scientific creationism.
It is true that scientific creationism
is consistent with religious creationism—but the
evolutionary theory is consistent with religious humanism; as
in the case of the Fellowship of Religious Humanists, the supporters of
the Humanist Manifesto, and Sir Julian Huxley's "religion
of evolutionary humanism." And it is true that scientific creationists
refer to a Creator or God—but Darwin's Origin of Species, the three B.S.C.S.
high school biology textbooks, most other high school biology texts, and
the pledge of allegiance also refer to God yet are acceptable in public
schools.
Is
instruction in scientific creationism a violation of academic freedom?
Courts have recognized that school
authorities can—and must—decide what subjects will be taught in public
schools. A decision to add scientific creationism to the curriculum in
the 1970's does not violate academic freedom any more than a decision to
add evolution in the 1920's did. Instruction in
both theories enhances academic freedom for the student, because
it gives him a neutral choice among alternative theories rather than indoctrination
in one theory.
Is
instruction in scientific creationism the Scopes monkey trial again?
No—but the present situation is the
Scopes trial in reverse. Just as Tennessee in the 1920's excluded evolution
and taught only creation, the states in the 1970's exclude creation and
teach only evolution. As Clarence Darrow said in behalf of Mr. Scopes,
it is "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins."
"Nothing
in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones,
or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse
door. While the government may not use schools to coerce the consciences
of our students, or to convey official endorsement of religion, the public
schools also may not discriminate against private religious expression
during the school day.
Religion
is too important in our history and our heritage for us to keep it out
of our schools...[I]t shouldn't be demanded, but as long as it is not sponsored
by school officials and doesn't interfere with other children's rights,
it mustn't be denied."
President Clinton
July 12, 1995
A few links:
What do you do when your teacher is an evolutionist?
Evolution in Public Schools... What creationists can do...