Recently, our state has been embroiled in a controversy regarding our new science standards. All of the standards have been approved....accept the standard regarding evolution, which our politicians continue to try to critique.
Mike Fair, a Republican from the northern corner of our state, has been an outspoken proponent for changing the standards to allow for debate on evolution.
The courts have placed a stranglehold on the search for truth in science. The "truth" must conform to Darwinism, or it is not allowed. I don't suppose it matters what your eyes see or your mind tells you.
I really hate the term "Darwinism" to begin with. I don't know about you all, but I rarely see this term bandied about by anyone that isn't attempting to discredit the entirety of evolutionary theory.
Fair believes that the Constitution says what it means, and he practices the typical variety of historical revisionism that I have come to expect from my state legislature:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution proclaims: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It means what it says.
Noah Webster, a Founding Father, was considered the father of education. In his 1828 published dictionary he defined "establish" as the "use of authority to enact an institutional structure."
As colonies became states, state religions, mostly Anglican, were common. However, taxpayer funded religions were banned by the nation's founders as noted in the First Amendment establishment clause cited above.
Webster's 1828 definition of the Constitution includes these words: "The Christian New Testament is the Moral Law for the United States."
So Noah Webster was reflecting the fact that the majority of our Founding Fathers promoted the Christian faith as individuals but agreed the government would not establish a state faith funded by taxpayers.
However, over time, the courts have come to determine what the words in the Constitution mean. Every set of Supreme Court Justices gives us a new set of "founders."
Like many of the outspoken Christian politicians, Fair neglects to consider the presence of Deists among our Founding Fathers. And again, he decides that the Constitution in this instance means something other than what it does. While it says, quite clearly, that Congress cannot respect or prohibit religion, Fair has decided that this means something other than what it says.
Fair also argues that the only conclusion from "Darwinism" is atheism:
I believe the principles established by the Founders are being removed from the public square by a series of narrow decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court. I am bothered that the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by a series of 5-4 votes clearly outside the methods duly established to properly change our Constitution.
Consider these decisions now in place through Supreme Court rulings rather than the process established to change our national Constitution: No prayer in many public places; atheism, a religious belief, is allowed to be a factor in driving Darwinism in public schools; Darwinism or naturalism is the only theory allowed in public school science class on Evolution; The Big Bang Theory confirming the truth of a beginner, judged to be a conclusion or debate that is not allowed; many facts are excluded from science and astronomy because of their non-atheistic implications that point directly to intelligence.
Recall that Darwinism is a random process. Intelligence not allowed.
I don't find this accurate. There are many Christians in my circle (nowadays, anyway) that accept that evolution happened. There's even a papal decree on the matter--although I'd be willing to wager that Fair is the brand of Christian that would argue that the Catholics aren't ****really**** Christians, y'all.
At the end of the day, this is typical creationist reasoning. There's no new arguments, and plenty of persecution complex. It's why we desperately need to make sure that we are getting out and voting next month and protecting our children from the intrusion of religion in their science classrooms.
I'd expect no less of someone that had legitimate reason to be worried about intrusion of science on their sunday school classroom.