Humanism vs. Christianity
The Polarization of America
by Patrick Vosse
Chapter 8 - The Pirates
We have seen how the scientific community
has ignored the deficiencies of the philosophy
of evolution as a scientific hypothesis
and used the techniques of Darwin and his
supporters to develop a social acceptance and take a very defensive
position on the matter. The question is, why? Scientists
do not do this with other fields of study, why do so with evolution?
Because, although is uses scientific components, it is not a science,
it is a philosophy. And not just any philosophy–
it is the
most important component of the Secular-Progressive
The Roots of Humanism
the doctrine that people's duty is to
promote human welfare
the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization
through reason; rejects religion and the
the cultural movement of the Renaissance; based on
Humanism had its roots in
the rationalism of the 18th Century and the freethought
movement of the 19th Century. Humanism in its formative years was
Atheistic and rejected all revealed knowledge. Secular Humanism also
emphasized the fundamental goodness of all humanity and rejected the
concept of sin. This was in direct opposition to orthodox
Christianity that has as a fundamental tenant the
existence of God, the sinfulness of all humanity, and the need
for individual salvation. In 1920, a Unitarian minister,
Charles Francis Potter, founded the Fist
Humanist Society of New York. The advisory board included
Julian Huxley, John Dewey, Albert Einstein, and Thomas
Mann. In 1933, another Unitarian minister, Ramond Bragg, wrote the first
Humanist Manifesto. The first Humanist
Manifesto (see Appendix 3) claimed to outline a new "Humanist religion"
that would replace traditional theistic-based religions.
In fact, it was far from the religious Humanism it claimed to be.
Eventually Secular Humanism became the predominant for of Humanism,
however, the concept of a religious Humanism survives today and is an
important part of the Humanism-Christianity polarization.
Religious Humanism will be discussed in Chapter 13.
Humanism is the
cornerstone of the modern liberal philosophies
and influences politics, economics,
education, and society in general throughout the world.
When evolution appeared on the scene, it had a
ready-made home. Before discussing the role of Evolutionism
in modern liberal movements, we should briefly review
the development of liberal philosophies.
Frances Bacon (1561-1626)
Bacon was influential in
establishing methodology for scientific inquiry and the scientific
approach to problem solving that would eventually become the scientific
method discussed previously. It is the foundation of all the sciences today. His system
involved observation to establishing fact. Then through inductive
reasoning and experimentation, establish a law that explains the
thinking would revolutionize how men approached and solved problems. It
would provide for arriving at correct conclusions and minimize or
eliminate incorrect conclusions. Bacon, however, did not reject religion.
He held that religion and philosophy (science) were separate and should coexist.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes is considered the founder of
modern philosophy and modern mathematics. He was
influential in the use of Platonic thought (deductive) and initially
determined that thought, not perception would lead one to knowledge and
the first principle of philosophy that can be accepted as truth without
proof. He stated this principle in his famous remarks: "I
think, therefore, I am." This is an example of how the men of this
period were not interested in revealed religious
principles, but were interested in attaining those same truths by
reason. And, of course, if one could acquire truth through
philosophy, religion was unnecessary.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Newton is regarded as the
most influential scientist in history. His contributions
to mathematics, physics, astronomy, and philosophy
still impact mankind today. His insights to the study of natural
phenomena and the methodology he developed contributed significantly to
the scientific revolution. Newton developed the calculus, laws of
gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, laws of planetary motion, and laws
of mechanics. Applications of these discoveries are the basis for modern
engineering and science.
This scientific advancement resulted in
the advancement of the humanistic principle that Man can eventually do
anything he puts his mind to. It is interesting to note that Newton
was a student of the occult and that his work in
alchemy and Hermetic Gnosticism (see Chapter 12)
eventually led to the concept of gravity. He once stated that, "I study
the Bible daily". However, much of his Bible study was
devoted to the Gnostic search for hidden codes in the
text. His contemporaries accused him of being a Rosicrucian, as were
many members of the Royal Society, and his occult
interest, which he openly admitted, would support the claim.
While Newton was "religious", he had concluded that the
doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus
were in error, thus, he was a heretic. In fact, his philosophy
is consistent with modern Unitarianism. However, he kept these beliefs a
relative secret. When he was proposed for a position at the university,
he faced a dilemma. At the time, it was required that all faculty be
ordained clergy, however, he could not accept ordination because of his
beliefs. He petitioned the king for an exception and received it.
Newton's exception did not
appear significant at the time, but it began an important development in
the higher education establishment. Church
control of universities was diminished and eventually eliminated.
Freedom of thought and humanism could be developed in the higher
education system without external control. This concept is one of the
fundamental principles of higher education today.
Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677)
Spinoza is considered to be the founder
of modern biblical criticism. He considered God
and Nature to be two names for the same thing. His arguments
were presented with a precision that exerted great influence on the
thinking of his contemporaries and many who followed. Some of Spinoza’s
tenets are summarized below.
God is the natural world and is impersonal
The natural world made itself
Everything must necessarily happen in the exact way that it does, therefore, there is no free will
There is no real difference between good and evil
Everything done by humans and other animals is good and "divine".
All rights are derived from the state
Among those influenced by Spinoza are Albert Einstein,
who claimed that he had the most influence on his
worldview, and Karl Marx and the communist movement. If one
reads the Humanist Manifesto, the influence of Spinoza is obvious.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Rousseau’s ideas had a great influence on
the French Revolution as well as several contemporary philosophers in
other countries. His central theme was the establishment of the
individual’s freedom. According to Rousseau, Man is good by nature
but is corrupted by society. Society has a negative influence
on otherwise noble men. He was one of the first modern philosophers to
attack private property and is, therefore, considered instrumental in
the development of socialism and communism. His view
that Man was good by nature opposes the Church's doctrine
of sinful Man and much of the teaching of the apostles in
their epistles. It negates the need for salvation. He
claimed that followers of Jesus would not make good
citizens. This philosophy is common in today’s Secular-Progressive
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Immanuel Kant was the last
major philosopher of the Enlightenment Period. He developed a logical argument to prove the necessity of
"something whose nonexistence is impossible"; therefore, there must be a
God. However, he does not separate God from the material. Kant
argued that Good does not come from outside the human subject, either in
nature or given by God. Rather, Good is acting according to
inherent universal laws to which men freely give their will. This
impersonal God is consistent with the modern Unitarian concept.
George Hegel (1770-1831)
Hegel has considerable
influence on later philosophers; however, his writings are obscure and
not easily grasped. Hegel was concerned with the contradictions found in
philosophy, history, and society and established a
system for resolving these into "absolute knowledge". This is the
dialectical method and involves rationalizing the contradictions until
they merge into a synthesis. Hegel developed the concept of an "Absolute
Spirit" that equates the universe with god
(not unlike the Dharmic religions such as Buddhism). This "Absolute
Spirit" is becoming self-conscious through the minds of humans. This
concept defines a non-personal "God" in pantheistic terms as
determined by the human mind. Hegel’s philosophy was important in the
development of Marxism and most modern English language
Fredrick Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Nietzsche, who we
mentioned above, had a significant impact on the development of German
Nazism and anti-Semitism in the 20th century. Some of the
elements of his philosophy are given below.
He rejected the concept of morality
He considered Christianity
as merely a philosophical concept
that was no longer relevant and was being replaced by humanistic
materialism. One of his most famous statements is "God is
dead", does not mean God died (he does not accept that there is a God),
but that humanity has advanced past the need for a God. His observation
of the Philosophical Church probably confirmed this position.
The concept of Good vs. Evil must be replaced by Good vs. Bad
There are "aristocrats" and there is the "herd"
Values are determined by nature not on predetermined, unquestioned principles of Christianity
He claimed that, not only was Christianity untrue, but that is was a Jewish conspiracy to oppose the Roman Empire.
The religion of
the ancient Greeks was superior to Christianity
because it portrayed strong, smart men. Christianity demonized healthy
natural desires such as eroticism, revenge, creativity, and independence
from social mores.
He developed a philosophy
that emphasized unlimited individualism and development of
Nietzsche was popular in
Germany after the First World War and many of his concepts supported the
Nazi agenda in Germany. Many of his ideas were included in the Nazi
philosophy. Nietzsche’s ideas supported the agnostic
trends that were developing as well as the biological
worldview regarding evolution. Several of his concepts
even found their way into the psychology of Sigmund Freud.
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Of all the philosophers discussed so far,
Karl Marx probably had the greatest influence on all of
modern mankind. His ideas resulted in the development of communism,
which has become a dominant social influence worldwide, even after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Much of Marx’s philosophy
was based on Hegel's concepts. The entirety of Marxism
goes beyond the scope of our discussion here and we will
focus on its impact on humanism. In his "Contributions to the Critique
of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law" Marx wrote:
Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not
yet found himself or has already lost himself again…
…Religious distress is at the same
time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real
distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the
To abolish religion
as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand
their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing
state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs
illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the
criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.
Marx approached everything,
history, sociology, politics, and religion,
in materialistic terms. With Marxism, the state replaces
God. Society (the state) sets the moral requirements for the
individuals. Marxism appeals to many because it purports to eliminate
class struggle and establish an equitable economic condition for all
members of society. While the economics of this philosophy
appear to be in question, the principle of equality still
appeals to many. The Marxist social evolution
of the state consists of:
Primitive communism (tribal society)
Socialistic state. The socialist slogan is: "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his work". The
socialistic state is a transition between capitalism and communism.
Communistic state. The communist slogan is: "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need". Due to the oppression of the
classes, forced rebellion is necessary to establish the communist
Within the socialistic or communistic
state, Marx implies the need to eliminate religion.
The communist systems established in the Soviet Union,
China, North Korea, Cuba and elsewhere verify that this is indeed the
case. Marx implies a development of the state through the seven stages
mentioned above. However, in truth, capitalism is the highest and most
developed stage. Socialism and its end result, Communism,
are merely forms of Feudalism. In Feudalism, the state
is ruled by a monarch and a subordinate elite class who own all the land
and provide for the needs of the peasants who work for them. In
Communism, the monarch is replace by the dictator and the government
elite who provide for the citizens who work for the state. This may
explain why Socialism is more successful in Europe than in America;
Europeans have a centuries-old tradition of feudal governance and a
mind-set more amenable to the Marxist form of social control.
Many academics may profess to be
Marxists; however, in light of the universal economic failure of
communism, the only aspect of Marxism left to believe in
is the humanistic materialism that opposes religion. The
truth is that Marxism is the ultimate means of implementing Humanistic
philosophy; its economic success or failure is irrelevant.
It should be emphasized that it is the
nature of philosophies to be diverse and
dynamic, always changing, but a common thread runs through the
philosophies discussed above–
they are atheistic and
generally actively oppose religion. Their rational
arguments are elegant. They make reasonable points, many of which have
had a significant impact of society. However, all these philosophies
duck the fundamental deficiency with their atheism. How does one explain
our existence? How did we get here? It is worth taking a few minute to
discuss the philosophy of the 13th century
Christian philosopher, Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas put forth this argument for the
existence of God: Every effect has a cause and every cause is
an effect of a previous cause. For example, scientists theorize that our
universe came into existence through an infinitely small
point of immense energy. But what caused that energy? Scientists
have offered numerous speculations for natural causes,
such as the energy came from the collapse of a previous universe, but
this merely begs the question, "What caused that universe?"
Aquinas postulates that there has to be a Prime Cause,
one that was never caused and has always existed. God. The Secular
Humanists either dismiss this argument without giving a
reason or simply state that the physical universe is
self-existing and has always existed, but there has never been and
argument that successfully contradicts Aquinas and the Humanist
explanations given above do not agree with current
scientific understanding of cosmology.
Developing the Agenda
By the 20th century,
humanism had become an established influence throughout the western
world and that influence increases continuously. For a detailed
description of what Humanism is today, Appendix 3 gives
the Humanist Manifesto 2 (HM2)
and Humanist Manifesto 3 (HM3). The Humanist Manifesto outlines the
tenants of those whose philosophy has synthesized the
liberal philosophers discussed above in the modern
context. There are several HM principles that are pertinent to our
believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian
religions that place revelation,
God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience
do a disservice to the human species.i>. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the
dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this
late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the
critical use of scientific reason have to
be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the
existence of a supernatural; it is either
meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and
fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans
not God, nature not deity. (HM2 – FIRST)
of immortal salvation or fear of eternal
damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from
present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying
social injustices. Modern science discredits
such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the
"separable soul." Rather, science affirms
that the human species is an emergence
from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total
personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no
credible evidence that life survives the death of
the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that
our lives have influenced others in our culture. (HM2 – SECOND)
separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and
state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom
for different moral, political, religious,
and social values in society. It should not favor any
particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor
espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of
propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters. (HM2 –
Humans are an integral part of nature,
the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize
nature as self-existing. (HM3)
In the conflict between Creationism
and Evolutionism, Christianity and Humanism,
it is important to see by whom the philosophy
of evolution is used and how. The
philosophical principles of Humanism
rely heavily on evolution for support. It is interesting to note that
HM2 and 3 specifically cite evolution as a fundamental component of
their philosophy. They do not cite medicine, psychology, or
pharmacology, although these have a significant impact on human well
being. They do not cite chemistry, although that science
is responsible for much of our technology today. The do not cite
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
even though Einstein was an active Humanist. They do not
cite any hard science as an important part of their philosophy because
science is irrelevant to the concepts they propose–
which is a
philosophy. But they cite evolution.
Evolution is cited as
a principle of the Humanists’ belief system in the
context of their anti-religion and ethical mores. The
Humanists use evolution as a philosophical
component. Moreover, while they criticize religion for
not passing the test of scientific evidence, they completely
ignore the fact that evolution, the cornerstone of Humanism
does not pass that same test either. However, that does not
matter, because evolution solves the problem that plagued the liberal
philosophies upon which Humanism rests–it
provides a non-theistic explanation for our existence. This
inconsistency in Humanist thinking and illogical conclusions is
commonplace in Humanism and discussed further in Chapter 13.
During the 1860’s, Darwin
and his supporters conducted a campaign to get evolution
by natural selection accepted by society.
Control of the media, lobbying of influential scientists and
politicians, and control of scientific publications were all part of his
effort to "sell" his idea. And it worked. But the campaign did not end
with the death of Darwin; others picked up the responsibility. The
campaign to promote evolution was not led by scientist
as one would expect, it was led by the Humanists. And
it still is.
By the early 1930’s, Humanism
was sufficiently organized that Humanist
societies were able to formulate the Humanist Manifesto in 1933.
Many of the organizers of the humanist movement
were Unitarians, as was Darwin's family,
and 40 percent of the signers of HM2 were Unitarians. Humanist
associations have been organized in Australia, Europe, America, and
several other countries with some famous and influential members. Here
is a sampling of some of the more influential members:
Albert Einstein (physicist), Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist), Carl Sagan (astronomer), Peter Ustinov (actor), Betty Friedan (feminist activist), Benjamin Spock (child psychologist), Rod Sterling (producer), Gene Roddenberry (producer – Star Trek), Jonas E. Salk (developed polio vaccine), William Howard Taft (27th president), Brock Chisholm (First Director General of the World Health Organization), John Boyd Orr (first Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization), Julian Huxley (first Director-General of UNESCO), Richard Leakey (anthropologist), Bertrand Russell (mathematician, politician, and philosopher), Gloria Steinem (feminist activist, and founder of Ms. Magazine), Roger Nash Baldwin (founder and first head of the ACLU
George Bernard Shaw (philosopher).
The list above is by no means
exhaustive; it is only meant to show the variety and positions of
influence held by the Humanists in modern society. There
are a few Humanists that merit a closer look.
Mr. Turner is the owner of numerous radio and TV stations including CNN,
MGM/UA, and TNT, Time-Warner. He is in a position to influence the
editorial policy of a large section of the media. He holds honored
positions in the Humanist organizations and actively supports the
principles of the Humanist Manifesto.
John Dewey was a philosopher,
psychologist, author, and noted educator. Dewey was one of the original
signatories to HM2. His influence on 20th century education was profound, particularly in
introducing Humanism and evolution into public school curricula.
Dewey participated in a variety of humanist activities from the thirties
into the fifties. He was elected an honorary member of the Humanist
Press Association (1936). He participated in the
establishment of the National Education Association, NAACP, and the ACLU.
He wrote an Americanized version of the Communist Manifesto
and work to establish Socialism in the United
States. He was active in establishing academic freedom specifically aimed at allowing Humanism and
evolution to be taught in universities (see Bertrand
Russell, below). He was influential in establishing Progressivism in the public school. He
was a leader in establishing the teaching of evolution in schools and
his ideas regarding indoctrinating student in Humanism are used today.
He founded the liberal American Association of University Professors.
Much of the Progressivism observed in the K-12 schools, colleges, and
universities is due to Dewey’s influence.
Sir Julian Huxley: (22 June 1887–14 February 1975)
Sir Julian Huxley was an English evolutionary
biologist and humanist. He was a proponent of natural selection,
and a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis.
He was Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the
first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund.
He was one of the main architects
of modern evolutionary synthesis. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society, and was
Vice-President (1937-1944) and President (1959-1962). He thought
eugenics was important for removing undesirable variants from the human gene pool.
He believed that the lowest class in society was genetically inferior. As he stated in 1941:
The lowest strata are reproducing
too fast. Therefore... they must not have too easy access to relief or
hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural
selection should make it too easy for
children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a
ground for sterilisation.
Developed "Analytical Philosophy" which was to become the dominant
philosophy of the English-speaking world for most of
the 20th century. Analytical Philosophy laid the foundation
for merging science and philosophy as applied by
Evolutionists. He had difficulty being accepted to
the faculty of some universities because of his extreme stand on
Humanism but with the support of influential Humanists,
eventually became embedded in the academic world.
Billionaire, philanthropist, Socialist, and admitted atheist. Through
numerous organizations such as The Open Society Institute, he funds
movements that support the Humanist agenda. He exerts
considerable influence within the Democratic Party
and the media. Soros is a leading proponent of a new world
order that includes a world government and a world without national
Roger Nash Baldwin
Leftist, anarchist, and communist, Baldwin earned his M.A. at Harvard then taught social work at
Washington University in St. Louis. In 1920, he formed the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU remained
relatively unheard of until it became famous for defending evolution in the Scopes trial (see below).
In the 1930s, Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was promoted by
Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to
make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. He was an
admitted anti-Christian and, through his direction,
the ACLU has had the following objectives:
Halt the singing of Christmas Carols in public facilities.
Deny tax-exempt status for Churches.
Remove all military chaplains.
Remove all Christian symbols from public property.
Prohibit Bible reading in classrooms even during free time.
Remove "In God We Trust" from our coins.
Remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Deny federal funding for Boy Scouts until they allow homosexual leaders.
The ACLU has been the most significant force behind lawsuits to
eliminate creation from the classroom and requiring the teaching of evolution and advancing
Humanism in general. Being less well funded than the ACLU, most
school districts rule in favor of
the ACLU position and require evolution to be taught and prohibiting the
teaching of alternate positions just to avoid a costly law suite. This
is discussed in detail in Chapter 13.
HEY, DUDE! WHO STOLE MY SCIENCE?
During the first half of the 20th
century, many of the evolutionary scientists were
sincere in their scientific inquiry. Shortcomings of the Darwinian
hypothesis were commonly known and they were serious
about resolving the challenging questions through the scientific method.
However, there was pressure, direct and
indirect, from the Humanist community to
popularize evolution as a philosophical component of
Humanism. They needed evolution to be generally accepted
since it offered an alternative to religion and all
Up to now, I have been somewhat critical
of the evolutionary biologists (OK,
more than somewhat critical). But I do not want the Reader to get the
wrong impression. Conducted according to the established procedures of
the scientific method, evolution is an
intriguing and legitimate scientific inquiry. No Creationist should
challenge the legitimacy of the evolution biologist’s documented
discoveries. Who knows? What if the theistic evolution proponents are
right? The difficulty I have with Evolutionism, as
described in the previous chapters, is that the science of
evolution has been rushed by the Humanist agenda. This
has been true from the beginning when The Origin of Species was prematurely published until today.
Of course, there are evolutionary
biologists who are also Humanists,
such as Richard Dawkins. These I fault for
ignoring the scientific method in order to
confiscate evolution for their Humanist agenda. In spite
of serious questions about the evolution hypothesis,
Humanist scientists support the advancement of evolution in the media
and schools as a fact, a phenomenon unique to
During the early years of the 20th
century, Humanists and Evolutionist
had a difficult time breaking into the established schools
and universities. The case of Bertrand Russell
is an example. But gradually, as these philosophies
grew in popularity they attracted influential adherents who could apply
pressure in the educational institutions–
and the courts.
The state of Tennessee
had established the Butler Act that made it unlawful to
any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of
man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man
has descended from a lower order of animals." In order to challenge the
law, the ACLU worked out a plan with John Scopes,
a high school teacher, in which Scopes
would teach evolution from a textbook that included a
chapter discussing Darwinian evolution. On 25 May 1925, Scopes was
charged with violating the Butler Act.
Rural Tennessee was not ready for the
liberal philosophy of the Humanists
and Scopes was found
guilty and fined $100. However, the trial was just what the ACLU
needed; the publicity made them a household word. Evolution,
as a science had been confiscated as a tool
to advance the ACLU, and Humanist, agenda. At this point,
scientists admitted that Darwin’s hypothesis
had flaws and needed modification; the modern evolutionary
would not be developed for several years. Except for the Evolutionist
philosophers, the scientific community
was not ready to push the hypothesis as theory, let alone fact.
Evolution was being used by the ACLU as a tool to allow evolution
to be taught in schools and eventually the elimination of
creation or anything remotely associated with Christianity but they would have to wait until there was a more
liberal judicial system in order to press their agenda forward.
By the 1960’s the nation had become
significantly more liberal and that liberalism was
reflected in the courts. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United
States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute
that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court
held the statute unconstitutional on the
grounds that the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to
require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or
prohibitions of any particular religious
sect or doctrine. Once a legal precedent is established, the door is
open for expanding the ruling; and that is exactly what happened in the
years that followed.
However, the liberal
courts had perhaps extended there interpretation
too far on the matter of prohibiting religious
ideas in schools. The issue is based on the US
Constitution First Amendment,
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This does not apply to states (only to
the US Congress) and one has to ask if some of the other
rulings, such as prohibiting prayer in schools actually
violate this provision of the Constitution.
Obviously, someone has an agenda and evolution is merely
a means to the end.
By the middle of the 20th
century, evolution was being taught in all the public
schools, but some were also teaching creation
as an alternative position. The ACLU now set their sights on
their real target: elimination of creation from the schools completely.
In this, they have essentially succeeded. A detailed discussion of this
topic is presented in Chapter 13, However, a few of the more significant
cases are discussed here.
In 1971, Lemon v Kurtzman was decided. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids
the government from establishing religion. In the Lemon
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court devised a
three-prong test to determine if a particular government
policy was unconstitutional. Under Lemon, a
government policy is unconstitutional if: (1) it has a primarily
religious purpose, (2) it has a
primarily religious effect, or (3) it excessively entangles the
government and religion. A policy is unconstitutional if it fails the
test of any prong.
Willoughby v. Stever was a 1973 legal case in which creationist William Willoughby
sued the National Science Foundation director H. Guyford Stever for
using taxpayer money to fund pro-evolution textbooks
"promoting" secular humanism as the "official religion of
the United States", thus violating the Establishment clause of the US
Constitution. The lawsuit was dismissed by the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the textbooks
disseminated science, not religion.
In 1981, in Segraves v. State of
California, the court found that
the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written
and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient
accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that
class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his
children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism
policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that
scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that
any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in
classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The
court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the
policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science,
not just those concerning issues of origins.
In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board
of Education, a federal
court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the
Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Arkansas statute required public schools
to give balanced treatment to "creation-science"
and "evolution-science". In a
decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the
court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The
court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting
that the statute used language peculiar to creationist
literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the
theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is
within the province of biology, the scientific community
does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which
assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how
life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not
presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (Note that
this last sentence clearly defines the difference between the evolution
scientist and the Evolutionist
philosopher who presupposes the absence of a creator).
In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School
District, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals found that a school district might prohibit
a teacher from teaching creation
science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that
the First Amendment's
establishment clause is not violated and that religious
beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court
upheld a district court finding that the school district had not
violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited
him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious
In Bishop v. Aronov
(1991), a professor occasionally referred to his personal religious
beliefs as part of his lectures. The
program chair directed him to refrain. The professor sued, claiming the
directive inhibited his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs
and constituted an establishment of religion. The U.S.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that: The court held
that neither the professor's in-class comments nor his optional class
violated the establishment clause because his conduct had a secular
purpose, the primary effect of his comments did not advance or inhibit
religion, and his behavior did not foster excessive government
entanglement with religion. The court, however, gave several cautionary
comments. It should be noted that university professors have wide
latitude of conduct far exceeding high school teachers.
In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School
District, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a
teacher's First Amendment
right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a
school district's requirement that evolution be taught
in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a
"religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had
simply and appropriately required a science teacher to
teach a scientific theory in biology class.
In the 1997 decision Freiler v.
Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education,
the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring the
reading of a disclaimer in biology classes prior to teaching evolution.
The court also ruled that teaching intelligent design
is unconstitutional because it is equivalent to
teaching creationism. Following is the text of the disclaimer that was
not allowed by the court:
Whenever, in classes of elementary or
high school, the scientific theory of evolution is to be presented, whether from textbook, workbook,
pamphlet, other written material, or oral presentation, the following
statement shall be quoted immediately before the unit of study begins as
a disclaimer from endorsement of such theory. It is hereby recognized by
the Tangipahoa Board of Education, that the lesson to be presented,
regarding the origin of life and matter, is known as
the Scientific Theory of Evolution and should be
presented to inform students of the scientific concept and not intended
to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other
concept. It is further recognized by the Board of Education that it is
the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own
opinion and maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important
matter of the origin of life and matter. Students are urged to exercise
critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely
examine each alternative toward forming an opinion.
In 2000, District Court Judge
Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent
School District 656,
et al. High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his
right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory"
of evolution. The school district considered the content
of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the
curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large
amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's
curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a
free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the
district guilty of religious
In 2005, eleven people whose children
attended or planed to attend Dover Pennsylvania schools
sued the Dover school board and district,
claiming the board's decision to make Intelligent Design part of the science curriculum violates the
constitutional separation of church and state. The district said it
wanted to give fair time to an alternative to evolution
theory. Evolution is widely accepted as
the unifying concept of biology, and Intelligent Design says evolution
cannot explain the complexity of life and that an unnamed
designer must have been at work. It was the first time a court has been
asked to rule whether Intelligent Design can be taught in public school
science class, though the case exactly mirrors the previous cases where
creationism was the objective. The court found that Intelligent Design
could not be taught in the classroom.
As we entered the 21st
century not only had the Evolutionists/Humanists
succeeded in getting evolution taught in
schools, they had achieved their primary goal of blocking
creation in the schools. But the success did not end
there. University teachers who challenged evolution on scientific
grounds are often denied tenure, find it difficult to be
published, and cannot get funding for research. This is discussed in
further in Chapter 13. Evolution is now treated as a
fact by the media. It is a bit reminiscent of the Darwin
blitz 150 years ago. These court rulings state or imply that
evolution was fact; but science is not subject to the
opinion of a judge and the shortcomings of evolution exist
with or without court approval.
Coming Full Circle
However, the conflict between
Creationists and Evolutionist has
developed a new twist in recent years. On 23 April 2008, the Florida
State Legislature adopted a bill to
permit academic freedom for teachers and students
addressing evolution in Florida’s public schools.
The bill would allow teachers to discuss the problems with
the evolution hypothesis as a determined by the
scientific method. The Evolution
Academic Freedom Act was offered
in response to new statewide science standards that had
become the subject of debate since its release the previous year.
Critics claimed the legal standards require a dogmatic acceptance of
evolution. The proponents of the bill denied that they were religiously
motivated; the purpose of the bill was merely to allow students and
teachers to freely debate and challenge evolution.
bill, The Evolution Academic Freedom Act was introduced in the
Iowa legislature in February 2009. The bill’s
opposition was headed by University of Iowa faculty members. There is a
growing pressure to pass this type of legislation in several states.
It is interesting that one of the
components of the scientific method and the duty
of reputable scientist is open discussion and challenge
of a hypothesis. They should debate and challenge a hypothesis – that is just good science. That it takes a
law to allow it shows just how much control the Humanists
have taken on the subject of evolution science–
the scientific method is not allowed. Of course, the ACLU will
challenge the bill in court and, if necessary, appeal a decision against
them to the Supreme Court. They have plenty of money
and it is unthinkable to have good scientific thought process occurring
in the classroom; that might raise some embarrassing
questions the Evolutionism philosopher would find
difficult to answer.
 The same Freethought
philosophy of the Darwin family.
 The ACLU pursued most of
the cases discussed here.
Copyright © 2011 by Patrick Vosse
All Rights Reserved