Home Books VideosFossils Stuff for Kids Witnessing Tools Shopping Cart
Bookstore Online
Seminar Online
About CSE
FAQ's
Itinerary
Articles
Links
Contact Us
Testimonies
Newsletter
August Special
 

 

Your Cart

0

Item(s)

Update the Item Count in Your Cart


Click here for a printer-friendly version

.
Public School Questions and Answers

Should (or can) creation science be taught in the public school system?


See this in Seminar Slideshow Online: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Hear this on Seminar on Audio Online: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

A:    This is a good question and it deserves a good answer; however, there are other questions that must be answered first before this question can be properly answered.

The first of these is; Should we have a public school system? The tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The interference of the Federal government in the education of children is unconstitutional. I believe if the government was out of the education business (as well as welfare and hundreds of other socialist programs they have gotten into), many other problems would be eliminated and questions like this would be moot.

If a group of parents want to get together and hire someone to educate their children in keeping with their beliefs and values, that is fine and constitutional. It is unfair and illegal (constitutionally) to force everyone (via taxes) to pay to have all children taught things contrary to the beliefs and values of their parents.

A second question to answer is: If we decide to have a public school system, who should run it? This will further eliminate questions about what is taught. If the local community wants to impart their values to the students, and they are paying the salaries, then their values should be taught. The schools became public in the mid 1800’s as part of a long-range plan for a new world order. See the article, "Why the Schools Went Public" by Samuel Blumenfeld (310) 391-2245 for more on this, also www.exodusmandate.org.

Now, to finally answer the question. Not only can you legally teach creation science in the public schools, you can teach it right out of the Bible, and teach or devote a class to religion, and have the textbook be the Bible. We all know the effects of what happened in 1963 when the Bible was taken out, and evolution put in to the schools, but we have been deceived by that ACLU again! In 1963, the Supreme Court banned the use of the Bible to try to get kids saved, which is not good obviously, but it’s a lot better than what the ACLU has led us to believe. They did not throw the Bible out! We have thrown the Bible out because we have allowed ourselves to be deceived by the ACLU.

In the landmark ruling of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) the court held that, "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 part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

In the ruling of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), The Supreme Court stated that, "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."

In Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Circuit, 1980), the court found that permitting public school observances which include religious elements promotes the secular purpose of "advancing the student’s knowledge and appreciation of the role that our religious heritage has played in the social, cultural and historical development of civilization."

There are at least two other cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bible may be used in its entirety for secular educational purposes such as: history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, culture, and the morals on which this country was founded!

The Supreme Court never kicked the Bible out of schools in 1963, the problem is we Christians who believed the lie that they did! The teachers are not allowed to try to convert students while on school time and property, but they can present creation. Now I understand that not being able to use the Bible to get people saved is discouraging, but, being able to use it to teach creation science or the morals that this country was founded on can and will reverse the current indoctrination! You can not only teach creation science, you can do it right from the Bible – verse by verse – or you could go out on a different subject and teach how the Bible is the only moral absolute that this country has. This country was founded on the morals in the Bible, and without the Bible, all morals are in-absolute, and are subject to some human’s interpretation! You can teach that! If you get in trouble (and there is a risk because so many principals have been misled by ACLU type lawyers) call up your ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice in Atlanta– Jay Sekulow), or the National Legal Foundation, or the American Family Association Law Center, or the Rutherford Institute (804) 978-3888, and they should be willing bring it to the courts.

When I speak in public schools, I purposely do not use the Bible or mention God because I do not want to close the door for future ministry. I may demand my rights and lose my opportunity to get anything in the schools.

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.

"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

"The Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state: it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism - and unfortunately many individual teachers do. Some school districts even require 'equal time' for creation and evolution." Eugenie Scott, National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA 800-290-6006, natcenscied.org. Nature 329 (1987): 282.

"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, PO Box 7518, Longview, TX 75607, (903)753-5993, Mel Gabler, TxbkRevws@aol.com

"the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980)

In the landmark ruling of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) the court held that, "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 part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

Legal Opinions on the Bible in Public Schools:

"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.
"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

"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.