After the broadcast ended, I decided to do a little research into the case. I pulled up MSNBC.com and began to read up on the case. I found and read the AP report and then found a handy link to the Judges full ruling. (All 139 pages of it) I found that the court case centered around the following statement that would be read to the students:
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.”
To sum this up, the students did not have to study Intelligent Design, they did not have to say that Jesus ins Lord, all that would happen in class is the teacher would state that Evolution is a theory with some flaws and there is another theory which would explain those flaws called Intelligent Design which the students could study about on their own time if they wished. That’s all. But this judge ruled that this was an unconstitutional establishment of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Articles 1 and 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. My interest was again perked by the mention of the Pennsylvania State Constitution. Locating a copy I found the following statement in regard to religious freedom:
“All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.” – Article 1 Section 3 Pennsylvania Constitution
This passage is not unlike the first sentence of the First Amendment of the National Constitution, which reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Having found two of the three constitutional passages, I betook myself to find the related section of article 3 which I found in section 15.
“No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”
Ok now that we have viewed the supposedly violated constitutional principles, lets look at the judge’s application of those laws. The biggest violation of law this schools statement is accused is it supposed violation of the First Amendment of the US constitution, so we will start there.
The portion on the First Amendment in question reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Who shall make no law establishing a national religion? Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion, schools not included, much less a scientific theory. So much for a conflict with the First Amendment. Objections from article 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution can be removed for the same reason.
If you are going to say that hearing that the idea of ID exists is forcing a student to adopt a religion, the same could be argued when a Christian hears about evolution in school. The whole idea of censoring a scientific theory is something I would think the ACLU would jump all over. They seemed ready enough to help evolution get into the public sphere, why are they opposing the entry of Intelligent Design? Something seems a bit underhanded and lopsided about the whole affair.
What this whole thing really hinges on is the science of the matter. I am not an expert on Intelligent Design vs. Macroevolution, however, I do know something of the scintific method and of how science is meant to work. As the school proposed curriculum stated macro evolution is a theory.
Theory: hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
To use optimally the scientific method, a scientist has an idea (also called a theory) of how something could work and then he tests it. If his tests prove that his theory is incorrect he throws it out and starts over with another theory that would explain the facts better. However something has surfaced in macroevolution which leads to it remaining in the books long after it has been proven incorrect. That something is Godlessness. Macroevolution is the one nationally accepted origin theory, which does not include a Creator. Because this theory, flawed as it is, does not recognize a Creator, it remains in the books. Because if a theory happened to include a Creator that would imply that there is a God and under a liberal court system that would be inexcusable. Now let me ask you, is that good science, or is that brainwashing? True science would lead a student to examine a theory in a scientific manner to determine its truth or falsity, not just accept a theory because it is politically correct.
0 Responses to “Unconstitutional, Unscientific Science”