Basic HTML Version
but there was a big loophole! The
legislators forgot to spell it out
that public schools couldn't teach
Genesis either. They didn't re–
quire Genesis. They just didn't
forbid it. Therefore because Gen–
esis was "allowed" (but not
required) and evolution wasn't,
the schools were supposedly
pushing Genesis. This, said the
Court, violated the separation of
church and state.
The result? Today evolution is
taught and Genesis isn' t. This is
supposed to be neutral.
But what about the countless
millions of schoolchildren who
were "converted" to the religious
belief that the Bible is not true as
a result of their public school
science classes dogmatically say–
ing that life carne from "ordinary
physical and chemical pro–
cesses"? Didn't their beliefs also
change because of what they were
taught in the public schools?
Where alternatives to evolu–
tion are presented (so school
children don't get the idea that
evolution is the only explanation
for the existence of life), evolu–
tionists often become very angry.
One such parent, for example,
said she became upset when her
son told her he had been con–
verted to the proposition that
the existence of a creation logi–
cally demands a creator after
viewing
á
film presenting the
creationist side of the story in a
class where both views were pre–
sented.
1
f she were really consistent.
though, this parent should oppose
all teachings about origins in the
public schools.
Remedies in This World
...
If
we were to keep all discussion
of origins out of the public school,
that at least would mean that the
public schools would not become
the purveyors of religious ideas.
Certainly it isn't going to do
anyone's
secular
education any
damage if all essentially religious
matters are left outside of the
public school classrooms.
Another alternative, currently
discussed .in the news, is to
require "scientific creationism"
12
be taught alongside the general .
theory of evolution. "Scientific
creationism" is simply the con–
clusion ·that sorne scientists draw
from the physical evidence,
namely that the physical evidence
cannot be explained without a
Creator. This conclusion is at
least as "scientific" as is evolu–
tion.
Yet, many evolutionists chafe
at the idea that schoolchildren
might hear another side of the
story.
Bette Chambers, writing in
the
Humanist
magazine, openly
attacks the idea of presenting
both sides "Since the public is
led to believe . . . that an open
choice between these two alter–
natives exists within the science
itself it becomes imperative to
In the World Tomórrow,
the existence of God will
be observable.
' '
state that this view [creationism]
is rubbish, Iest scientific educa–
tion in America become the
laugbingstock of the civilized
world."
What arrogant drivel! How
can one be so sure there is no
alternative to evolution? Evolu–
tion is not a "strictly scientific
and nonreligious explanation for
the existence and diversity of liv–
ing organism," as the American
Humanist Association contends.
As we have seen it is by its very
nature a religious issue and it is
assuredly not "strictly scien–
tific. "
Sorne evolutionists (who are
the sort of people who pride
themselves on their being tolerant
and liberal minded) seem to be
desperately trying to protect
schoolchildren from what they
consider "nasty ideas."
1t
is as if
they thought even being exposed
to the idea that evolution might
not be true would somehow "con-
taminate" the minds of school–
children.
Of course, other evolutionists
do see the narrow-minded ap–
proach which otbers among them
take. George Kocan, an evolu–
tionist and professional biologist,
declares: "Unfortunately, many.
scientists and nonscientists have
made evolution into a religion,
something to be defended against
infidels. In my experience, many
students of biology-professors
and textbook writers included- .
have been so carried away with
the arguments for evolution that
they neglect to question it....
They only reluctantly give atten–
tion to other views.
1
know.
1
have
been through it as a student and
have done the same thing as a
teacher. Academic freedom has
become a one-way" street and a
narrow one at that."
Indeed, how many evolution–
ists know that Clarence Darrow
of the Scopes Monkey Tria!
fame, who fotight in the courts
for a teacher's right to present
evolution, once said it was "bigo–
try for public schools to teach
only one theory of or igins"?
Jt seems sorne evolutionisrs are
guilty of the narrow-minded big–
otry of which they are so fond of
accusing crea tionists!
And in the Wo rld Tomorrow
The debate will be settled once
and for all- when Christ returns
to earth to replace the govern–
ment of man! The very existence
of God will be observable:
" ... and they shall see the Son
of man coming in the clouds of
heaven ... " (Matthew 24:30).
There will be no doubt God
exists: " ... the earth shall be fuiJ
of the knowledge of the Lord, as
the waters cover the sea " ( Jsaiah
11 :9) .
In the World Tomorrow, the
existence of God will be scientific
fact. He will be visible to ordina–
ry human beings.
It
can only be a great irony that
the false religion of evolution is
today being crammed down the
throats of young people by sorne
of the very governments that
Jesus Christ Himself will soon
replace! o
The
PLAIN TRUTH