I can’t believe how many items continue to prove the thesis of my book, “Persecution,” that Christianity, Christians, and Christian values are under assault in this country — and that the state is promoting contrary values. Today, a number of friends have forwarded me a story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which, once again, makes the point. I can’t access the site without a subscription, but the title of the article is, “Disclaimers on Evolution Killed,” if you want to try to access it your own self.
U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ordered that evolution disclaimers be removed from Cobb County textbooks because they amount to state endorsement of religion. The disclaimer is written on a sticker that is affixed to all science textbooks that contain material on evolution. The disclaimer reportedly reads:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
As one e-mailer said to me:
I would like any rational mind to examine the words on the sticker and deem support for creationists. In fact, all it says is that evolution is not a fact but a theory and one should have an open mind. First, where is there anything false with that statement? In any avenues of learning we should always approach with an open mind. What this judge is saying is that having an open mind might lead you to learn what is not considered mainstream in the education system. We need students to be told the facts and come up with the conclusion not be dictated to what the conclusion is.
What this incident demonstrates is that the theory of evolution is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it is accepted as unchallengeable fact, when in fact, that is not true at all. I’ve blogged earlier on the many legitimate scientific challenges to Darwinism and general evolution theory.
How can a judge determine that this innocuous sticker, merely encouraging students to keep an open mind and to examine all the evidence, is tantamount to an endorsement of religion, much less the Christian religion? Remember, the establishment clause has to do with establishing a national church — which most likely meant a specific denomination of the Christian religion. There is no way that this sticker could be interpreted as the endorsement even of theism, much less of the Christian religion. But the judge’s ruling, on the other hand, is, in effect, the endorsement by the state of anti-Christian dogma. Why doesn’t this extraconstitutional ruling itself violate the establishment clause principle?
The way secularists cling stubbornly to evolution theory, even to the point of twisting the Constitution to protect it, one might conclude that they are desperate to hold onto to their theological faith in evolution theory. It’s as if their entire worldview will crumble if we even invite critical examination of their dogma. (Thanks to Mel and George for the tip.)