Another politician is being smeared for his religious beliefs and stance on creation. Representative Stephen Bloom of Pennsylvania’s 199th Legislative District is seeking cosponsors for a bill that would protect academic freedom and encourage the kind of thinking that leads to good science.
The bill wouldn’t require religious texts be taught, but critics insist it would allow creationism into the classroom and would “muddy the waters” of the public school curriculum.
Students in grades 8-12 would be allowed to question and debate scientific theories like evolution. Bloom says, “With free discourse in the classroom under threat, I will soon be introducing a bill to preserve academic freedom in Pennsylvania’s schools.” He says, “Efforts to squelch and stifle free critical inquiry in the classroom have too frequently arisen.” And “If a student wants to discuss a criticism, he or she should be able to.” In responding to critics he said, “I don’t see this as being an anti- science initiative at all- It’s actually to encourage the kind of thinking that leads to good science.”
Andy Hoover, legislative director for the Pennsylvania branch of the ACLU says, “We do think that ultimately it will lead to some teacher somewhere- or students- bringing religious doctrine into public school classrooms.”
Bloom says he didn’t intend to insert religion into the classroom, but rather expand students’ academic freedoms. “The free exchange of ideas was being quelled by these very strict speech codes in school. And, so for me … it’s just something from the heart.”
Louisiana and Tennessee already have such academic freedom laws in place.
In an opposing letter to the editor at pennlive.com the headline began, “Ok, Rep. Bloom, let’s have kids study the myths of all religions and cultures.” The reader was “horrified” with the thought of humiliation and scorn brought onto the state of Tennessee by the 1925 Scopes trial, but then he proposes introducing a variety of creation stories from every other ethnicity, including the American Indians and Australia- that way we’d be fair and would avoid discrimination, opening them all to scientific scrutiny.
It’s comments like this that demonstrate a basic misunderstanding (intentional or not) of science and creation, and Stephen Bloom’s bill would go a long way towards combating this type of ignorance. Allowing students to question, discuss, and debate scientific theories would encourage them to think for themselves and provide an opportunity for them to make up their own minds on these important issues, rather than forcing them to accept a secular worldview that many believe to be false (as many as 1/3 of all science teachers believe in creation or Intelligent Design).
And the fear that creationism would be taught in the classroom is a weak excuse to oppose student’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The bill doesn’t require the teaching of religious textbooks, so religion isn’t being taught. The concept is to allow teachers the freedom to teach good science and expose bad science. If students are allowed to question and understand what they’re being taught, they will have a greater opportunity to learn and understand the world around them. Such freedoms wouldn’t “muddy the waters” at all, as some have complained. I think the real worry is that students will reject evolution in favor of Christianity or other religions. But if there’s enough evidence that would cause a student to reject evolution, then perhaps evolution isn’t that great of a theory after all. Perhaps if an alternative makes better sense then students would accept that. And since when are these really critics worried about muddying the waters? These same critics would love to pull students away from their family’s religious beliefs and indoctrinate them with secular creation myths- like evolution. I’ve had discussions with plenty of students who attend secular schools after growing up in a Christian family, only to be confused and led astray by the public school system. I’d wager that these same critics would be overjoyed with such conversions. But when the opposite possibility exists they’re afraid and publicly outspoken in their attempts to stifle such inquiry. So what Bloom is doing is very encouraging and welcome.
And what if a student does bring religious doctrine into a public classroom? Well, that’s why we have the constitution- so that students can do so without congress (or courts) making laws prohibiting such free exercise (see the First Amendment).
Finally, do we really need to worry about multitudes of “creation stories” being introduced into science class? Well, if that’s a fear, then perhaps all creation stories should be prohibited from science class- including the secular evolution story. However, if a student thinks there’s evidence to support one of those stories and wishes to discuss it, I suppose the teacher could address that in the classroom, as well as counterevidence. I’m not sure how often something like that would come up, but why should anyone fear it? If there’s no merit to the story, then there should be nothing to worry about, except maybe a little wasted time, but if a student is serious about it, then address it without fear. If I were the teacher I’d respect the students comments and offer my thoughts.
The only criticism that comes to my mind is that teachers who accept evolution wouldn’t be equipped to handle student’s objections to evolution. Such teachers certainly wouldn’t do any justice to creation, and would probably misrepresent it entirely, and would do everything in their power to save evolution from criticism. But at the very least students would have a better opportunity to learn, and that’s what’s important.
sixdaysblog 
The only reason I have mixed feelings about this is because much like a separation of church state, I also believe in a separation of church and public schools. In my mind, such a law would inevitably take a very Western route–namely I’m sure that the debate would be centered on Christianity, which I’m sure would exclude a lot of students. The alternative is allowing each religion equal representation, which would essentially be turning a science class into a theology class.
I can understand the mixed feelings because I share that. In fact I have two basic positions on this, either of which I’d gladly accept:
1: We must allow for open discussion, debate, criticism, critical thinking, and academic freedom on competing origin theories. This doesn’t mean that teachers must teach theories they disagree with, or give them all the same degree of legitimacy. It means that students and teachers may freely discuss the pros and cons of those theories. While one teacher may not accept creation as legitimate, another may not accept evolution as legitimate. But if there’s evidence that demonstrates evolution is impossible or unlikely, or that there’s plenty of evidence for a young earth, then these can and should be discussed freely without persecution or retaliation. We can’t continue to have religious discrimination simply because one side doesn’t want to relinquish power or fears legitimizing the opposition. That’s bad science, and it’s exactly what the bill is intended to address.
2: Keep all origin theories out of science class. If allowing freedom into the classroom is feared, then remove the controversy altogether. Or teach the controversies in other classes like History or Religious studies. Since none of these theories can actually be proven via the scientific method, it can be argued that none of them are truly scientific, even though some science is involved. Historical or forensic science can never ultimately be settled because there’s no way to confirm the conclusions. In the same way a court of law that convicts a person as a murderer may be the final word according to the law, but it is never the final arbiter of truth- for other evidence may demonstrate the “murderers” innocence.
Further, the idea of separation of church and state is contrary to the constitution, and if we infringe upon our basic rights, worse damage will occur- in fact I’d argue that enough damage has already been done in the name of science and politics. At best I think the idea of separation of church and state is a false concept meant to protect students from preaching teachers, but that hasn’t worked very well. As long as I can remember secular teachers have been imposing their agendas, opinions, thoughts and ideas on students because they know they can get away with it. Christian teachers, on the other hand, aren’t going to get away with such preaching. But I’d argue that no one should be able to get away with proselytizing. Yet for the past how many years evolution has been preached in classrooms, despite those who have legitimate, scientific objections to it. And if we must keep the church out of public schools, then we must also keep the state out of schools too, which means no secular ideas such as evolution and the Big Bang cosmology.
As for the law taking a Western route, why should that pose a problem? We live in the United States, and our Christian heritage and history shouldn’t be stifled for the sake of political correctness. But I think the law would allow for balance so that if anyone opposed the “Western route”, students or teachers could steer the discussion in a different direction, which would justify the bill. Right now religious students are being excluded from the discussion while the secular world maintains its stranglehold, and that’s a greater injustice.
I’m inclined to agree with you on option #2. I realize that my experience is but one tiny slice of all of the experiences out there, but I’ve never, at any level in my education, had a science teacher expound upon any origin theories. In physics we never even talked about the big bang, and I think most textbooks are very aware of the liability represented by claiming that evolution trumps religion. I would also agree with you that such debates would indeed more appropriate in something like a history class.
I guess I just don’t see how there’s a stranglehold on religion. In my experience, it’s been the total opposite. As far as I can see, religion has the stranglehold on the secular conversation in this country. Christianity is ubiquitous in this country to the point that it’s hyper-represented in our government. As a pointed out before, how many members of congress or how many supreme court justices are non-Christians?
I think that for the most part, this argument is backward. I was raised Catholic. I even went to Sunday school. I can safely say that for the first 14 years of my life, I was ONLY presented with the Christian point of view on the origin of life and of the universe. It was ONLY by going to public school that I received any sort of counterbalance and exposure to new ideas. So if this is an argument about balance, I’d have to say that I think the scales are very heavily tilted in favor of religion in this country.
All of this to say that I think this is a very complex issue. I’m sorry for the messy posts, I had thoughts about this in chunks throughout the day and wasn’t able to get things down to one coherent post.
That’s very interesting that you were never exposed to origin theories in any of the sciences. That leads me to another point, and that is how unnecessary the teachings’ of origins is. Perhaps you’ve heard the quote by Dobzhansky: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” I’ve always found this remark absurd, but I still find hardcore atheists promoting this notion as scripture. So I find it amazing that you were able to get through high school and college without anyone expounding on these.
While Christianity seems to be hyper-represented in our government, I’d argue that that’s not true at all. I’d wager that at least 95% of those labeling themselves Christians are not. I think many of them do so for political expediency, as they believe it will help their electability. I don’t mean to be judgmental; they could very well be Christians in truth, but I think you’d agree that their actions would cause plenty of reason to doubt. I really think there are plenty of atheists involved in politics who’d rather not admit it publicly for fear of losing an election. And do you doubt that there’s ever been a politician who’s “sold his soul to the devil”?
I am a bit curious about how you only received a “counterbalance” when you attended public school. If you never had a teacher expound upon any origins theories, then what counterbalance and exposure to new ideas did you receive? And what is it that caused you to abandon Catholicism or Christianity in favor of atheism? When you heard these counterbalances, was there anyone in the church who was able to discuss these ideas with you and answer any questions you may have had? I guess this is where my concerns lie- as I previously explained, I don’t want to see students being led away from Christianity. I want to see them thrive in a Christian environment and love the Lord, and it makes me sad when I hear anyone abandoning Christianity.
But I think this hits on another point- I think the world is very seductive, and that’s why it’s so easy for people to reject God. Who doesn’t want what the world has to offer? The world tells us that everything revolves around us, that we deserve happiness, comfort, stuff, etc. We’re entitled to a certain wage, lifestyle, home, education, food, comforts, contraception, healthcare, etc. Who wouldn’t rather play golf Sunday morning instead of going to church? Why worship God when you can watch a movie or sleep in? And when things go wrong, who gets blamed first? God. So while Christianity may be “ubiquitous”, there are plenty of influences that can draw people away from what they’re really seeking- the free gift of eternal life at its fullest! The world can’t provide the complete fulfillment found in Christ. The Bible tells us that, in heaven, no one will ever hunger or thirst, and that “the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” (Romans 7:16-17). Atheism can only provide temporary happiness that is fleeting, but Christianity offers something of far more value that lasts forever- life.
Seriously, thanks for the post- messy or not! I love these types of sincere discussions.
This is always a tough topic. On one hand, I think separation of church and state is the way to go, but if atheism is being taught as the natural conclusion of someone who believes in evolution, then that is simply replacing one ideology (theism) with another (atheism). If evolution is taught as the best explanation we have of the development of species, great! But if it is being taught as proof that God does not exist, then there needs to be a second voice in the classroom that God does exist and it is at least an equally valid way of understanding the phenomenon.
I hink that secular educators have a responsibility to be no more biased than religious teachers. I’d be just as outraged if an atheist teacher was using their classroom as a soapbox as I would be at a religious teacher.
Nick, I agree with much of what you’re saying, but it depends on how you’re defining terms like evolution and speciation, and what you mean by separation of church and state. The separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution; it’s a secular idea that’s been twisted and given too much reign. On the contrary, the Constitution does provide for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and they shouldn’t be infringed upon for the sake of political correctness. Students and teachers have been having their rights infringed upon for years, and this is a greater injustice. Other than that it sounds like we’re on the same page.
Ryan, I totally agree with your statement.
I guess a follow up to that would be that the following statement sours the whole idea for me:
“I’ve had discussions with plenty of students who attend secular schools after growing up in a Christian family, only to be confused and led astray by the public school system.”
The idea that public schools “[lead] students astray” presumes that they’re being led away from the “correct” answer, i.e Christian Creationism. There already seems to be a bias there toward one of the answers, no matter how equitably the bill is framed or how well intentioned it is.
Ryan, I understand your concern, but the opposite also applies. Should we presume that public schools are leading students “towards” the correct answer, rather than “away” from it? Of course, in my biased opinion, public schools are leading students away from the correct answer, and it sounds like you’re opposed to teachers leading students away from the correct answer based on their personal beliefs. But are you okay with that if it’s what you believe to be the truth? Or would you admit that others who don’t agree with what you believe to be the truth may think that students are being led away from the truth, and that that’s not okay?
As a devoted Christian it does bother me when students are led astray from what I believe is the truth because the secular culture is luring them away under the guise of science. But even though that’s my opinion, it’s not the role of government to impose their agenda on whomever they want because they have the power to do so, or because they exhibit the “right way of thinking”. The greatness of our country exists because we do have certain freedoms that can be expressed, and if we remove those freedoms because one group of persons (say atheists) accepts certain presumptions that another group of persons (Christians) rejects, or because one group of persons rejects another group’s beliefs, then we’re going down the wrong road, and that inevitably leads to persecution. In order to avoid persecution, we must be able to tolerate those opposing beliefs and discuss them freely in an academic setting. To me this would tremendously enhance the learning experience because students are being allowed to think for themselves and formulate their own opinions.
Ok, after going on my daily run and thinking about this some more, I would like to revise my earlier position.
After deeper consideration, I have to change my stance to one against such a bill, and for several reasons. First and foremost, there is indeed an imbalance in the representation of both sides…but the imbalance heavily favors religion. Christianity permeates every single aspect of our society: it’s ideology and language can be found on our currency, in our national anthem, in the pledge of allegiance; 99% of all of our federally elected officials in all three branches of government are self-professed Christians (I think a handful are Jewish, but there are no openly atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc members of congress or the supreme court). The Vatican is worth over a trillion dollars, the Pope has a twitter feed, you swear an oath on the bible in a court room, and there are churches on every corner in every town. The bible is the most published and read book the world over. In short, America is already saturated with Christianity.
A young atheist, on the other hand, has no secular resources. There’s no atheist school or church, you can’t take a class on it. There is no equivalent of the 700 club on TV for an atheist. The more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that science class is literally the ONLY place anyone in this country is exposed to any alternatives to Christianity unless they’re extremely self motivated (and depending on where you live, willing to be ostracized by their family or community).
But more to the point, teaching creationism in science class would never dissuade or persuade any student who already had doubts, and for one simple reason: atheists and agnostics are skeptics by nature. No amount of debate in a classroom would ever change the mind of an atheist or someone with secular tendencies, because there is no amount of evidence a Christian could provide to satisfy their skepticism. Just as I assume that anyone who had true faith in God would never be dissuaded or persuaded by any amount of evidence that an atheist provides.
I’m not sure I’m following your position. The bill is intended to address the imbalance that exists. The imbalance is that evolution is taught as fact in the classroom, and any opposition is squelched.
You’re right that Christianity permeates our society, but of course I’d argue that that’s a good thing. I also think there’s an erosion of this Christian influence that is causing our society to decay, resulting in harmful consequences. Do we want a nation blessed by God (supposing he exists), or do we want a society in which everything is relative, and everyone does what is right in their own eyes?
I partially disagree with your portrait of atheism and religion in America. On a side note, there are Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson. But more to your point I’d suggest that atheism indeed has tremendous influence in America, and has access to many secular resources. We could argue over exactly what constitutes a church, but I’ve always likened museums to a secular church, temple or mosque. No offense intended, but atheists can go to museums to worship their ancestors and build their faith. Evolutionary dogma is preached fervently in universities and the media. Darwin is the evolutionist’s god, The Origin of Species is their Bible, and Richard Dawkins serves as the High Priest. Steven J. Gould and Christopher Hitchens are the saints, while P.Z Myers, Carl Zimmer and Stephen Hawkings are the ruling clergy. This is meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but I think there’s some validity to it. There are about 400,000 churches in the United States and about 6,000 first-run movie theaters, but I’d argue that the theaters, directors, writers and producers have a greater influence on our culture than the churches. The internet is a vast, easy source for atheist material. There are atheist churches, and there are many god substitutes, such as found in the environmental movement in which the earth is worshiped during earth day and sing praises. Atheists can even send their children to atheist summer camps.
I do, however, agree with your concluding point. We’re not going to change anyone’s mind who is already convinced of their beliefs. I’m not worried about that group of students. It’s those who are questioning who they are and what their purpose is that deserve to have the discussion of all the facts and evidences, pros and cons. I believe we owe it to them to present the evidence, and let them decide for themselves. There’s no good reason to send young people into the world confused about who they are and what their purpose is. Withholding opposing views in the guise of protecting them isn’t helping anyone. Students don’t need to be protected from religion or opposing ideas- they need a healthy discussion of the facts so that they can make informed decisions. And that encourages a good, solid education.
And lastly, if we entertain the belief that the earth is in fact less than 10,000 years old, then what benefit would it be to exclude discussion of it in science class while teaching something false? In such a scenario, how would censorship of the truth promote good science? In such a scenario I’d argue that the only reason to uphold that status quo would be for indoctrination purposes- controlling and capturing the thoughts of young people in the hopes of controlling public opinion and the culture. And that’s a dangerous situation we’ve put ourselves in, considering we supposedly live in a free country.
I guess that my only response to the idea of evolutionary dogma being preached in universities is that it’s not compulsory, unlike this law would make it for public schools. For the most part, students are free to choose what they study on their own at a university. So in regards to legislation requiring creationism to be taught in public schools, would you be OK with students opting out of it?
With regard to you other points, I think that the slippery slope, so to speak, is what constitutes “good science.” Clearly, I would say, you and I have different ideas about what constitutes a fact, evidence, or good science. I am unsure how to go about resolving such a conflict as it pertains to this subject.
To carry the argument to the extreme, why should any student be taught science at all? If all you need to understand the world around you is a bible and a relationship with God, why question anything? Obviously I’m being facetious here, but I think my hyperbole speaks to a larger point: a lot of religious people paint science with a very broad brush (as I’m well aware atheists do to religion). On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that science is indoctrinating and leading our children astray. Yet here you and I sit, having this conversation on a computer invented using science. I feel that for a lot of religious people, there exists a dichotomy: they’re willing to embrace science with open arms when it invents things like cars, computers, television, or vaccines. But as soon as it causes someone to think beyond their faith, suddenly there’s “bad science” and indoctrination.
It also seems to me, that just like you’ve pointed out to me on several occasions that scientists are divided about evolution, so are Christians on the subject of creation. I know a lot of people who go to church every Sunday but believe in evolution. I know a lot of people who are Christians who believe in intelligent design. I know a lot of Christians who think Catholic worship of saints and the virgin Mary is blasphemy. In other words, legislation about creationism serves only one narrow slice of Christianity: literalists. That hardly seems like a balanced perspective.
While a college education is not compulsory, I’m aware of Christian students who’ve attended secular colleges in which their grades and degrees depended upon whether or not they believed in evolution. One such well known example is from Professor Michael Dini of Texas Tech, whose web page said, “If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: “How do you think the human species originated?” If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for the admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.”
Certainly the student isn’t compelled to take Professor Dini’s classes and could drop out and attend another college, but that doesn’t justify the professor’s wrongful and discriminatory actions, and it doesn’t help resolve the issues. But Bloom’s law would NOT make anything compulsory; it would allow for discussion of the facts, which I think is a good thing for anyone who values education and freedom. While students at universities are, for the most part, free to choose what they wish to study, they aren’t free of discrimination. And as to your specific question about whether or not I’d be ok with students opting out of a course teaching creationism, my answer is that this particular legislation doesn’t require the teaching of creation. I think that’s a common misconception, but I don’t believe that’s what the legislation is about at all. Please let me know if you’ve read something contrary to that. I don’t have a problem with students opting out per se, but that would also depend on a variety of other factors, such as what alternatives are available to them.
I like your description of what constitutes “good science”, as this is one of the roots of the issue. We are at odds over what that entails, and I certainly believe that’s subjective. I think the important thing is that teachers are properly educated in the sciences (which can also be subjective), and if that is accomplished, then let the teachers do their job to the best of their ability. At some point, if you’ve interviewed all the candidates for the job and found this particular teacher to be the best, then you need to put some trust in them and let them teach “good science” however they define it. If it turns out that that particular teacher is not acting in good faith (regardless of their position on the issues), then they can be fired, and hopefully a better teacher will be found. There are good teachers out there who can teach good science, and it’s the job of the school to find them.
You raise some good questions here: “Why should any student be taught science at all?” And “Why question anything if all we need is God and the Bible?” Francis Bacon, the man credited for formulating the scientific method, was himself a creationist scientist, as were many of the early scientists like Isaac Newton, Luis Pasteur, etc. They believed that a rational God created the universe in a consistent way that could be observed and understood. They believed God created the laws of physics, and that we could study them. So they believed we could study and understand science because of their belief in God and his creative power. Here’s a quote by Loren Eisely:
“The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
Therefore I’d argue that anyone who has a love for the sciences should study it, and if they’re a Christian imparticular, they should study it to bring glory to God. In so doing they will be doing work (God created man to work) that helps and benefits their fellow mankind. Now there is some truth that all we need is God and the Bible- Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). But the reason why we question things is because we want to understand them. As a Christian I want to learn about, understand and enjoy God’s creation.
I think that’s another misrepresentation about what Christians believe when you argue that science is indoctrinating and leading our children astray. Science does no such thing. Science is a method for understanding what’s around us, but it’s not capable of indoctrination- that’s a human trait. Science does not have consciousness or a will. What leads students astray is people who, in the name of science, convince students to believe something false or contrary to God’s Word. These people, who we might call scientists or biologists, tell these students that we’re here by chance, not because a loving God created us and breathed life into him. They show them various fossils and explain how we’re related to them, and they use clever stories that seem plausible. But none of those stories or conclusions can possibly be authenticated, and the students are completely unaware of the entire process used to draw those conclusions; they simply believe by faith that these “experts” are telling the truth, while those confused religious people don’t know what they’re talking about.
There is a both a real and perceived dichotomy for religious people. But I don’t think it’s the way you described it. Christians, for example, use technology because it exists- it’s not inherently sinful or evil. What happens is that we may or may not sin when we use the technology, but that has to do with the person being a sinner, not because there’s something wrong with technology or progress. The dichotomy arises when Christians realize that what they’re using has become an “idol” to them, and it becomes more important to us than the one true God. In other words, if my life were devoted to blogging, and that’s what consumed my time, and I neglected my other duties, such as loving my wife, taking care of my home, not having time for church, prayer, or God’s Word, then the blogging would be an idol and I would be sinning and committing idolatry. But if I’m properly managing my time, seeking to obey God and defend his word, then that brings glory to God. The indoctrination results from people shaping the minds of others in a certain way, which has nothing to do with the technology itself.
As far as a balanced perspective, I don’t believe in reverse discrimination. It almost sounds like you’re suggesting that we have to keep the status quo so that atheism has a chance of catching up to where you think it ought to be. But then when would that reverse discrimination stop? Never? When do two wrongs make a right? I don’t think the law is intended to bring a balanced perspective, but is intended to prevent real indoctrination and allow for all the facts to be discussed, and that sounds completely reasonable to me.
Ironic that the federal governments Common Core allows students to question basic math realities and yet the same students are not allowed to present valid evidence against atheistic evolution. Just goes to show how vulnerable the evolution story really is that it needs that much protection.
Alternatively, a secular person might see it as Christians worried about the validity of evolution and how vulnerable religious ideology is to outside information. It’s all a matter of perspective.
Excellent point regarding Common Core.
Ryan, I understand your perspective, but I can personally assure you that I’m not “worried” about the validity of evolution and the vulnerability of religious ideology. As a Calvanist I believe in God’s sovereignty, how he’s in control of everything, and how he orchestrates everything (even suffering) for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28). From that perspective I have nothing to fear or worry about- God is in control. But that doesn’t give me a right to squander my responsibility to be a light to the world, and that’s basically what I hope to accomplish on this blog. It’s my intent to shine the light of Christ and give him the glory and honor due.
Therefore evolution poses no real threat to Christianity. I’m content to just do my part ushering in God’s Kingdom. I certainly don’t want to see evolution being given all the glory and honor presented to it when I believe it’s just not true. And I don’t want to see creationism being censored when I believe it is true- and there are a great number of Americans, including scientists, teachers and professors, who feel the same way.
On the other hand I get the impression that it’s the evolutionists who are worried about students rejecting evolution, and the possibility that students may ultimately turn towards Christianity. I really think that if serious evidence for a young earth is presented in science class, in addition to evidence contrary to evolutionary beliefs, many students will reject evolution, and some may ultimately turn towards Christ.