Advocates of academic freedom and the free exercise of religion wax eloquent debating creation v. evolution.  Timeless phrases echo true, whatever the cause.

"...Bigotry and ignorance are ever active...we find today as brazen and as bold an attempt to destroy learning as was ever made in the middle ages...

"...Along comes somebody who says we have got to believe it as I believe it.  It is a crime to know more than I know.  And they publish a law to inhibit learning.

"...If men are not tolerant, if men cannot respect each other's opinions, if men cannot live and let live, then no man's life is safe..."¹

These passionate words of an astute lawyer in the defense of both the free exercise of religion and academic freedom are as persuasive today as when first delivered to a jury in a Dayton, Tennessee courtroom in the midst of 1925's blistering-hot summer. 

Seems as though this kind of legal rationale should encourage Roger DeHart, Burlington, Washington, high-school biology teacher.  He hasn't preached religion or taught creation but is certifiably guilty of asking young scholars to think for themselves.

After nine years of encouraging students to dig for evidence relating to whether life on Planet Earth originated by a series of random chance coincidences or by intelligent design, the ACLU threw a monkey wrench into the professor's act.  DeHart has been ordered to cease and desist introducing materials that question what Darwin himself labeled his "speculations."²

One problem with the legal rhetoric that should buoy the spirit of the Washington State biologist: the attorney who crafted these words in defense of freedom is not available to fight for Roger DeHart - Clarence Darrow died in 1938.  

Hold on!  Wasn't Darrow a notorious, creation basher?  Clearly so, based on the Scopes Trial transcript.  But he also championed the First Amendment and intellectual freedom.

A paradox looms: the same ACLU that backed Darrow's resonating words in the Dayton, Tennessee "trial of the century," appears to have overlooked or even deep-sixed the defense it championed in Scopes in order to attack Professor DeHart for an offense of a similar genre - challenging students to explore beyond majoritarian tradition in the quest for understanding life's origin.

Hmm!!!!

For the record, William Jennings Bryan, vilified at the time of Scopes for his faith in the miracle of creation, also championed tolerance. 

Bryan "...was not against teaching evolution as a hypothesis, that it deserved to be thoughtfully considered, and that teachers should not be fined but reprimanded for teaching it as a fact and for attacking the Bible."³ 

Academic freedom makes sense. 

How can a teacher be expected to present evolution as "fact" when even Darwin characterized his "speculations" as "beyond true science?"  What if a Political Science teacher was required to expose students to the views of the party identified with the state governor - Democrat or Republican - and prohibited from alluding to the platform of an out-of-power party? 

Is that academic freedom?

When intellectual swordsmanship cloaks a struggle for dominance by radically different worldviews, the U.S. Constitution comes into play, foursquare against the establishment of a favored religion.  This requires government neutrality in matters of faith, without fostering hostility toward any belief system.

Lock-step mega-evolutionists tend to skirt the First Amendment issue with a shibboleth cliche: our message is "science," not constitutionally prohibited "religious" indoctrination, financed by the long-arm of the state!!!    

Really???

Michael Ruse, an atheist and a devoted disciple of Darwinian faith, candidly describes evolution as "...a full-fledged alternative to Christianity...Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."⁴

That kind of bad news admission deserves the attention of all First Amendment champions, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.  One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."⁵

So much for the First Amendment and its strict prohibition against the establishment of religion - even the secular kind. 

But what about academic freedom and the teaching of mega-evolutionary "science" as fact - without leeway for impressionable students to study alternate scientific views?   There was a time when conventional thought pronounced the earth flat while independent thinkers had the guts to ask questions!

"Does brainwashing" equate academic freedom?  One physicist committed to naturalism admits exploiting the trust students vest in their college profs. 

"...I use that trust to effectively brainwash them...our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda.  We appeal - without demonstration - to evidence that supports our position.  We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."⁶

So much for academic freedom!!!!!!!

One not-so-incidental footnote comes from a tape-recorded lecture delivered by a life-long evolutionist who, to the dismay of science colleagues, questioned whether evolution should be taught in high schools.  His words shocked his audience assembled at the American Museum of Natural History.  He candidly acknowledged that "...evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it...if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith."⁷

The introduction to a 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species acknowledges "...evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. 

"Is it then a science or a faith?

"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.  Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."⁸

One last question: if the voice of Clarence Darrow still echoed in the nation's courtrooms, would the barrister put his considerable talents to work in defense of Roger DeHart's academic freedom to challenge his students to think for themselves?   

1. Adams, Leslie B. Jr., Publisher, The Scopes Trial, (Cincinnati, Ohio: National Book Company, 1925), Third Edition, pp. 75 & 84.
2. See Teresa Watanabe, "Theory Backs Darwin, Adds the Designer," The Baltimore Sun, March 28, 2001.
3. Cornelius, Richard M., PhD, "Impact," (Dayton, Tennessee: Bryan College, 2001); as quoted online in the website, http://www.CreationDigest.com, Winter, 2001 edition.
4. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3; as quoted by Dr. Henry B. Morris, "Evolution is Religion - not Science," Impact, February, 2001.
5. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) p. S123; as quoted by Dr. Henry B. Morris, supra.
6. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today, (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54; as quoted by Dr. Henry B. Morris, Impact, supra.
7. See Wayne Frair's report  in this edition of CreationDigest  under the title, "Can You Tell Me Anything about Evolution?"
8. As reported by Dennis Petersen, "Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation Series, Fundamental Fallacies of Evolution" (El Dorado, California: Creation Resource Foundation), Video #5.

Copyright © 2001 - 2007