Would you believe a Federal Court in Atlanta Georgia recently ruled "critical thinking" in public schools unconstitutional? Well, almost. The ruling declared it a violation of the "establishment clause" of the Constitution for a sticker with the following statement to be placed in public school science texts:

"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."

Let's take a closer look at this statement and see if we can find out what gave the court sticker shock. The sticker says, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." I think I see the problem here. This may be a straightforward statement of fact but they're fighting words for militant Darwinists. The proclamation that evolution is a theory rather than fact draws embarrassing attention to the current policy whereby evolution is taught exclusively and thus essentially as fact in most public school systems.

The sticker goes on to state "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." These are more fighting words for hard core Darwinists and apparently the court. Any reasonable parent or teacher would encourage students to approach science, or any subject for that matter, with careful study, an open mind and critical consideration. The problem, however, is that such objectivity is objectionable to the entrenched Darwinian establishment when it comes to origins science. Open minds, careful study and critical consideration are the foundation for objective study and learning but they conflict with the Darwinian agenda. How will the Darwinian establishment retain their philosophical monopoly in the public education system if students are actually encouraged to keep an open mind, study and critically consider "all" the facts?

The awkward truth that confronts the Darwinian establishment in academia is that there are literally thousands of highly qualified scientists that reject the Darwinian paradigm. There are theories of intelligent design or creation that fit the scientific evidence as well or better than the theory of evolution. Of course it's true that the majority of scientists or science teachers in academia are Darwinists but then, if you follow the news, you know that if they teach or affirm anything contrary to or even critical of pure naturalistic evolutionism, they are likely to be disciplined, terminated or relegated to obscurity.

The "establishment clause" of the Constitution certainly didn't have Georgia on its mind when it was written. The clear intent of the clause was to preclude the Federal Government from establishing a state religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. In throwing out the Georgia textbook stickers, the court is essentially asserting that by encouraging students to have an open mind and give critical consideration to the theory of evolution, the local government was imposing a religion on the students. This is an outrageous stretch of logic as well as the establishment clause. Public outrage should be heard far and wide for such an egregious abuse and distortion of law, logic and authority.

It should be pointed out that the Darwinian monopoly of academia and its legal fellow travelers are positioning themselves on a philosophical rather than a legal or scientific foundation. As such the Darwinian monopoly is a house of cards whose collapse is long overdue. The philosophical foundation on which Darwinism and the legal perspective reflected in the Georgia decision rests is that of naturalism or materialism.

Naturalism is not a product of scientific discovery and it's certainly not a Constitutional mandate; it's a worldview that one can choose to bring to science, law or any other field of study. It's a belief system that embraces only natural causes and effects and thus restricts origins science to those interpretations and conclusions that are consistent with or validate naturalistic evolution. By the same token, when law is interpreted within the constraints of naturalistic philosophy it necessarily sides against design or creation in the origins debate.

The theory of evolution is, in premise, a scientific theory. However, the theory of evolution conjoined to naturalistic philosophy is Darwinism, an ism in every sense of the word. Most of us who call for the teaching of design theory in the public school system don't object to the teaching of evolution theory along with it. In fact, most of us support a dual model approach where students can study all of the evidences with an open mind and carefully consider the facts as they relate to the theory of evolution and the theory of design. What we are objecting to is the imposition of the state mandated religion of Darwinism on our students.

In order to get to the place where the non-religious, scientific evidences in support of both design and evolution theory can be presented in public schools we need to expose the philosophical foundations Darwinism. If the theory of evolution is to stand on its own scientific merits, it must be separated from the philosophical protection of naturalism. By the same token, design theory must not be supported in the public schools by religious or Biblical arguments.

Darwinists have captured the terms of the creation – evolution debate in terms of religion versus science. By defining evolution and even science itself in the context of their own belief system (naturalistic philosophy) Darwinists are attempting to win the origins debate by default without having to produce convincing evidences that stand apart from naturalistic philosophical presuppositions. Let's pursue the philosophical debate so the scientific debate and educational objectivity can begin.

* Chuck Nelson, Christian creationist and former FBI agent and retired law enforcement officer, contributes regularly to Creation Digest.

Copyright © 2001 - 2007