|VOL. 7, NO. 14||Dec. 13, 2005|
"On Men and Monkeys: The Oldest Fight in the Culture War, II."
Today we continue discussing the oldest fight in the Culture War evolutionism's attack on creationism. After the Scopes Trial, there was a long period of judicial inactivity on the creation-evolution battlefront, but the war continued to rage elsewhere as the Culture War spread across our land.
The judicial battle broke out again in 1968 in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas. This case involved an Arkansas law prohibiting the state's public schools and universities from teaching that man evolved from non-human species. The plaintiff the person attacking the law in Epperson was Susan Epperson, a new biology teacher in the Little Rock schools. The Arkansas law was passed in 1928, just three years after the Scopes trial, and was rooted in the same soil that produced the Scopes trial. Indeed, the U. S. Supreme Court in Epperson highlighted the Tennessee law in Scopes as "the antecedent" of the Arkansas law. The Supremes in 1968 then threw out the Arkansas anti-evolutionism law because "it was tailored to the principles or prohibitions of a religious sect or dogma [i.e., Biblical Christianity]." The lower state court in Epperson was even more pro-evolution. It argued that the Arkansas law "tends to hinder the quest for knowledge, restrict the freedom to learn, and restrain the freedom to teach." "Freedom" was inhibited because only one theory of origins could be taught, according to the High Court. Or, to rephrase the ruling, there is more "freedom" in censoring one theory of origins and teaching exclusively another theory than in teaching both theories. A strange definition of "freedom" indeed!
But if there is more "freedom" for America's Humanistic judges in teaching only one theory, why didn't the U. S. Supreme Court remember this when it decided against Louisiana's "dual model law" in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard? The law required that the state's public schools teach both creation-science and evolutionism if either theory of origins were taught. The Court voted 7-2 against the law, and the majority opinion gave no indication that the pro-evolution majority paid any attention to the massive evidence supporting creation-science that was presented to it. The Court did not say that creationism could never be taught, but the Supremes prohibited a state from requiring that creationism as well as evolutionism be taught. This wrongheaded decision is a textbook example of Humanism's invasion of American law, and of fact v. fiction in constitutional law.
Fact v. Fiction #1: Some evolutionists who claim to be Christians but also evolutionists who label themselves "theistic evolutionists" argue that God could have used the evolutionary process hypothesized by Darwin to create the universe. But evolutionism reduces man to an animal. Theism, conversely presents man as made in the image of God. If man is an animal, but man is also made in the image of God, what does that make God?
Fact v. Fiction #2: Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.
These subtle and dangerous attacks on God Himself and the Constitution must be repelled. There are additional "Fictions" being hurled by evolutionists against creationism, and we will consider these in our next "Briefing." As the battle moves into the courtroom again, WE MUST BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THE TRUTH!