The recent controversy with Indiana SB 89, the life science bill, has caused quite a stir among a few people including me. The proposal is summarized as follows:
Teaching of the origin of life. Provides that the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life. Requires the curriculum for the course to include theories from multiple religions.”
Sounds pretty convincing for a culture that prides itself on pluralism, right? Well, our society is anything but pluralistic.
I noted particularly hostile, anti-God sentiment at Masson's blog, so I chose to springboard the issue over there. Now in fairness to the primary blogger, he is not opposed to challenges to evolution or debate, only a law requiring creation-science to be taught as actual science (That’s how I understood his main objection. But, he is certainly no friend to Christianity). I encourage you to go read the blog and the comments too. It represents classic evolutionary thought with a few of my own objections.
As far as we know, thePoliPit.com is the only creation-science advocate blogging in Indianapolis and possibly Indiana (outside of church based blogs.) So, we’re it! I suppose we can just add that to our growing list of reasons to hate us. Or, you can stick around, contend with us and strengthen your decision with evolution; or you might (oh my) become a creationist.
Therefore, we have decided to make the creation v. evolution debate a part of our regular discussions throughout 2012. This has been something in the works for a while, but the timing of SB 89 fanned the flames and set the house on fire. We also have a few things in the works that we may announce in the next few weeks.
Now to understand and appreciate the whole of my position, I don't want creationism taught in public schools. I don't want prayer in public schools. I don't want the bible taught in public schools. In fact, I don't want public schools period! But, since they do exist, they need to be dealt with.
The public school is a boot camp for the religion of humanism. Everything about public schools is hostile to Christianity and has been since its compulsory inception in 1852. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters against compelled public school attendance. But, those that attend will be religiously indoctrinated with humanism; that is inescapable. This is truly where the foundation of evolution resides.
The problem is that humanist want to convince people that public schools are religiously neutral. In this particular case, we are told to believe that evolution is synonymous with science, and that it is a non-dogmatic, non-religious, neutral fact. As such, there is no room for creationism; we have it figured out. Any contrary thinking is quickly ridiculed, cheaply refuted, and then shut down through legal processes.
The truth of the “public school-evolution-humanism” connection is sordid indeed. The three are inseparable:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved. - John L. Dunphy
What should you expect from us on this topic? First, you can expect the rotting corpse of Christianity to turn the other cheek, and as were coming back around make the idiot go back to his village. Second, we are not scientist, so we must rely on the work of operational scientists to even consider the issue. A scientist however, does not refute an argument, that’s the job of an astute thinker. Our strategy will generally adhere to using the words of evolutionists and not creationists. Not because we think the latter to be less credible but because “argument by authority” requires the parties to accept the authority referenced. There is no way an evolutionist will accept the words of a creationists (evolutionist are way to open minded for that). So we will analyze their words, research, and methodology and work from there.
In the coming weeks and months I will lay the foundation for understanding the philosophical difference between creation science and humanistic evolution. I will present with unambiguous language what the creation science model is and compare it with the evolutionary humanistic (Evo-Humanism) model. Once these two obligations are met then you may begin to judge the truthfulness and validity of what we offer.
Don't worry though; we are not giving up our regular political commentary. We're just augmenting it with a timely, relevant, and vitally important issue.