Every hear of the 1987 ruling by the US Supreme Court - Edwards vs. Aguillard? I suggest you review it. It struck down a Louisiana law that required teaching of both evolution and creationist viewpoint side by side in public schools (sounds fair to me - let the kids decide). The court held that it failed the "Lemon test" which requires that a public religious activity is constitional only if (1)it has a predominately secular purpose (secular humanism is certainly secular but it promotes atheism!), (2)it neither inhibits nor advances religion, and (3) it creates no excessive entanglement between govt. and religion. Only problem is that the Lemon test has nothing to do with the Constitution - it is pure arbitrary law created by judges (who are not consitutionally allowed to make law). Once again, judges decide for the people regardless of what the people want. Judges make law - oligarchs in black robes.
Also, I am watching the cases in Kansas and PA - the evolutionists are apoloplectic that the boards in some communities are starting to question evolution. They also have the mainstream media on their side. Even stating that evolution is just a theory and not fact cannot be allowed! The sacred theory must be protected and enforced at all costs - and we see the atheists circling the wagons in these communities. However, the PEOPLE will ultimately decide what is taught in their schools (not a federal judge), that is, if there is anything remaining of this dying republic.
I'm familiar with the case.
It struck down a Louisiana law that required teaching of both evolution and creationist viewpoint side by side in public schools (sounds fair to me - let the kids decide).
So the kids should get to decide the curriculum? I think it's a better idea to let scientific professionals decide science curricula.
The court held that it failed the "Lemon test" which requires that a public religious activity is constitional only if (1)it has a predominately secular purpose (secular humanism is certainly secular but it promotes atheism!)
A secular purpose does not necessarily mean secular humanism. You are overextending the language here. The study of science has nothing to with God. Neither does auto mechanics, by the way. Does fixing your car promote secular humanism?
Only problem is that the Lemon test has nothing to do with the Constitution - it is pure arbitrary law created by judges (who are not consitutionally allowed to make law). Once again, judges decide for the people regardless of what the people want.
In this case, it was the judges enforcing the First Amendment, regardless of what the people want. Personally, I don't want to live in a society where scientific research and education are inhibited by sectarian prejudice. We left the Dark Ages behind for a reason.
Also, I am watching the cases in Kansas and PA - the evolutionists are apoloplectic that the boards in some communities are starting to question evolution.
Academic standards should not be lowered just because the people in many communities are predominantly scientifically illiterate.
They also have the mainstream media on their side.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Even stating that evolution is just a theory and not fact cannot be allowed!
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
The sacred theory must be protected and enforced at all costs - and we see the atheists circling the wagons in these communities.
There is nothing "sacred" about evolution. Its consequences are and have been tested all the time. Evolutionary theory is not sacrosanct. The fact that the science isn't on your side doesn't make the opposing viewpoint a "religion".
However, the PEOPLE will ultimately decide what is taught in their schools (not a federal judge), that is, if there is anything remaining of this dying republic.
And if people want good science education, they will continue to let science teaching professionals do their job, which includes a thorough teaching of the theory of evolution. Personally, I think it would be great if creationism could be mentioned in the classroom. Then well-trained biology and earth science teachers could (and would) rightfully tear the flimsy "science" behind creationism to shreds on a regular basis.