Posted on 06/03/2008 7:07:13 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
One man’s personal experience of state school anti-Christian intolerance in the USA
The year was 1996. I had just moved to Arizona with my family, and though as a musician I had some income, it was not enough. So I worked as a substitute elementary school teacher.
At the beginning of the day the students would recite the American Pledge of Allegiance. In many schools, students would then recite this well-known excerpt from America’s Declaration of Independence:
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, … ’My three-plus years spent ‘subbing’1 with the district was somewhat notable. One of my music classes singing the Lee Greenwood song, ‘God Bless the USA’ caught the attention of the principal, then a US senator, then the governor’s office, and so on. In due course, there I was, a substitute teacher, putting on probably the biggest elementary school patriotic concert in Arizona state history; and it was going to be broadcast around the world as well as on several Phoenix TV stations. It was quite an honor for any teacher, especially a sub. I was given a great deal of praise by parents, teachers and even Governor Napolitano herself. In fact the principal of the school wrote a glowing evaluation of my performance as a teacher and asked me to take the position permanently. She even offered to help me get state certification.
But these ‘glory days’ were not to last. The next school year I took a two-day assignment in a middle school science class. The teacher left me a four-part video called something like ‘Science of the Soul’ (I have had no access to it since). Curious about the strange title, I started showing one part. It was a mix of science and anti-religious propaganda; the kids sat there like little sponges soaking it up. To summarize, it portrayed early religious people—specifically Christians and Jews as it used biblical terminology—as primitive and superstitious. For example, when talking about comets it stated that religious people once thought they were signs from God or the devil. It then explained how science came to the rescue and explained what comets really were. A similar statement was made about lightning being a sign that God was angry. Once again science rescued man from religious superstition.
Of course, the narrator failed to mention that it was Bible-believers that founded these very branches of science, and that even some skeptics have acknowledged that the biblical belief is the best antidote to superstition.
Through this video the Washington school district was actively disrespecting the Christian families in the school. I wondered what the enlightened narrator would have believed had he lived in ancient times. I also wondered why the narrator didn’t tell them that scientists once believed in spontaneous generation—that frogs spontaneously generated from mud, mice from wheat, and flies from decaying meat. In fact, it was still the scientific consensus when Darwin wrote Origin of the Species in 1859 that microbes arose by spontaneous generation.
Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote a lovely poem dedicated to evolution, and wrote in support of spontaneous generation. However, in 1864 Louis Pasteur very neatly debunked the idea that microscopic organisms generated spontaneously from lifeless matter. By the way, modern evolutionary scientists still believe life spontaneously generated from dead matter (anything but God), despite the enormous chemical problems with this—see Origin of Life Q&A.
I also wondered why the narrator didn’t tell the students about ‘scientific’ racism. This was a movement in response to the Enlightenment (better termed ‘Endarkenment’) of the eighteenth century by scientists (not religionists) to prove that Africans (the primary race focused upon) were of very low intelligence, biologically inferior to whites, and were racially suited for slavery. It has been said that ‘science is what scientists do.’ Therefore science was the primary and preeminent propagator of racism and slavery from the time of the Enlightenment onwards. But the science in this case is not really science at all, but an anti-God philosophy of naturalism.
Scientific racism actually preceded Darwinism. However, when Darwinian evolution became the accepted worldview by the scientific community as it is today, it joined with scientific racism like two love-sick rabbits. Soon Darwinism became the basis for the vilest racism imaginable. (See, e.g. Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, and the case of David Duke.) Naturally public education would be humiliated if it became known that Darwinism is the most racist scientific theory that has ever existed (see also See Q & A on Racism). Indeed, Hunter’s Civic Biology, which the ACLU avidly defended during the Scopes Trial (1925), explicitly promoted white supremacy (and eugenics).
The narrator of Science of the Soul, however, never mentioned anything that might give Darwinism a bad name. Instead, he continued to glorify science and attack religion. I personally believe that God created and controls the universe and everything in it. It’s all His and He can do what He wants at any time He chooses and that includes controlling lightning and comets. But I also understand, like most people who have a moderate exposure to astronomy, that comets are chunks of space ice and rock, sometimes referred to as dirty snowballs, which travel in large elliptical orbits around the sun. I also believe that our Creator is a God of order, so normally runs the universe in an orderly way—which inspired the pioneers of science to discover the laws of nature, which as Kepler said, was ‘thinking God’s thoughts after Him’.2 Trust me when I say that in the midst of a close and tumultuous thunderstorm I have been known to pray for the Almighty’s protection. In class, of course, I did not say what I believed to the kids. I kept my mouth shut and ‘steamed’ inside.
The narrator went on to tell of a writer during the industrial revolution that referred to factories as ‘dens of Satan’. He sure liked to use biblical terminology to make believers in God look like superstitious fools. He neglected to point out of course that the horrible conditions of the industrial revolution were in large part a direct result of ‘survival of the fittest’ applied to society. Proponents of this particular form of ‘social Darwinism’, such as Herbert Spencer, taught that the powerful and wealthy were this way because they were biologically and evolutionally superior to the struggling masses. They believed that we should therefore do nothing to help improve the working and living conditions of the lesser evolved masses. Charities were clearly evil in helping sustain the lives of those who otherwise would and should die in the natural selection process. In other words, the weak were to do their duty and die while the fittest survived, which would one day lead to an evolutionarily super society and race. Note that Darwin himself was a social Darwinist!
The historical evidence for this, and for the fact that social Darwinism was the foundation for Nazi Germany, is irrefutable. Yet this truth, dangerous and damaging to the Darwinist’s cause, is never taught in US public schools. Instead, people of religion (by which they primarily mean the Christians) are disparaged and blamed for the brutality of the Social Darwinists!
The narrator further went on to subtly attack the Catholic Church when he told of a French chemist who was guillotined ‘ … in the shadow of Nôtre Dame Cathedral ….’ The implication was clear—guilt by association. Give me a break! During the French Revolution, Christianity was considered a social evil by the revolutionaries. For all I know, the chemist may have been beheaded precisely because he was a believer. By the way, Nôtre Dame Cathedral was looted during the French Revolution and the name was changed to the Temple of Reason. No church had anything to do with the mass executions of the French revolution. The narrator might have been referring to the great Antoine Lavoisier, who discovered the role of oxygen in combustion, who was indeed beheaded. But the irony is that the christophobic revolutionaries proclaimed, ‘The Republic has no need of scientists’ — so much for atheism’s friendliness towards science!
Do you get the feeling that there is some kind of agenda in this video? I did. The kids, however, just sat there like little sponges soaking it all in.
Part three of the video was on evolution. It gave the history of Charles Darwin and his adventure on the good ship Beagle. The narrator, a very scholarly-looking bearded professor type, stood before a table full of fossils and bones. He concluded by passionately saying that Darwin had ‘proof’ that his theory was true, thus implying that fossils were part of that proof. (The truth is that Darwin actually said that the fossil record was a serious objection to his theory.)
The narrator then corrected himself and said something like, ‘Not exactly proof, but there is no absolute fact in any science.’ The implication being that the law of gravity, for example, and the theory of evolution were equally true. In other words hard experimental science was the same as speculation about the unobservable past. This wasn’t education—it was indoctrination. This video disparaged religious thought, was seriously misleading (to put it mildly), and elevated microbe-to-man evolution from a hypothesis to the level of a fact of hard, experimental science. The kids did not know that there are a growing number of scientists who simply don’t believe in evolution. However, they just sat there like little sponges … .
This was the beginning of the end for me as a sub at that school, despite my sterling record. I asked the kids if they had ever heard of a different theory called ‘intelligent design.’ Out of classes of about 30 kids, only one or two would raise their hands. I told them that Darwin didn’t have electron microscopes and modern scientific equipment and couldn’t see the complexity of even the simplest single celled-animal. I compared it to the complexity of a 747 jet. I then went on to say that if they wanted to learn more about intelligent design that they could look it up on the Internet. I told them that I didn’t think it would be taught at school because I had heard that a court in Ohio had ruled against a school board which voted to allow intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution. I also told the kids that I thought this court was wrong, just as the Supreme Court was also wrong in the Dred Scott case.3
I was very careful not to say that evolution was wrong and that intelligent design was right. However I did say that it was ironic that schools could affirm in the Declaration of Independence that the Creator could create man but not any other life. And I merely explained to them what intelligent design was—no mention of the Bible or any religious doctrine.
The next day I was called out of my assignment. An earring-adorned young man from the District office questioned me as to what I had said about intelligent design. He then read a single complaint by what I assume was a diehard atheist parent who didn’t want their child exposed to the teaching of ‘intelligent design’.
I was asked to write a statement of what I had said, and the young man suspended me on the spot. No warning was given or considered. I was then systematically ‘hung out to dry’. No reason was given, such as breaking a written school policy. They read the complaint, I wrote a response, and they then basically said, ‘Hit the road, Jack and dontcha come back no more, no more.’
I have made a written request and numerous phone calls to the District Assistant Superintendent (DAS) asking for a letter explaining why I was suspended but I have received no response. I did get one call from the school lawyer who grilled me about what I said and told me he would be back with me after he talked to the DAS. That has never happened. I somehow doubt that I will get an explanation. I suppose they feel I am a danger to the students, or perhaps more so to the secular progressive agenda in public education.
Furthermore, I was effectively ‘blackballed’ by Washington from subbing in other districts. I was told that suspensions were reported to other districts if they were asked—regardless of the reason. Believing that there is intelligent design behind the universe has thus effectively disqualified me from teaching, as no school wants to hire a potential troublemaker who doesn’t toe the Darwinist line. Imagine how it felt to know I was viewed almost the same way a potential pedophile would be. We have to protect the kids from that ‘religious pervert!’
I want to help expose the insidious evil of evolution that is at the heart of the secular progressive movement. For one, by finishing my book on it, incorporating my own experience. And perhaps, with the help of others, by starting a ministry to help fight this cause. The more that people wake up to what is happening, the better.
"The influence primarily responsible for the modern eugenics movement was the establishment of the doctrine of organic evolution following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859."The thread article mentions the Scopes Trial textbook, Hunter's Civic Biology. Here's a quote from page 195.
"...anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage..."You can download Civic Biology and some children's books and books for young people, written by Darwinians, which push eugenics, atheism, deism, moral relativism, etc, from my FR page:
Euvolution: Darwinism-Eugenics
shhh, not allowed to speak the obvious truth....
Fundamentalism: A Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of the Bible.
You want to start a ministry to promote intelligent design?
Didn't you get the memo? ID is supposed to be science, and totally unconnected to religious belief.
Just as in the movie “Expelled”
Think hard before you answer, because science has a lot of hidden assumptions that are well......
Just beliefs dressed in fancy clothes.
Regarding “Science” of the soul anti-religious propaganda.
The same prohibition on establishing Christianity as the official state religion prohibits establishing Atheism as the official state religion (the faith in the no god god).
It also prohibits the state desecration and derision of Christianity. It cannot put up obstacles to followers of the faith.
No.
Science is pretty much the opposite of religious belief.
Why?
And all arguments against Creationism of ANY sort (God as Creator) need to come up with some plausible explanations then as to how they do not outright deny the existence of a (or several) god(s).
Did God come out of the same Big Bang as the universe? Did several Gods spring forth?
Did God(s) evolve along with all life forms?
Did the Big Bang come as a complete surprise to God?
The mechanism OF God’s hand in creation may not be known, explained, or proven, but the dissenters need to fess up that ultimately they deny God and that cannot be taught as the state religion. Leave the door open a little. Damned antitheists.
Global Warming Scientists take it on faith.
Evolutionism: A flawed “theory” of the origins of living things...which is required to be taught in the public schools of the United States despite the total debunking of evolution by hundreds of scientists....which continues also to be the major tenet of the “church of evolution”.....despite being proven false.
itz materializm at all costs FIRST, then tailor the science to fit it...
religion masquerading as science...
Evolution: A theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are descended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that took place over many generations.
Evolution is a theory while creationism is a doctrine.
Your definitions of words are reality?
Good luck with your life.
There is one BIG difference though: a scientist who discovers that one of his assumptions is wrong readily accepts the correction; in fact, he strives to find out which of his assumptions are wrong.
Religion assumes that the fundamental tenets are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned.
Religion assumes that the fundamental tenets are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned.
And you believe this because?
Sounds great on paper but ignores the minor detail of scientists being human with all of the attendant weaknesses. I mean no disrespect, but this statement makes me wonder whether you actually know any scientists very well. You seem to have a very idealized view of them.
Evolution is doctrine for its adherents who charge “heresy” against any scientist who dares to say evolution is a FALSE doctrine/theory.
Excommunication of such scientists from the “church” of evolution is what happened to the gentleman in this article, a story repeated many times over throughout this country....or have you simply ignored those who have experienced such “excommunication” efforts?
Are you a scientist-worshipper?
If someone does not profess the creed of scientist-worship, does that make him a science-denier?
Where is the physical proof for ID or God?
Are you comfortable saying “I don’t know” when challenged about how God flooded the earth?
Both of those are fundamental differences between the scientific process and Religion.
Lest you think I’m an atheist, I am a Christian, a member of a local Free Methodist church (extremely conservative denomination), am on the Official Board, and lead worship most Sunday mornings.
Fundamentally, Science can say “I don’t know”, or say “I learned something new, now my foundation will change”. Religion is based on faith; it cannot be proved, and claims of I don’t know do not apply.
There are bad examples of scientists; however, I am one example of a good scientist when it comes to accepting changes to my assumptions.
Note, however, that the absence of proof is NOT the proof of absence; simply because there are discontinuities in the theory of evolution does not mean it is not correct. It means we don’t know. And that IS a valid scientific conclusion and position.
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” - Proverbs 25:2
“After decades of effort, some scientists begin to despair of explaining the universe. Or is it universes?” - Pull quote ( in red!) on the front page of today’s (6/3/08) NYT SCIENCE TIMES section.
... so is the door open a little enough for you?
I think the Founders would answer "no".
"Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (I.8.8.)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Claims of evolution being false need to have facts associated. Simply saying there are lacking facts in the theory does not invalidate the theory.
Not the way it gets used in politics, it isn’t.
Buy many copies of an Inconvient Lie lately?
Talked to any of algore's people lately?
I thought not!
(Some) scientists believe that the first life came magically from a lifeless mass. The belief in magic is a religion.
Then he’s not a scientist. Some political conservatives believe that Ron Paul was the savior of the nation; does that mean everyone here at FR agrees?
Most scientists tend to be quite open to facts, and readily admit when they are wrong and will change their theories accordingly. Witness 31,000 signatures being skeptical of AGW.
And witness the large number of evangelical Christians teaching biology, chemistry, physics in many evangelical Christian universities, and teaching the theory of evolution.
Many scientists say that purpose and altruism do not exist, or, at best, are merely illusions. That is, you are duped into believing such things by the way you evolved from monkeys. That's what some scientists think about you. And they want you to believe it about yourself too.
Your Free Methodist credentials, nor your confession as a scientist prove a whole lot, but I appreciate your candor.
If I understand what you are saying, it is that science trumps your religious beliefs.
Do you actually believe that science and its methods, language, and beliefs describe reality? Do you think they are the only way to understand life?
Honest question.
I think your science quote has more to do with private property and patents than science.
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Think again, my friend.
"Boyle's upbringing was fairly conventional. He was educated partly at home and partly at Eton College, completing his education by travelling to France, Italy and Switzerland, where he spent several months and where he received further instruction. It was during these continental travels that Boyle had a conversion experience, occasioned by an awe-inspiring thunderstorm, which he recounted in his autobiography. This had a formative influence on his entire subsequent life; his profound religiosity, the subject of much comment by contemporaries, is equally, if not more, important in understanding his later intellectual personality than his aristocratic background. Not only did Boyle's deep theism inform his outloook in natural philosophy, as in life in general; in addition, it may be argued that the obsessiveness which he showed in his pursuit of his goals grew directly out of the religious imperatives which dominated his life." - The Life and Thought of Robert Boyle
Forms of altruism are common in certain animal populations; it is scientists who have determine this. And purpose is a fundamental driver of evolution.
The quotes were only intended to convey the point that the Founders made a distinction between relgion and science. It seems self-evident. Maybe you have a more nuanced explanation?
I think your science quote has more to do with private property and patents than science.
You lost me there. With regard to science, the object of that grant of power was to promote science, and the means were patents.
From your source:
“In a whole series of books in which experimental and experiential data was carefully expounded, Boyle sought to vindicate a mechanistic view of nature at the expense of rival theories...”
You explained what I was thinking to yourself........
Hey, no hard feelings, I'm not trying to be anti-science here, cause I'm not. To imagine and portray that the founders only wanted to promote science, and diminish religion is a bit on the edge, yes?
No, my Religious beliefs concern my relationship with God and man and why He created the universe, not how the world was created, nor the timing order of my 1963 Mercury. My belief is that God created everything, and we use science to learn how He did it.
I am 100% at peace saying God created me - and created the universe - for His reasons as stated in the Bible. And that He set up a system of physical, biological, and chemical laws to carry out that creation. And that by learning how He did it, I can learn more about Him.
Do you actually believe that science and its methods, language, and beliefs describe reality?
Yes. It describes the physical world, not the spiritual world. The laws of thermodynamics, general relativity, Newton's laws of motion, Ohm's Law, Maxwell's equations all seem to consistently and repeatedly describe reality.
I drop a ball from a building, I can calculate - via the laws of motion and calculus - how long it will take to reach the ground. And it is quite accurate, time and again.
And I do not believe a loving God would create a physical world that was misleading about His nature; rather, it is through learning more about His creation that we can learn more about Him.
Why do you think science does not describe the physical world and reality? Why do so many theories and laws work so well to describe what we observe, and in fact predict what will happen? Is it pure chance?
Do you think they are the only way to understand life?
Physical life? It's a great way to understand, sure, better than the Bible. Spiritual life? Not a chance.
Of course, I won't use Maxwell's equations to determine how to better my relationship with my family; that is not the purpose of science. The Bible is ideally suited for that task!
And conversely, I don't expect my pastor to use the Bible determine a superior feedback loop for a high speed amplifier.
The problem, I believe, is when people take the Bible too far; it is a book relating who God is, how we relate to Him, and how we should relate to each other, believers and pre-Christians alike.
Where is the formula for gunpowder? Where is the derivation of pi, or e, or the concept of complex numbers? Where is the law of gravity described? If we are to only use the Bible to determine physical truths, then much of what you use every day - even the computer you're typing with - simply cannot exist, for they were not foretold nor described, nor even the underlying physics of their operation hinted at in the Bible.
I believe the Bible is inerrant when it comes to my relationship to God and man, and the nature of that relationship; it is not inerrant when it comes to chemistry, or physics, or mathematics. In fact, it does not even address those issues, for I have yet to come across the verses dealing with calculus!
Furthermore, I do not believe the Bible is a literal, inerrant transcription from God (a la the Koran), for if that was the case which Bible is correct? The Catholic Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Protestant Bible? They all have different books within them. And there are multiple translations of each as well, meaning that if the Bible is the inerrant word of God literally, then we have irreparably corrupted it with our inclusions, deletions, and transcriptions. And how sad for us!
Apply the Bible where it belongs, and apply science where it belongs. Using science to describe the spiritual is insane; likewise using the Bible as a science textbook is insulting to the Word of God.
Rather, we should use our relationship with God to spur us to learn more about Him and His creation, and we should use the intellect and curiosity He gave us to use science to pursue that learning and knowledge.
Evolutionary theory has changed several times now in response to new evidence.
Global warming is not science.
Science is the process of forming hypotheses that would likely be disproved if they're wrong. If bona fide efforts to disprove a hypothesis fail, the hypothesis is probably reasonably accurate. If only weak efforts are made to disprove the hypothesis, however, their failure really doesn't mean much.
As an examine, suppose I have an object that I claim to be essentially indestructible. If I were to demonstrate that I could touch the object with a feather and heat it up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit without any apparent damage, would you believe my claim that it was indestructible?
Suppose instead I fired .50bmg depleted uranium bullets at it and attacked it with an oxyacetylene torch. Would my claim be more plausible then?
Global warming "scientists" invest their efforts looking for evidence that their theory is correct. They willfully ignore the fact that the only sound way to prove a scientific theory (to the extent such a thing is ever really possible possible) is to subject it to the hardest tests one can imagine. Have you ever heard a global warming "scientist" propose such a thing?
I appreciate your thoughtfullness. I'm wondering why you decided to start a controversy with anything I have asked or said however.......
"Equally important were Boyle's publications in the last two decades of his life on philosophical and theological topics. Some of these were works which he had compiled in the 1660s but had put to one side at that time, such as his Excellency of Theology, Compar'd with Natural Philosophy (1674) -- to which was appended a key shorter work, Boyle's 'Considerations About the Excellency and Grounds of the Mechanical Hypothesis' -- and his important Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Receiv'd Notion of Nature (1686). The latter was one of a number of works published in the final decade of his life in which Boyle presented his mature reflections on major theological and philosophical issues, notably his Discourse of Things above Reason (1681), his Disquisition about the Final Causes of Natural Things (1688) and The Christian Virtuoso (1690)."
"Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...."
(...how do I get the blink tag to work on this thing....?)
beautiful post.
Two words you might explain to me if you believe that: Global warming.
The more unsuccessful tries one has made to formulate a model for some phenomenon, the more successful trials are necessary to validate a proposed new one.
Suppose I claim to have a model to predict coin flips. The first time I try to demonstrate this model, a coin is flipped ten times and I successfully predict the outcome of all ten flips. Should such a result be considered meaningful?
Suppose instead that I didn't have such good luck, so I reformulated the model and tried again the next day, and that didn't work so I tried again after that, etc. After a few years, I finally ace a ten-flip trial. Should that result be considered meaningful?
Sometimes scientists take their own beliefs and merge them with their research, which is wrong. Science should stay objective, and not be afraid to switch gears when the evidence points to it.
Science is a process, and from it we discover fundamental laws and truths. Corruption of the process should be tossed immediately.
And that corruption usually comes from trying to impose one's own faith and beliefs on the process. That is wrong from EITHER side of the evolution-versus-ID debate.
It's a theory that a lot of "scientists" believe.....and teach as fact.....
An unfortunate problem in the scientific community.
Or is it that Boyle’s Christian belief did not contradict his mechanisitic views?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.