The first thing I want to make clear is that I do not agree with Creation Science because I believe that it is based upon some very flawed assumptions relating to the interpretion of Judeao-Christian Scripture (Genesis). The false assumption that I take issue with is that the earth was made in a literal 7 days, based upon 24 hour periods. The fact is that Genesis says no such thing. In other words, I have a genuine dislike of the literalist approach of fundamentalist Christians. I belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and when I reached high school science I was taught about evolution in a very natural way so that I could easily accept that Genesis contains God’s Truth yet at the same time appreciate that the “day” and “night” refer to the various ages through which the earth moved over time. Creation Science does not allow for such a belief or interpretation. Without studying in detail what is made available through the Intelligent Design courses, I cannot logically comment upon the content including any obvious flaws of the teaching materials. My aim is to point out that the decisions from the court cases that have been brought against the use of Creation Science in schools is in fact flawed and I believe it is damaging to not allow young people to study the two theories together so that they can see the flaws within each theory. Those decisions are also flawed because they are in fact entrenching a State Religion – Atheism – which goes against the original intention of the founding fathers of the USA.

The battle that has been raging in the various states, and in particular Louisiana indicates that there are some who are afraid of having their own ideas exposed to examination. The passing of legislation that will allow the use of extra materials is not such a bad thing as some are claiming. It is understandable that many seem to be paranoid about those who espouse Creation Science. However, rather than being afraid it would be a lot smarter to expose the flaws of the assumptions that are being used by the fundamentalists that espouse Creation Science. This can only be done in the classroom setting where pupils are in fact allowed to explore all of these theories. Darwin created the theory of Natural Selection – or the survival of the fittest. This is theory, it is not science, yet science or rather researchers have been working on proving the theory, even where the theory is flawed. There is nothing wrong in taking the two extremes and marrying them up in a more logical way.

Getting hysterical about Creationism is not going to make such a flawed theory go away in a hurry. If anything it is having the opposite effect upon a small population of fundamentalist Christians. You have to keep in mind that those who espouse Creationism will not allow the study of Darwinism, and the Atheists and humanists are attempting the same thing through the court system. This is not a very healthy development because it has left the USA exposed to falling into the trap of having a state religion, which is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers.

What then was that intention? To understand that you need to have an historical background dating back to at least the early Christian period and beyond. In the ancient world the various nations had their state religion, and as a result the Roman emperor was thought of as a god. The pagan people had to give homage to the emperor and if they refused they were seen to commit treason. The early Christians and the Jews refused to give the form of homage required – pagan sacrifices – hence they committed a crime against the state and they were persecuted (read that as being fed to the lions etc.)  The persecution stopped when Constantine declared Christianity as the state religion, but after he died the Christians were persecuted once again by pagan emperors. This situation continued until the time of the break down of the Roman empire. However, the state religion itself did not disappear even after the time of the Reformation. The founding fathers were individuals who had fled England because of persecution when they refused to join the state religion which was variously the Anglican Church and then the Puritans, then back to the Anglican Church. This same persecution was rife in Europe, and there was a flood of emigration to the New World based upon people wanting the freedom to practise their religion in peace. For this reason the founding fathers declared that no one religion was to be dominant.

However, during the twentieth century, and now into the twenty-first century, Atheism has become dominant leading to a series of court cases that have led to some very flawed decisions based upon flawed interpretations of the intentions of the founding fathers. Separation of Church and State was never meant to bring about the banning of school prayer, the banning of the use of a Bible at school or any of the other things that have been banned by those court decisions. Every single one of the decisions have been flawed in one way or another, and they have given the impetus to Atheism becoming the new state religion. This in turn has led to an increase in the persecution of Christians. My own view is that this is a mistake because it only fuels beliefs that were unsound in the first place. What is taking place is that those who believe in the correctness of the theory of Evolution (I am one of those people but with modification) are attempting to stifle those who follow the Young Earth theory which is in fact very flawed.

Both theories need genuine data and there is far more that proves Evolution than the Young Earth scenario. The theory of Evolution (without taking man into account) can be proved by something as simple as the study of carbon and how diamonds plus coal are made – it took millions of years for the coal to evolve. A comparitive study in the classroom can only help young people to see the flaws of the Young Earth theories. The problem with Creationism and its proponents is that they see it as an either/or situation, which is generally how they see a lot of things regarding Scripture – these same folk get really ugly towards members of the RCC. However, there should be nothing wrong in trying to make the two situations compatible – that Genesis allows for the earth to have evolved over time and that it is a simple explanation written at a time when people did not know about discoveries through science.

Unfortunately, there are some who are so afraid of having the theories of Charles Darwin exposed to scrutiny that they seek to smother any such research by young students. In this case they confuse religion with what they term science, not realising that they are themselves espousing their own religion of humanism and atheism. They are in turn provoking the fundamentalists, stoking the fear of being stifled and persecuted. Both sides need to have their theories opened to scrutiny. I personally do not agree with what is espoused by the Creationists. The theory of the Young Earth is just ridiculous. It is for that reason that I believe that exposing young high school children to researching both the theory of Evolution and the theory of Young Earth will help those children to come to more logical conclusions than the claim that the earth is about 8,000 years old.