The Truth About Evilution:
©Lúcio Mascarenhas, March 2005. Emphases added.
A Religion Built On Denying
Copyright Terms & Conditions | Home | Michaelinum.
The Case of John Peloza Vs. The Evolutionist Heresy
Retrieved from Wikipedia = Evolutionism
In 1994, John Peloza, a High school biology teacher in California, U.S.A., sued his school board in federal court, claiming that he was being forced to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism".
The federal court dismissed the case, holding that Peloza's suit was "frivolous" and requiring Peloza to pay the school board's attorneys' fees and court costs.
When Peloza appealed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
- "evolution" and "evolutionism" were synonymous,
- "evolution" and "evolutionism" say nothing about "how the universe was created" or "whether or not there is a divine Creator,"
- "evolution" and "evolutionism" are not religions so the state can teach them in public schools as long as "evolution" and "evolutionism" do not state the "belief that the universe came into existence without a Creator,"
- Peloza's suit was not frivolous so he did not have to pay the school board's attorneys' fees and court costs, but
- the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in dismissing Peloza's case thus allowing the state school boards to continue requiring biology teachers to teach "evolution" and "evolutionism."
My Comments On The Peloza Case
"Religions" belong to class of ideologies called "Belief Systems". However, the
latter term is broader than the former, and includes what are called "Non-theistic religions" such as the Heresy of Evolutionism. These newer ideological systems are not religions in the classic sense, for a religion is a Belief System which postulates the relationship between man and a supernatural entity ("God"), which aspect (relationship with a supernatural entity) is rejected by the new-type religions.
Now it is a basic truism of "Modern Judicial Activism" that ideas evolve, and it is very true that man's understanding of things changes; therefore, the Judicial Activists have been very active in claiming the evolutions of ideas to suit their own peculiar notions. Here, however, in this case (of Peloza) the very same magistrates, so prone to citing evolution, have strangely refused to do that here, but instead argue for rigidity in defining religion so that the definition excludes religions such as Evolution, when in fact it is too evident that the definition of religion has become broadened to mean or be synonymous for "belief system" which includes such "religions" as Raelism and Scientology, which do not pretend to believe in a supernatural God.
And, so much as the definition evolved, in fact, that today, the vast majority of religions coming into existence belong to this newer category, similar to Raelism or Scientology.
Strictly speaking, even "Agnosticism", "Atheism", "Socialism", "Communism", "Nazism", etc., are also belief systems or religions of the new type.
But one intriguing statement made in the Peloza judgement must be remarked upon. We should expect that the magistrates are themselves neutral in belief in so far as they act as magistrates, keeping their personal religious viewpoints, including those of the newer types, private and to themselves. Yet, the dissenting magistrate [Poole] remarks:
Religion has been used to justify the suppression of speech for centuries. See Everson V. Board of Ed,, 330 U.S. 1, 8-10, 67 S.Ct. 504, 5074)9, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). With the development of a vigorous First Amendment jurisprudence, we have quelled some of the worst abuses. But points of tension remain. We must thus remain vigilant to ensure that in our rush to preserve certain fundamental rights, we do not trample others. Caution is of the essence; only through a methodical and fact-specific jurisprudence can we hope to achieve a proper accommodation.
This statement has certain implications: propositions certain assertions as the equivalent of "Gospel Truth" facts:
- IT IS TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED as the equivalent of "GOSPEL TRUTH" facts THAT All "religions" are basically one, and can be clumped together, as has been ASSUMED here in this quote.
- Justice Poole, at least, evidently sees his duty as being anti-religion.
Article in the Times of India, Bombay Edition, February 2, 2005. [See original text
"Darwin’s Theory Put To Flight In America’s Bible Belt"
"A recent poll found that 55% of Americans and 67% of those who voted for George Bush do not believe in evolution."
Sarah Baxter, Sunday Times
The Republican Red States that voted for President George W. Bush in America’s Bible Belt are claiming their reward in an unexpected area: rolling back the teaching of evolution in schools.
Bold initiatives to introduce the concept of Intelligent Design, wrought by a god or higher being, into theories about Earth’s creation are being sponsored in towns and communities across America.
Religious fundamentalists or theocons opposed to Darwinism have adopted sophisticated tactics enabling them to pass under the political and legal radar that keeps church separate from state and forbids the promotion of religion in schools. The champions of Intelligent Design, who are mindful not to specify a particular creator, are poised for victory in Kansas later this year after a new school board favoring the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than a fact was elected in November by a majority of six votes to four. Jack Krebs of Kansas Citizens for Science said: "The re-election of Bush has emboldened the Intelligent Design movement. They feel they have the wind at their backs."
The President, a Born-Again Christian, has proclaimed his own skepticism about Darwinism in the past. "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth," he once said. A recent CBS poll found that 55% of Americans and 67% of those who voted for Bush do not believe in evolution.
This Tuesday marks the start of a series of public meetings in Kansas on the teaching of Darwinism and the battle lines are firmly drawn.
The prairie town of Salina, Kansas, in the center of the United States is modern enough to have a two-mile airstrip. When it comes to religion, however, little has changed for some families since the pioneers rolled by on their wagons.
In a small diner on the outskirts of the town, Ruth Coleman, 58, the mother of a Baptist pastor, was treating her five-year-old granddaughter Kendra to lunch. "I believe God made the earth 6000 years ago and he deserves the credit. If there was evolution why are there still monkeys?"
A 14-year-old girl asked members of Coleman's congregation last Sunday for guidance on how to answer exam questions about the origin of mankind. "Shall I give the right answer and fail the test or give the wrong answer and pass?" the puzzled teenager asked.
"We teach kids not to lie and if we believe in creationism, evolution is a lie, so the grownups were kind of stumbling," Coleman said. A mom said, "Just put the textbook says this, but I believe that. Everybody thought it was a really good idea."
Educationists arrived in Salina last week for a meeting of a science standards committee on rewriting the curriculum. The leading protagonist on each side traded barbs as they discussed changes that would open the door to challenging evolution.
"Darwinism is a non-theistic religion," protested one supporter of Intelligent Design, "and you're trying to give it to our kids even though they don't want it." An opponent retorted,
"The alternative to natural causation is supernatural causation and that's what you are trying to open the door to."
The well-funded, nationally based Intelligent Design movement is casting itself as the promoter of academic freedom. It is hard for opponents to write the group off as the American equivalent of Afghanistan's fundamentalist Taliban when it appears to be challenging received wisdom rather than stifling debate.
For Bill Harris, a 56-year-old scientist and a Christian, the question is: Is it possible that a god created the earth? If it is impossible, then take it off the table, but if it's possible don't ignore it.
He believes evolution should continue to be taught with important caveats. "There are definitely elements of Darwin's theory that are well founded, but the origins of the universe, the origins of life and the origins of the genetic code are currently unknown. We can't state frequently enough that science is still looking for the answers."
Harris believes the finely-tuned relationship between the planet and its living creatures point to the existence of a higher designer. "It's not a religious debate," he insisted, "It's a scientific debate with religious implications."
Krebs, 56, a veteran of skirmishes with anti-evolutionists, said his opponents had learnt from past mistakes. "It used to be easy to dismiss the views of young earth creationists as an embarrassment, but the Intelligent Design movement is keeping them in the background. It is a cleverly designed strategy to say, 'You guys are being dogmatic', and we wind up looking like the ones who want to limit science."
Retrieved from Wikipedia = Charles Darwin
It [Darwin's theory of Evolution] provoked an outraged response from the Church of England. At a meeting... in Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, and Robert FitzRoy (captain of the ship Beagle) argued against Darwin, and Thomas Huxley established himself as "Darwin's bulldog" the fiercest defender of evolutionary theory on the Victorian stage.
On being asked by Wilberforce, whether he was descended from monkeys on his grandfather's side or his grandmother's side, Huxley, recognizing his opportunity, apparently muttered to himself: "The Lord has delivered him into my hands", and then replied that
"he would rather be descended from an ape than from a cultivated man who used his gifts of culture and eloquence in the service of prejudice and falsehood"
(Several alternative versions of this supposed quote exist, see Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter).
The story spread around the country: Huxley had said he would rather be an ape than a Bishop.
Retrieved from Wikipedia = Evolutionism
Not surprisingly, when Huxley tried to explain Darwin's working hypothesis to creationists, he encountered interesting resistance to examining reality. One observer noted the following event where Huxley in 1860 attempted to get the audience to deal with the empirical data on The Origin of Species.
I was happy enough to be present on the memorable occasion at Oxford when Mr Huxley bearded Bishop Wilberforce. There were so many of us that were eager to hear that we had to adjourn to the great library of the Museum. I can still hear the American accents of Dr Draper's opening address, when he asked 'Air we a fortuitous concourse of atoms?' and his discourse I seem to remember somewhat dry.
There are also other versions of this same event from other observers who claimed to have been there. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html.
Then the Bishop rose, and in a light scoffing tone, florid and he assured us there was nothing in the idea of evolution; rock-pigeons were what rock-pigeons had always been.
Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey?
On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was.
He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth.
No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous.
One lady fainted and had to carried out: I, for one, jumped out of my seat; and when in the evening we met at Dr Daubeney's, every one was eager to congratulate the hero of the day.
I remember that some naïve person wished it could come over again; and Mr Huxley, with the look on his face of the victor who feels the cost of victory, put us aside saying, 'Once in a life-time is enough, if not too much.'
Copyright Terms & Conditions | Home | Michaelinum.