Creation: An Educational Perspective By Dr. Norman Geisler

I. What the Courts Ruled II. Consequences of Rulings III. Alternatives to Rulings

I.What the Courts Ruled A. Epperson (1968) B. McClean (1982) C. Edwards (1997)

I.What the Courts Ruled A. Epperson (1968) 1. The law: Evolution cannot be taught in public schools

I.What the Courts Ruled A. Epperson (1968) 2. The Court: The state cannot forbid teaching evolution in public schools

A. Epperson (1968) 1. The law: “That statute makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university to teach or to use a textbook that teaches ‘that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.’”

A. Epperson (1968): 2. The Court: “The law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I.What the Courts Ruled A. Epperson (1968) B. McClean (1982) C. Edwards (1997)

I.What the Courts Ruled B. McClean (1982) 1. The Law: Both creation and evolution must be taught in a balanced way, if either is taught.

I.What the Courts Ruled B. McClean (1982) 2.The Court: The law is a violation of the First Amendment which forbids establishing a religion. 2.The Court: The law is a violation of the First Amendment which forbids establishing a religion.

B. McClean (1982): 1. The Law: a. School may choose not to teach either. b. If either is taught, then both must be taught. c. They must be taught in a balanced way. d. Only scientific evidence can be taught (not religious sources).

B. McClean (1982): 2. The Court: What It Said… a. State can’t mandate teaching creation, even if evolution is included. b. Creation is not science. c. Creation from nothing is inherently religious. d. Supernatural creation is religious.

B. McClean (1982): 2. The Court: What It Said in its Own Words “Indeed, creation of the world ‘out of nothing’ is the ultimate religious statement because God is the only actor” (III).

B. McClean (1982): 2. The Court: What It Said in its Own Words “Such a concept [as creation] is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law” (IV,C).

B. McClean (1982): 2. The Court: What It Did Not Say a. Evolution must be taught. b.Evolution can’t be critiqued. c.Creation cannot be taught at all (by individuals or by school board permission).

I.What the Courts Ruled A. Epperson (1968) B. McClean (1982) C. Edwards (1997)

I.What the Courts Ruled C. Edwards (1997) 1. The Law: If one is taught, then both but be taught. But neither need be taught.

I.What the Courts Ruled C. Edwards (1997) 2. The Court: Its a violation of the First Amendment to mandate teaching creation, even if evolution must be taught with it.

C. Edwards (1997) 1. The Law: What It Said… a. If one view is taught, then so must the other. b.It can only be taught from a scientific perspective, not a religious one. c. It must be taught in a balanced manner.

C. Edwards (1997) 1. The Law: What It Did Not Say a.Creation is not a science (vs. McClean). b.Creation is inherently religious (vs. McClean). c.Other views of origin cannot be taught.

I. What the Courts Ruled II. Consequences of Rulings III. Alternatives to Rulings

II.Consequences of Rulings A. It is bad scientifically B. It is bad educationally C. It is bad constitutionally D. It is bad politically E. It is bad logically

II. Consequences of Rulings II. Consequences of Rulings A. It is bad scientifically Darwin in Origin “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible” ( Intro, p. 6 ) Darwin in Origin “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible” ( Intro, p. 6 )

II. Consequences of Rulings II. Consequences of Rulings B. It is bad educationally John Scopes “If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will everything have only one thought, be one individually.”

II. Consequences of Rulings II. Consequences of Rulings C. It is bad constitutionally First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” There is no freedom of speech for creationists in the schools!

II. Consequences of Rulings D. It is bad politically: “ Taxation without representation is tyranny.” --Thomas Jefferson (View of 2/3 of Americans is not represented in Schools) D. It is bad politically: “ Taxation without representation is tyranny.” --Thomas Jefferson (View of 2/3 of Americans is not represented in Schools)

II. Consequences of Rulings II. Consequences of Rulings E. It is bad logically: It means: 1. Schools must teach only evolution, even if it is false; 2. And they cannot teach creation, even if it is true!

I. What the Courts Ruled II. Consequences of Rulings III. Alternatives to Rulings

III. Alternatives to Rulings III. Alternatives to Rulings. A. Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling B.Teach creation in Private and Home Schools C.Teach it in the Churches D.Teach it in the Public Schools (within the boundaries set by the Court rulings).

III. Alternatives to Rulings III. Alternatives to Rulings.. A. Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling (in Edwards, 1997) This is unlikely because: 1. It was a 7-2 decision. 2. High court decisions are not easy to overturn. 3. It fits the pattern of the Court on other decisions.

III. Alternatives to Rulings III. Alternatives to Rulings.. A. Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling B.Teach creation in Private and Home Schools 1.This can be done (The Courts permit it). 2.This should be done (God commands it).

III. Alternatives Available. A. Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling B. Teach creation in Private and Home Schools C. Teach it in the Churches. 1. Pastors need training in apologetics. 2. Church leaders need training in apologetics.

III. Alternatives to Rulings. A. Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling B. Teach creation in Private and Home Schools C. Teach it in the Churches D. Teach it in Public Schools

III. Alternatives to Rulings. D. Teach it in Public Schools Things to avoid: 1.All reference to God, Religion, and the Bible. 2. All mandating or requiring creation to be taught (by the state or by the schools). 3.All claims that creation is true, a fact, or should be believed.

III. Alternatives to Rulings. A. Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling B. Teach creation in Private and Home Schools C. Teach it in the Churches D. Teach it in Public Schools E. Change the scientific world

III. Alternatives to Rulings E. Change the Scientific World. a. Once science accepts it, the Courts will. b. Publish in scientific journals. c. Hold workshops for science teachers. d. Avoid unnecessary trappings (like the age of the earth and flood geology). f. Use credible texts that approach the topic scientifically. Use Of Pandas and People, by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olson.

III. Alternatives to Rulings. F. Use “Intelligent Design” Books Michael Behe. Darwin's Black Box. Neil Broom. How Blind is the Watchmaker. William Dembski. The Design Inference The Design Revolution. Michael Denton. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Norm Geisler & Kerby Anderson. Origin Science. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprints of God. Robert Jastrow [an agnostic]. God and the Astronomers. Fred Heeren. Show Me God. Philip Johnson. Darwin on Trial. John Barrow. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Charles Thaxton et. al. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Lane Lester et. al. The Natural Limits of Biological Change. Lubenow, Marvin. Bones of Contention. Duane Gish. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Jonathan Wells. Icons of Evolution.