https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153675912001634&set=pcb.10153675913256634&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153675912036634&set=pb.558286633.-2207520000.1469130890.&type=3&theater
"Dear Mr. Singleton,
At the request of the Education Cabinet, I am responding to your message concerning the Next Generation Science Standards.
First it is important to note that the Next Generation Science Standards and Kentucky Academic Standards for science are not Common Core State Standards. All these standards are now Kentucky Academic Standards.
Prior to adopting the Kentucky Academic Standards for Science, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) sought public comment on the proposed standards. KDE received one comment similar to your recent concern involving secular humanism. The commentator stated that the standards were not religiously neutral, but that they promoted the religious viewpoint of human secularism.
Evolution has long been established as a scientific theory and not a religious doctrine. The wide acceptance of the idea of evolution is the result of consideration of physical and observational evidence. The acceptance of a set of religious beliefs is largely on faith. There is no conflict between holding faith based religious beliefs and also accepting the evidence supporting biological evolution. This is evidenced by the fact that practitioners of many different religious faiths also are biologists who study and apply the ideas of evolution in their everyday professional practice. Furthermore, Kentucky seeks to prepare all students for post secondary education. Post secondary institutions widely accept evolution and base instruction on this scientific theory. Because of this no changes were made regarding religious neutrality of the standards.
Case Law establishes that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States upheld that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose. Subsequent United States Supreme court jurisprudence (Epperson, supra, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) invalidated laws that, respectively, prohibited the teaching of evolution and required that creation science be taught in public schools. As noted in Edwards, the Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law respecting an establishment of religion."Id. at 582.
Finally school curricula (i.e. textbooks and instructional resources) are selected at the local level by school councils pursuant to KRS 160.345, not the KDE.
I hope this information helps to better explain Kentucky's Academic Standard's for Science.
Sincerely Stephen L. Pruitt, PH.D.
Commissioner of Education"
Dear Education Cabinet,
I appreciate receiving the letter from Dr. Pruitt regarding my concerns over the constitutionality of the next generation science standards. While the commissioner demonstrates a high level of sophistication in defending the nature of these standards, my fears were justified and not relieved. A thorough exposition of this text will reveal the troublesome material.
"First it is important to note that the Next Generation Science Standards and Kentucky Academic Standards for science are not Common Core State Standards. All these standards are now Kentucky Academic Standards."
Now the ownership of the Academic Standards is tentative at best. These standards were not voted on by the public. More relevantly, they were voted down by the KY Senate. The standards were place into activity by the sole authority by Governor Steve Beshear. Governor Beshear has stepped down from Office. Not only is there a new Governor in office, but a governor who from the opposite party who campaigned against the common core system (presumably including the science standards) and a secretary of education who likewise campaigned against this system.
"Evolution"
- 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
- 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
- 3 : the process of working out or developing
- 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
- 5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
- 6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
Dr. Pruitt is responding to my letter and one of the key concerns in my letter is the big bang cosmology theory. This is further evidenced by the fact that he uses the term "biological evolution" indicating a change of topic. Therefore evolution must be understood in definition 6 referring to the whole universe.
"Evolution has long been established as a scientific theory and not a religious doctrine."
Now this implies a misunderstanding. Following the separation of church and state there is the assumption of a separation of science and religion. This is an utterly false assumption.
Charles Darwin never had a biology degree but instead was trained and paid as a minister of the Anglican church.
Yet all of the Sciences in fact were founded by creationists of sorts, here are a few...
| Antiseptic Surgery | Joseph Lister |
| Bacteriology | Louis Pasteur |
| Calculus | Isaac Newton |
| Celestial Mechanics | Johannes Kepler |
| Chemistry | Robert Boyle |
| Comparative Anatomy | Georges Cuvier |
| Dimensional Analysis | Lord Rayleigh |
| Dynamics | Isaac Newton |
| Electronics | John Ambrose Fleming |
| Electrodynamics | James Clerk Maxwell |
| Electromagnetics | Michael Faraday |
| Energetics | Lord Kelvin |
| Entomology of Living Insects | Henri Fabre |
| Field Theory | James Clerk Maxwell |
| Fluid Mechanics | George Stokes |
| Galactic Astronomy | Sir William Hershel |
| Gas Dynamics | Robert Boyle |
| Genetics | Gregor Mendel |
| Glacial Geology | Louis Agassiz |
| Gynaecology | James Simpson |
| Hydrography | Matthew Maury |
| Hydrostatics | Blaise Pascal |
| Ichthyology | Louis Agassiz |
| Isotopic Chemistry | William Ramsey |
| Model Analysis | Lord Rayleigh |
| Natural History | John Ray |
| Non-Euclidean Geometry | Bernard Riemann |
| Oceanography | Matthew Maury |
| Optical Mineralogy | David Brewster |
Science is inherently connected to religious assumptions; the key is not to provide a bias case for one religion against another in public school education. Essentially, to teach physics without teaching metaphysics.
Humanism is a religious worldview that assumes that there are no metaphysics which exist. Which makes itself quite comfortable within the secular realm. However the lack of metaphysics can allow it to assert itself as superior to the other religions within a secular format.
"The wide acceptance of the idea of evolution is the result of consideration of physical and observational evidence. "
The wide acceptance of evolution is based upon it being taught as mandatory education in western schools and communist schools and catholic schools all over the world for over 150 years. Allow me to teach my views to billions of people and I am sure I will have more than a few million followers in less than a few years.
As far as observational evidence, the theory of evolution rest upon an unobserved principle of deep time. Observation of the past is limited.
Human history can not observe the 3,100,000,000 years of life 4,600,000,000 years of earth or the 13,800,000,000 years of the big bang theory.
"Civilization, as historians identify it, first emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures. Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies."
"Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records do not exist for the prehistory of humankind. Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."
Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel
Trying to construct these histories is not factual but theoretical.
The geologic column does not provide the facts.
"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present.... To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. If the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters." Brown Monnet and Stovel Introduction to Geology
The fossil record has become a disappointment
"The fossil record was no friend of Charles Darwin in 1859. Now, more than 150 years later, the fossil record is no longer a friend of Richard Dawkins, either. “Why does not,” Darwin pointed out, “every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?”
The question was unavoidable, the elephant in the
room, yet troubling since Darwin recognized that the fossil record could
eventually either make or break his theory:
“If it could be
demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have
been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down.”
“The distinctiveness of specific forms [fossil
record],” Darwin acknowledged, “and their not being blended together in
innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”
Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Gould in the book entitled The Panda’s Thumb reflecting on Darwin’s angst notes: “fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.”
In the face poor evidence, even contradictory
evidence, Darwin excused the problem reasoning that “only a small
portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored.” His
reasoning kept hopes alive that further explorations would uncover the
ever elusive “in innumerable transitional links.”
Things have not changed much in 150 years. “We need more fossils” Dawkins pleaded in his 2009 book entitled The Greatest Show on Earth. In turning from the fossil record Dawkins advances the concept of “comparative evidence”
“Comparative evidence
has always, as I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, told even
more compelling than fossil evidence”
Regardless of what the “comparative evidence”
actually is, Dawkins did not say what it is−dumping the fossil record as
essential evidence for Darwin’s theory –" http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/05/richard-dawkins-dumps-the-fossil-record/
The laws of logic dictate that we are not capable of certainty in a past we have not observed.
"Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.
For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta) www.onegoodmove.org
Many in the field of science consider math to be an important factor, but evolution (esp. abiogenesis) is not mathematically possible.For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta) www.onegoodmove.org
"The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 1050 is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 102,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 1030 picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory." http://chiefcornerstone.info/2011/11/evolution-chances/
Author: disciple November 5, 2011
Chemistry has long been a foe of Darwinism
"Pasteur was responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganisms could grow. This experiment won him the Alhumbert Prize of the academy.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
Taxonomy has been destroyed by evolution and can not give us a factual history.
A New Scientist article cautioned its readers: “If you want to know how all living things are related, don’t bother looking in any textbook that’s more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong”. Spinney, L., Back to their roots, New Scientist 194(2608):48–51, 2007.
It is important to note that theories like intelligent design "is the result of consideration of physical and observational evidence. " In popular debates, considerable weight is placed upon acquiring articles in evolution supporting peer reviewed journals.
Here is a link to a series of peers reviewed articles in support of intelligent design.
http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
Creation scientists have often had complaints dealing with bias from secular journals on the subject of creationism. Typically, they will publish their non evolution related work in the journals but focus their work on the topic in their own research journals. Though some creation articles have passed certain secular journals.http://creation.com/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals
For those interested in the topic of creation science articles and journalsCreation Research Society Quarterly
Creation
journal of creation
Acts and Facts
All of which are active publications.
" The acceptance of a set of religious beliefs is largely on faith."
Given the way the secular world treats religion, it is safe to assume that the definition implied here is the one defined by Soren Kierkegaard as the "leap of faith" or "blind faith". This existentialist philosopher accepted the materialist presuppositions, which we find in evolution and relegated all spirituality to a subjective world of "faith". Faith becomes a forced imagination or esoteric fantasy as opposed to a belief in truth. I defined faith as William Tyndale translated Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is a sure confidence of things which are hoped for, and a certainty of things which are not seen." These are rational ideas, even though they are not first acquired by the logic or evidence of man.
There are a series of steps of faith, by which Universal evolution takes, in which it becomes a religious worldview.
1. That time came into existence.
2. That the laws of science came from nothing and that there is a limited number of them.
3. That the universe came from nothing.
4. That cosmic inflation happened (matter moving faster than the speed of light)
5. That stars formed.
6.That galaxies formed.
7. That the sun is a star that formed, and formed the planets.
8. That the planets formed from asteroids.
9. That there is an Oort cloud of comets.
10. That the moon was a product of an asteroid hitting the earth.
11. That deep time exist.
12. That deep space exist.
13. That black holes exist.
14. That a cell can be formed by nature.
15. That the first life formed without an Eco-system.
16. That all life is descended from one cell.
17. That man is not unique to other animals.
18. That the mind is a creation of the brain.
All of these are assumptions that we make by faith in the field of cosmology and biology. Religion has been called on throughout the centuries to answer these questions, and now modern science has stepped into our pulpit.
"There is no conflict between holding faith based religious beliefs and also accepting the evidence supporting biological evolution."
There certainly is no conflict in humanist faith accepting "biological evolution". But even here, there is a lot conjecture over the definition of evolution. The only evolution which we have observed is called micro-evolution in which changes occur among breeds within the same basic kind of animal.
This subset of evolution has been agreed to by not only christian evolutionists, but also scientific "young earth" creationists as well. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Henry Morris are some of the most famous fundamentalist anti-evolutionists out there, and yet they all teach this doctrine to their churches.
The point of contention is whether or not one kind, like a dog, could change to another kind, like a cat. This has never been observed. But this is called macro-evolution and it depends on the enhanced time scale.
They based these upon the facts of the dating methods.
"Most ASA members accept the consensus scientific view on the age of the earth. Already in 1949 based on radiometric dating techniques, ASA member Laurence Kulp said, "One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old..." Kulp's early paper supporting the old earth position and criticizing YEC is featured in the collection below. A paper written for the ASA web site, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by physicist Roger Wiens has proved to be one of the most popular in terms of electronic downloads. Many of the resources here simply review the scientific claims for an old earth and then seek to understand that great age in light of what the Bible says."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Sounds fair enough. But something odd is sticking out. You may notice it if we give an earlier quote of theirs...
"Using radiometric dating modern science has concluded that the earth is 4.54 billion years old."
The age of the earth proposed has grown by two and a half billion years!. The subjectivity of the dating methods gets more obvious the more they are scrutinized. Speculations are not facts because facts do not change.
I don't think real evidence used to support evolution is the problem.
Of course I have to emphasize the term "real" because our tax dollars have been used in the past to use fraudulent "evidence" to support Darwinian evolution to indoctrinate the evolutionary theory. Whether it be the faked Haekyl's drawings, the horses with various hooves arranged to look like an evolutionary progress in Darwin's home town, the pig's tooth Nebraska man, or the orangutan jaw wired to a human skull cap "Piltdown man". The public school, Stuart, deceived me about Piltdown man at the age of 12, till I found out outside of school at 18. These tactics deceived millions and leaves doubt as to the baseless statements about evolution claimed to be fact.
But what about real scientific evidence which contradicts evolution and supports creation?? Do you think we are going to see that published in the young peoples' text books?
It has been over 30 years since Dr. Robert Gentry discovered polonium halos found in granite and published it in a dozen of peer reviewed journals. But do we find this in our science textbooks? No.
Agnostic chemist Dr. W. Scot Morrow admitted "Environmental Scientist will find Gentry's "young earth model" especially interesting in regard to the problem of nuclear waste confinement." forward: Creation's tiny mystery.
Do you think that the text books are ever going to mention the soft tissue which Mark Armitage found in a triceratops horn? Who cares if the genetic material found could be used for scientific research right?
When the world has to admit that creationists predicted things in line with their creationism and against evolution, the world plays a game of stealing credit. Whether it be geology having to make their model adapt to the Catastrophism from which they had ridiculed Dr. Henry Morris for telling them 50 years ago, or admitting that Neanderthals were completely human as Jack Cuozzo discovered when being allow to research their skulls.
Science is forced out of progress often for this tyrannical approach. For instance, how many years more advanced would we be in genetics if we had not assumed the Darwinian doctrine of junk DNA? How many diseases would have been cured?
http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Junk-DNA.aspx
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/
"This is evidenced by the fact that practitioners of many different religious faiths also are biologists who study and apply the ideas of evolution in their everyday professional practice."
Now here we are delving into the constitutional difference between our religious liberty and religious toleration.
It does not matter if this be the a minority or majority issue. Consider Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptist association. The wall of separation was a wall to stop the government and not the baptists. Certainly religions can hold to evolution. But that does not give the government the right to tread upon the rights of religious citizens, which are creationists. Let's look at Jefferson's letter..
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." and lets not forget the ending of the letter..
"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem."
This letter has been perverted by groups like the "Freedom From Religion" foundation to enforce the eradication of religion by putting government in every aspect of American life and then taking the rights of the citizens as if they were the government.
Yet Jefferson assumes the existence of God in this very conversation, in fact he assumes that God is indeed the creator of all. He understood that this was an individual right. So if the catholic church wants me to believe in evolution because Pope Francis does, my Government can stand at my side and tell them "He is a fundamental New Testament Christian who believes in Creation and as long as this government stands; we will protect his freedom." That is religious liberty.
When free people have children, they belong to their parents and God. The government does not own them for they are free. The government does not naturally have custody over them, their parents do. The government has no right to impose any metaphysical religious doctrine upon them, even evolution.
"Furthermore, Kentucky seeks to prepare all students for post secondary education. Post secondary institutions widely accept evolution and base instruction on this scientific theory. Because of this no changes were made regarding religious neutrality of the standards."
Actually the Kentucky Standards has had several complaints in terms of science when it comes to post-secondary education.
"Examination of mathematics in the NGSS was a key element of our reviews. Unfortunately, we found inconsistency between the strong NGSS (and Appendix C) assertions and what was actually found by the mathematicians, among others, of our reviewing group. Moreover, the NGSS producers, perhaps sensing disquiet or inadequacy, issued an Appendix L that is meant to demonstrate the adequacy of NGSS math and of its alignment with CC-Math. "http://edexcellence.net/next-generation-science-and-college-readiness.
So the distinction between next generation science standards and common core is a facade. Because modern science depends quite heavily upon mathematics. The Common core math is devastated because of the bizarre post modern concept of "fuzzy math". These new processes make simple problems with simple solutions become complex and deter students from a mastery of mathematics and therefore the science suffers as well.
The other elephant in the room is the lack of education in NGSS regarding physics, electronics and the lack of good chemistry.
The electronics education is at a minimum and offers nothing to a 1960's KY teen on technology, much less a 2015 smart phone addict. It is such a slam on this state, one could claim that our government is racist against Kentuckians!
How can our schools encourage children to get on computers and the internet when they have no ability to even start to fix them? This leaves them slaves to the communication monopoly.
Yes, if you take out the time teaching the youth about non-factual theories you might have time to give them skills that are universally accepted and needed, making yourselves look like heroes!
So to reiterate, there are plenty of areas that time could be better spent if we cut out the pre-history segments of science education. The drastic need of post-secondary education could be better spent in real categories that people can become financially successful in. The post secondary schools can offer them evolution and religion and dozens of non-essential topics.
The fact that a child and parents constitutional rights could be dashed away over money speaks volumes.
Case Law establishes that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
Now this is bizarre in it's wording. first of all I have argued that secular humanism is a religion. I believe evolution is an essential component of that religion, but his point is in fact pointless because he tried a bait-n-switch fallacy.
Think about it like this. Creationism is not a religion. It is an aspect of religion. If you were to come up to a muslim, catholic, evangelical or jew and said you were a creationist they may or may not agree with you. But if you told them that the only thing which you believe in, is the doctrine of creation, they would each individually rule you out as a heretic. Because creationism does not make you a Christian or Muslim or Jew.
Now let's look at this case.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/97/
"Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. 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." The State Chancery Court held the statute an abridgment of free speech violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The State Supreme Court, expressing no opinion as to whether the statute prohibits "explanation" of the theory or only teaching that the theory is true, reversed the Chancery Court. In a two-sentence opinion, it sustained the statute as within the State's power to specify the public school curriculum."
The case made here is that evolution is allowable due to free speech. Not whether it is true or indoctrinated as true. One major point to be understood here is that science is continuing. It is not the same which is the justification for the constant flow of new textbooks. So if it is changing it should be scrutinized regularly. Don't show me the movie "inherit the wind" and claimed that evolution is a fact because a 1930's Tennessee jury was intimidated by the Piltdown man hoax! Look at the current facts and hold the theory to some accountability. More importantly the public schools taught evolution as hypothesis, not as a certain fact, which is now the claims in the new KY Standards.
In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States upheld that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose.
McGowan v. Maryland
McGowan
v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, was a United States Supreme Court case in
which the court held that laws with religious origins are not
unconstitutional if they have secular purpose. A large discount store in
Anne Arundel County, Maryland was fined for selling goods on a Sunday,
in violation of a local blue law. The Court rejected an establishment
clause challenge to laws saying that most large-scale commercial
enterprises remain closed on Sundays. The Court's review of the history
demonstrated that Sunday closing laws were originally efforts to promote
church attendance. "But, despite the strongly religious origin of these
laws, non religious arguments for Sunday closing began to be heard more
distinctly."https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/420/case.html Now this argument is bizarre and only makes a point if it is admitted that secular humanism is a religion. The point of the case was protecting religious blue laws.
Now Secular humanism has to be a religion because otherwise secular humanists would not have religious liberty. Thus Prayer would be welcomed back into school since there was no religion opposed to prayer.
Case Law establishes that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) In McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), the United States upheld that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose.
I can not read this statement in context and not assume that evolution is supposed to be protected due to this ruling. Therefore evolution must be seen as a religious doctrine.
Edwards v. Aguillard
Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the
teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary
schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation
science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless
the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific
evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those
scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents,
teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality
in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief.
The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that
the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.""
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 482 U. S. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose, and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services supplied for teaching creationism, but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 482 U. S. 586-589.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html
Now this is supposedly the proof that evolution is not religious?? This is the usual attack on creationism, only with the added perversion of being wrong for challenging evolution. This is just blaming creationism for having a creator and then turning a blind eye to the religious assumptions of the humanist evolution. This case was defensive of Evolution and has not put it up to scrutiny. Evolution is not strictly science and the reason the courts are being brought up is because they are incapable of weighing in on this decision.
Look how the court admits this during the intelligent design trial..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
" After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]"
The court admits that intelligent design may be true. That means that Darwinian evolution may be false. But the court here admits that it has no ability to Judge that issue. So they are simply pushing decisions.
The problem is that evolution has not been tested as claimed to be scientific. Especially not at the level of scrutiny given to creationism.
Creationism has been judged as unscientific, because it explains the establishment of the scientific laws which implies a time where science did not exist. Let's look at this condemnation in the words of Judge Overton in his memorandum
"Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God."http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
But this is what we find in the big bang theory!!
"If we live in a universe full of stuff, how did it get here? And many people think that very question implies the need for a creator. But what's truly been amazing, and what the book's about is the revolutionary developments in both cosmology and particle physics over the past 30 or 40 years that have not only changed completely the way we think about the universe but made it clear that there's a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes." http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing Lawrence Krauss
The popular Atheist and Physicist Lawrence Krause is admitting that the big bang does what Judge Overton claimed to be religious!
Let's not forget to mention that Krauss admit's that the big bang implies a creator and that it's innovator jesuit priest George Le'maitre agreed with this implication. And the "cosmic egg" idea was borrowed from Hindu mythology. Truly, big bang is a religious doctrine pitted against others.
Finally school curricula (i.e. textbooks and instructional resources) are selected at the local level by school councils pursuant to KRS 160.345, not the KDE.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140827111456/http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/25/Common-Core-PARCC-CEO-Acknowledges-Goal-of-Assessments-To-Drive-Curriculum
"The federally funded Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a Common Core assessment consortium, issued a press release Friday that confirmed the Common Core standards and their associated tests are intended to drive curriculum.
Though developers and proponents of the Common Core initiative have argued that Common Core is merely “standards” and not “curriculum,” the latter of which local school districts can decide themselves, chief executive officer of PARCC Laura Slover said in the release, “High quality assessments go hand-in-hand with high quality instruction based on high quality standards. You cannot have one without the other. The PARCC states see quality assessments as a part of instruction, not a break from instruction.”
“The PARCC assessment system is a new way of testing that reduces time spent on ‘test prep,’ because the only way to prepare for these more sophisticated assessments is through good teaching and learning all year long," Slover added. "The PARCC states are making decisions about test design, including length and testing time, based on thorough review and on the data from the field tests.”
Slover’s statement was part of an announcement indicating that the states belonging to the PARCC consortium will reduce the number of passages and items in the English Language Arts/Literary End-of-Year test. PARCC said reducing the number of items included to measure some standards “reduces the amount of time spent on testing and lowers testing costs, while maintaining the quality of the assessments and their ability to inform instruction and to provide reliable information on the performance of all students.”
In response to PARCC’s press release, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) website published the following statement:
The proponents of Common Core and PARCC continue to insist that tests and standards are not about curriculum, but that’s a ruse. Teachers already know that what is tested at the end of the year is what is taught in classrooms throughout the year. PARCC may not mandate one textbook or one pacing guide, but the CEO of the federally funded PARCC has admitted one thing: PARCC controls instruction and instruction is curriculum.'"
Now secular humanism is a religion.
"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books
Darwin discussed Evolution with a religious note
"These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." Intro. pg1
When we here of mystery we are to look into the realm of religion.
"This is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegatable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected." pg.6 Origin of species
Humanists have been quite open about their agenda to use the public school system to proselytize their faith, which breaks the establishment clause.
"I am convince that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call the divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the education level- preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all it's adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism...
"It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive."Dunphy, John J., The Humanist, Jan. 1983, p. 26
It is at this point extremely obvious that the humanist religion has zealots who have been plotting for a minimum of 30years to use the public school system to proselytize.
It is very self evident that this has been working and our society has become more and more godless. I can tell you of several years where I was a victim of public school bullying and that the evolutionary world view made me struggle with suicidal thoughts and later violent attitudes.
http://www.biblesmack.net/2012/12/19/why-i-love-jesus/
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/06/my-deconversion-from-evolution.html
I could tell you about how many youth around me concluded that they were only physical beings and that all their problems they thought could be solved by "experimenting" with drugs.
Here is a link to one of my favorite bands of that age giving their view of evolution.
https://youtu.be/aDaOgu2CQtI "Pearl Jam: do the evolution"
The more secular and atheistic a culture gets the more likely that a culture of death transpires. Not only with Abortion but physician assisted suicide. A simple example would be to look at the rates of suicide in Oregon and Washington, the most secular states in the union.
But as a minister it has been a struggle dealing with the failures of the public school system. Listening to minors with terrible behavior problems proclaim that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
In recent years, a boy stood up in Sunday school and proclaimed that there was no God, because of the big bang theory taught to him as fact in public school. Yes I showed him the fallacy of his argument. I am glad I did, because prayer helped him later that year dealing with the death of his relative when her organ transplant failed.
Recently I was ministering to a girl. We talked about evolution. She said she did not believe it. I told her I had evidence that support her belief. But she declined to hear it because she did not want to be confused when it came time for testing and get poor grades. In other words, she was threatened by the grading system not to listen to what she was convicted as the truth. This is not free thinking.
This is sectarianism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sectarian
Simple Definition of sectarian
-
: relating to religious or political sects and the differences between them
Full Definition of sectarian
- 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian
- 2 : limited in character or scope : parochial
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KY EDUCATION Section 189
School money not to be used for church, sectarian, or denominational school
No portion of any fund or tax now existing or that may hereafter be raised or levied, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aide of, any church, sectarian, or denominational school
Though this letter is addressed to the issue of next generation science standards. It is obvious from your letter.
"First it is important to note that the Next Generation Science Standards and Kentucky Academic Standards for science are not Common Core State Standards. All these standards are now Kentucky Academic Standards." Which means that when we see the eradication of national history, the presentation of the controversial global warming paradigm, the exaltation of the evolutionary secular humanistic worldview along side the exaltation of sexual immorality/liberation alongside examples of hyper psychology and socialism and it is obvious that our public schools are no longer secular public schools, they are sectarian. And so it will inevitably be revealed that CC/NGSS or Kentucky Academic Standards is indeed illegally acquiring funds.
What secular purpose do I have in insisting upon this amendment?
THE PRESERVATION OF SECULAR AMERICA!
Secular America is not the place of attacking religion of any kind, it is the place freeing religions of all kinds. That is why Thomas Jefferson encouraged my baptist brethren that the government would not make any law respecting an establishment of religion. nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When children are threatened with bad grades unless they lie against their conscience as to the truth they are not freely excising religious liberty. As the KY Constitution grants.
KY Bill of Rights section 1 second:"The right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience."
The reason that we have liberty was clearly proposed by Thomas Jefferson in the 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"
It is God who defends our liberties, not biology, not government.
Former award winning evolutionary biology professor Gary Parker said this after his conversion.
"What a difference! In evolutionary thinking. time, chance struggle and death produce "new and improved" forms of life. In biblical thinking, chance and struggle produce disease, decline and death. Evolution begins with dead things; living things living things -including us- are temporary intruders in the universe, and when the sun burns out, death wins at last. The bible begins with the life of God; death is a temporary intruder and eternal life wins at christ return." pg14 Gary Parker Creation Facts of Life
Death does not provide freedom, but God does. Under God a KY school body can have 100% rejection of the existence of God and still have dignity and rights. but humanity and life have different meanings and no guaranteed dignity without God.
In this debate I had with Geoff Young a retired KY government employee and democratic gubernatorial primary candidate. When pressed Geoff admits the worldview difference between creation and evolution, with him being an evolutionist effects his views towards the abortion debate.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ky-grassroots-radio/2013/02/25/the-greatest-and-most-challenging-debate
Obviously, more testimony as to the sectarian nature of evolution/humanism. But also hampering the safety of traditional American secularism and human rights.
I leave you with these scriptures to meditate upon.
James 3:3 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
Matthew 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
I thank you for your time in this reading and pray that the Lord blesses you in laboring a sacred duty.
In Christ,
Matt Singleton
P.S. If anyone is interested in learning more of my research on the creation/evolution issue or related issues. Here is a link to more material.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/11/bhs-biblical-historical-science-links.html
