Jeffrey Selman - Public Speaker
Visit my Seperation of Church and State Blog. Schedule a speaking engagement with Jeffrey Selman

Evolution now conflicted with theological beliefs.

Dear Editor: What started off as a simple question of whether evolution is a theory or a fact quickly escalated into the more complex issue of whether teaching evolution but mentioning that there might be alternatives to the evolution theory is in violation of the constitution.

There is no more evidence that evolution is realistic and factual than there is that the fairy tales, 'Jack and the Bean Stalk,' and 'Tales of Uncle Remus,' among others, are realistic. Albert Einstein called his Theory of Relativity a theory, and not a Fact of Relativity, for the simple reason that he realized it was a theory and not a proven fact. Einstein knew the difference, which puts him one up on the courts.

Even the scientists who have studied evolution cannot agree on whether it is fact or theory, but with most leaning toward theory, with a few calling it a scientific theory, which is supposedly a stronger theory than a plain theory.

Now, the courts want evolution, which has no more reason for it's existence or proof of it's existence than a fairy tale, to be taught in public schools. What is even worse, they want it taught as if evolution had been proven to be factual, instead of the myth it is.

The complaint I have with the current lawsuits is that the question of evolution has now became conflicted with theological beliefs. It shouldn't be this way. If someone wants to believe in evolution, my opinion is they are free to do so. Same for theological beliefs, but the courts should not choose one over the other. If they are going to teach evolution in public schools, then creativity should be taught as well. At least doing it this way would give everyone a choice.

This is another of many examples where an atheist group has gone to the ACLU with the imaginary complaint that a statement or symbol violates the first amendment. When this happens, it is not difficult to determine which side the ACLU, and most often, the courts, will take. The part that I least understand is why the ACLU is so quick to jump on anything that can even remotely be construed as having religious overtones.

The sticker in question does not in any way promote a religious belief, but a religious conflict has been invented to strengthen the ACLU's claim of a constitutional violation.

Robert P. Rogers, Jr.



Copyright © 2010, Jeffrey Selman
All Rights Reserved