No. 187

WRITING OFF CREATIONISM

by Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.*

The issue of separation of church and state has aroused the passions of

many, as our nation comes to grips vath the intent of the people and their

understanding of the Constitution. Swomley (1988) says:'

The urique American doctrine of separation of church and state is not

a by-product of the First Amendment's religious clauses. Those clauses

were intended to guarantee the religious liberty already implicit in the

Constitution's provision for a wholly secular government. The historian,

Charles A. Beard, wrote that the Constitution 'does not confer upon

the Federal Government any power whatever to deal vath religion in

any form or manner' (The Republic). James Madison called it 'a bill of

powers' which 'are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not

granted by the Constitution are retained' by the people (Annols of

Congress of the United States)."

Although the terminology of separation of church and state doesn't ap-

pear in the Constitution, many Americans think it does, and this has led

to great confusion. Peacocke (1988) states the situation:2

It was Thomas Jefferson who used this phrase in a letter written to a

group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. The purpose

of the letter was to assure those Baptist pastors that Jefferson's

somewhat unorthodox view of Christianity would not be pressed on

the church in the United States during his presidency.

President Jefferson assured them that there was a wall of separation

that supposedly protects the Church from any undue meddling by the

State. The irony is that the phrase never implied that the State needed

to be protected from the Church: Jefferson was guaranteeing the

church the benefit of the wall.

The contemporary anti-Christian religious establishment has turned

the issue completely on its head by redefining the phrase. This trick

is called 'historical revisionism.' Historical revisiorism twists history

and interprets it for one's own purposes."

Dr. Cummin is Dean of the ICR Graduate School.

Just such confusion was aptly illustrated in a recent regional competi-

tion for Southern California's high school journalists called a "Write-off'

which was held at Wilson High School in Hacienda Heights on March 12,

1988. Over 300 students participated in the event, making contributions

to news, features, editorials, sports, and graphics. Winners from the ac-

tivity advanced to Redondo Beach for state-wide competition on April 23.

This year's theme for writers was a pseudo press release conference

called by the Concerned Women for America to announce a mock suit

against California's Superintendent Honig for violating the rights of Chris-

tian students to hear creationism arguments in science classrooms of

public schools. Mrs. Dawn Wipperman served as the spokesperson for

CWA and led the news conference with a prepared statement of issues.

Miss Margaret Hawley acted as the expert testifying for the teacher's

p(?sition in the suit. She is a science teacher at Sunnyvale Junior High

School. The writer represented the creationist position, and, after an

introduction to just what Darwin's theory meant, he emphasized that

there were scientific and philosophical components to both theories.

Many of these students were not aware that there is any scientific evi-

dence for creation. (I wonder why?) Further, because creationism is dis-

allowed from the textbooks, they didn't realize that creationism can be

as scientific as evolution, and that both are equally religious (belief

systems) when addressing the ultimate questions of origins. Once these

writers caught on to the underlying issues, many for the first time, their

questions were many and penetrating.

After preliminary instructions by Mrs. Georgia Moore, coordinator for

the event, the students applied their skills to meet a short deadline.

Following are two first-place winners, one in news and the other in edi-

torial categories of journalism. The texts are presented as originally

written.

First Place News' by Jennifer Cheng of Alhambra

The Concerned Women of America announced at a press conference

Saturday their launching of a campaign for the equal representation of

evolutionism and creationism in the classroom.

"Both creationism and evolutionism are assumptions. Both require a

certain amount of faith. Both should be represented" said Dawn Wip-

perman, Communications Coordinator of the CWA for the Greater Los

Angeles area. Wipperman then referred to a 1981 court ruling to justify

the campaign. The court ruled that the schools may not teach evolu-

tionism dogmatically. However, the California Science framework,

which determines the information to be put in textbooks, has yet to allow

for the teaching of theories other than evolutionism.

Kenneth Cumming, Ph.D., who is the Dean of the Graduate School at

the Institute for Creation Research, supported the CWA. He believes

it was an issue of fairness.

Both Cumming and Wipperman agreed that in the teaching of

"good science," all points of view must be presented.

Margaret Hawley disagreed with the CWA's view. Federal law

requires the separation of Church and State, said Hawley. The teaching

of creationism would necessarily involve the use of the Bible as a text-

book. Hawley then asked, "Would that not be a merger of Church and

State?"

In response, Cumming said, "No. Creationism can be taught without

involving religion." He believes that when the truth is known, religion

and science will come together.

First Place Editorial' by Laura Daroca of Diamond Bar

Where can one draw a borderline between science and religion?

Scientific experiments and faith? When the teaching of evolution and

creationism in school is the subject, a border must be erected.

Since the beginning of America's freedom from Great Britain, there

has been a direct division between Church and State.

The above questions can be answered by the Founding Fathers

themselves. Science is a matter of hypothesis, scientific methods, and

theories. Creationism is about Adam and Eve, God creating the earth in

seven days, and faith. Evolution is facts, not faith.

Since faith and God is the controversial point, creationism must not

be taught in school because of the separation between Church and

State.

What if students could be allowed to pray in school? There would be

anarchy. One can imagine the teacher in the front of the class splitting

students up into groups. "All right! Hinduism in the right corner, Prot-

estantism in the back, Jewish in the middle. Atheists-you go outside."

The same would happen if there were evolution and creationism

taught in school. Each religion has its own "creator" and belief in how

that "creator" carried out the formation of man. Hindus, Jews, Catho-

lics, Protestants, and atheists each have a different view.

When this same issue came up in the schools of California, conflict

arose.

Dawn Wipperman said that all theories should be allowed in school.

Dr. Kenneth Cumming agreed with Wipperman by saying that both

have to do with faith and that creationists and evolutionists agree on

some points of Darwin's theory.

But the issue is not whether creationists and evolutionists can sit

around a table and agree on four out of the five hypotheses of Darwin's

theory. The issue is creationism taught in school has to do with the

separation of Church and State, and our whole governmental system.

Margaret Hawley, who was directly trapped in this situation, called

it a "Catch 22." If she teaches both to please the few who believe crea-

tionism should be given a chance, then those who believe religion and

school should be separate will step in.

It is a Catch-22, but the decision has already been made once too

often, beginning with the Founding Fathers. Church and State must

remain separate in order to keep up the faith in freedom of religion and

separation of Church and State so hallowedly inscribed in the document

called the Constitution.

Notice that in the news article there was an excellent agreement be-

tween what was said and what was reported. In concise terms, Jennifer

stated the reason for the occasion, quoted highlights from the speakers,

and made no commentary on the interpretation. When it came to the

editorial where interpretation is expected, there was not time or oppor-

tunity for the writer to check out the validity of the concepts introduced

at the conference. Therefore, Laura went with her previous understanding

of the issue to polarize the conclusions. She assumed that there was a

division between Church and State that was written in the Constitution

as such. Further, she stresses that "Evolution is facts" and "Creationism

is about Adam and Eve, God creating the earth in seven days, and faith."

In spite of being told in the information session that both are equally

scientific and/or religious, she went math her preconceived training that

creation is religion and evolution is science.

Here we have the grass roots of the matter. Our public school students are

being taught only one perspective of origins. It results in implanting funda-

mental knowledge that is incomplete.

This limited knowledge, when called

upon to make decisions, is then the

resource for critical judgments. In

this case, we have influential

writers in school newspapers, who

will, in some cases, become writers

later for national media, that

reinforce partial knowledge to their

peers. They are the shapers of

opinion and belief that excludes

religious and alternate science

concepts from their knowledge.

One might say that the reader

should "beware." But, one might

also say that public education

should "take care." For public

schools to sponsor one religious

position, humanistic evolution,

could be unconstitutional.

REFERENCES

1. Swomley, John M., "Education in Religious Schools, The Conflict

over Funding," Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Winter 1988, p. 12.

2. Peacocke, Dennis, "Separation of Church and State, Clearing Up

the Misconceptions." The Forerunner, April 1988, p. 13.

3. Moore, Georgia, Permission was granted to ICR to use complete copies

of the first-place winners and the graphic art in this article.