The American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry

Flies on the Courtroom Walls (Part 2)

Become an insider.
Sign up for our emails.

We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.

This state legislation was declared “unconstitutional” by an unelected SCOTUS[1] in a 1980 per curium (unsigned) opinion, containing this lamentable declaration:  "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments.  However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the establishment clause."[2] Interestingly, an inscription the Kentucky Legislature ordered placed beneath the posters announced their educational purpose:   "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."  That this is an historically accurate statement is borne out by constitutional expert Justice Joseph Story’s observation, "There has never been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as laying at its foundation."[3]  Public outrage – but no impeachments – followed the decision.

Then in 1996, only a year before that infamous Kentucky murder rampage that targeted students at a school prayer gathering, Princeton professor John DiIulio, along with former anti-drug officials Bill Bennett and John P. Walters, published a sobering book entitled Body Count. The book described "the coming superpredators," juvenile offenders who could become the most conscienceless, brutal criminals in recent history, because they have grown up "fearing neither the stigma of arrest, pains of imprisonment, nor the pangs of conscience."   What a crop!

How long will we continue in this downward spiral?  Until men of courage begin to connect the dots and act  ….  Ideas have consequences, and some bad ideas produce really bad consequences.  Darrell Scott, father of Columbine murder victim Rachel Scott, has produced solid evidence showing how the uncritical teaching of Darwinian evolutionism is one such bad idea.  Anyone wondering why Eric Harris chose to wear a “NATURAL SELECTION” t-shirt on his day of infamy should find Scott’s Open Letter to Educators to be a real eye-opener.[4]

In another touch of irony, it will likely be America’s judicial system that must sort through the aftermath that we can expect such future waves of senseless violence to produce.  Victimized parents will, of course, seek to hold accountable the purveyors of the poisonous information that fuels such rampages.  Known as “infotorts,” these new causes of action are based on the finding that information can harm people and that under some conditions the source of the information should be liable for that harm[5].

More than 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who carefully studied American culture, noted that "scarcely any political question arises . . . that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question."[6] The two cases discussed above reflect the growing public sentiment that it’s time to separate science data from science philosophy.[7]  Americans weary of amoral outcomes are coming to the same conclusion as one incisive writer that “Evolutionists have ‘Physics Envy.’  They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases.  It’s not.  The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic.  Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics.  …  I think this is what the public discerns—that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.”[8]

As Mark Twain observed, “A lie can go halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”  But, to quote Founder John Adams, “facts are stubborn things.”  The fact is that no court ruling can change the inexplicably complex digital code in our DNA about which students need to know.  Nor can a judicial opinion remove the breathtakingly intricate molecular machines from the cell.[9] The Lord of those flies and the Creator of the universe is still – as my children like to say – “large and in charge.”[10]

And even a fly can – bzzzzzzz – sense that intelligent change is in the air!

Endnotes:

[1] Supreme Court of the United States.
[2] Stone v. Graham, 1980449 U.S. 39, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed. 199 (1980).
[3] Extract from Joseph Story’s 1829 inaugural address as Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University.  Perry Miller, ed., The Legal Mind in America (New York: Doubleday, 1962), p. 178.
[4] http://www.judgewhite.com/docs/dscottletter.pdf
[5] See http://www.rbs2.com/infotort.htm for one analysis of this emerging area of the law.
[6] Alexis DeTocqueville, I Democracy in America 280 (Vintage Edition 1945, reprinted 1990).
[7] Since Congress’ 2001 pronouncement that a quality science education should teach students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious and philosophical claims made in the name of science, state boards of education in Ohio and Kansas have begun to require that students be taught the weaknesses of Darwinism.  And the Alabama State Board of Education continues (since 1995) to insist that an insert be placed in the front of that state’s biology textbooks warning students of the textbooks’ limitations.  See http://www.judgewhite.com/alabama.html.
[8] John Chaikowsky, “Geology vs. Physics,” Geotimes, 50, 6, 2005.
[9] Dr. Michael Behe, an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, has noted that the trial judge’s decision“…is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.”
[10] And if scripture is trustworthy, we can be assured that He judges judges and their judgments!  Ecclesiastes 12:14.  See also Psalm 2 and Hebrews 9:27.

Filed under: , , ,

Join the email family.

We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.

Join the support family.

Donate Now
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram
The American Vision

FREE
VIEW