Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Recently a petition appeared on a White House website calling for a ban on creationism in the classroom. I wrote a blog post last week on the issue, sharing some of my responses to a reporter who asked for my comment. (To see the responses, read my blog post.)
Today on the Answers in Genesis website, our official response to the petition to ban creationism appears as the lead article. Now, we realize that this response, coauthored by Answers in Genesis CCO Mark Looy and me, will very likely draw attention to the petition and gain new signatures (as a result of secularists reading our article on this well-trafficked website). However, I believe it’s much more important to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of secularists on this issue. I’ve included some paragraphs of our response below:
This web article is largely an adaptation of our replies to the news agencies. The question posed by both reporters representing Christian news agencies was something on the order of the following: Since we live in an age known for tolerance, why are evolutionists so intolerantly seeking to ban an opposing view?I encourage you to read Answers in Genesis’ entire response to this petition so that you will be better equipped to respond to those who make similar claims.
AiG responded that the anti-creationist petition is just one more example of the intolerance of secularists who want to censor any challenge to their evolution-based worldview. For all their claims that the pursuit of science should be done with free inquiry and tolerance for dissenting ideas, these same people are often the ones most intolerant of alternative beliefs. For these secularists the issue of creation vs. evolution is a part of their worldview system, for evolution is one their excuses for not believing in a God and allows them to live their lives how they want—unaccountable to an absolute Authority and His absolute moral standards.
AiG pointed out to the news services that the idea of a petition to “Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom” through a federal law is silly anyway. First, the reality is that creation or intelligent design (ID) is not taught as part of the formal curriculum in any public schools we know of, though there are a small percentage of courageous teachers in the classroom who (legally) let their students know of some of the scientific objections to evolution. Second, if teachers or school boards attempt to incorporate ID into the curriculum, secular groups like the ACLU promise lawsuits. School districts are aware of this threat. . . .
At the same time we explained that, contrary to what is commonly believed, science instructors do have the freedom to bring up evidence that supports a Designer. The well-known 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning creation in schools dealt with the issue of whether states can mandate that creation be taught along with evolution. But the Court did not say that teachers were not permitted to bring up alternative scientific ideas to evolution—just that they could not be forced to.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying, Ken