This article is brought to you compliments of: HIS BOARD -- (805) 652-1478 Sysop: Bob Harr

This article is brought to you compliments of:
    
     HIS BOARD -- (805) 652-1478
          Sysop: Bob Harris



{CSWRITING 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 with the intent of 
the people and their understanding of the Constitution.  Swomley 
(1988) says:(1)

        The unique 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 with 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 by the Constitution are retained' by the 
        people (ANNALS OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES)."

        Although the terminology of separation of church and 
state doesn't appear 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 revisionism twists 
        history and interprets it for one's own purposes."

        Just such confusion was aptly illustrated in a recent 
regional competition 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 
activity 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 Christian 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 position 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 evidence for 
creation.  (I wonder why?)  Further, because creationism is 
disallowed 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 editorial categories of journalism.  
The texts are presented as originally written.

FIRST PLACE NEWS(3)  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 Wipperman, 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 evolutionism 
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 textbook.  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(3)  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, Protestantism 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, Catholics, 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 creationism 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 between 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 opportunity 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 with 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 fundamental 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.

Dr. Cumming is Dean of the ICR Graduate School.

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 in this article.


{PB