Thursday, October 02, 2014




Advertise with us

Why shouldn't we teach creationism?

Dec. 11, 2009 at 6:11 a.m.
Updated Dec. 12, 2009 at 6:12 a.m.


Should we teach creationism?" was the title of an article in the Nov. 23 Victoria Advocate.

I would rather ask, "Why shouldn't we teach creationism?"

The comments from the respondents were not very lucid and were "cookie cutter" variety that comes from an opinion that has been molded by the blather that comes from most modern news sources and academia.

With the 50-year anniversary celebration of the publishing of Charles Darwin's book coming to a close, this is an appropriate time to examine what has happened since that time and answer some of the objections stated pertaining to why not teach creationism.

The fallacious statement of "separation of church and state" is most diabolical.

When the founding document references a creator and God, it appears evident that the signers understood the necessity of religion to govern well.

This carries on with a public belief among our forefathers that religion is a moral support of good government, every state's state constitution references God, and several ministers signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law..." There are parameters of responsibility enumerated to the federal government. When legislatures, presidents and judges step outside of these parameters, they have broken an oath and the law.

Many people have the notion that "federal funding" is a good thing.

I do not know the proper descriptive term of taking someone's money, taking out a handling charge and then offering part of it back with strings attached is, but one person I have spoken to calls it extortion.

When the Constitution was signed, there were some states that had a state religion, but the federal government did not have that liberty and still doesn't.

The only separation between church and state is the federal government has no place in the debate.

The other main argument is that creation is religion and evolution is science.

Balderdash!

We need to come to grips with the fact that science can only examine what is in the present.

It cannot look back into the past and certainly cannot look into the future. Educated assumptions can be made, but that is what they are, assumptions. To make an assumption pertaining to the past, you have to start with a frame of reference or belief. Belief: Sounds like religion doesn't it?

Evolution references are a long time frame and that is obvious by the large spans of time they give to all their discoveries, primarily because the methods used to measure time are inaccurate.

Anthony J. Corte is a chapel minister at the Victoria County Jail for Faith Family Church and member of The John Birch Society. He has attended three creation seminars. His personal library on the subject of creation includes 17 books and eight videos/dvds.

SHARE

Comments


THE LATEST

Powered By AdvocateDigitalMedia