Second, the same attitude is prominent among much of the scientific community. To challenge, let alone question, the sacrosanct dogma of evolution is tantamount to heresy and a return to the dark ages of ignorance and superstition. Seemingly hysterical, horrified evolutionists are becoming increasingly frenzied in their panic attacks on the widespread, burgeoning dissatisfaction with their faltering, unproven theory. Take, for example, the local school board in Lebec, California. At a special meeting of the El Tejon Unified School District, the board approved a new course titled, “Philosophy of Design.” The one-month course on Intelligent Design was to be offered as an elective, and as a course in philosophy. Yet, a few disgruntled parents, in league with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, went to court in an attempt to terminate the course (Weinstein, 2006). It matters not that the course is merely an elective—not mandatory. It matters not that the course is labeled philosophy—not science. It matters not that no effort is being made to expel the teaching of evolution from the classroom.

Interesting, and sad—but so typical. For the last 50 years, in their orchestrated conspiracy to gain sanction for abortion, pornography, homosexuality, atheistic evolution, and a host of other evil, morally-bankrupt behaviors, “first amendment rights,” “free speech,” “intolerance!,” and “censorship!” have been the whips that social liberals have used to beat, bully, and berate their opponents into silent submission. But let one person utter even one peep of disagreement, and suddenly the anti-Christian liberals become angry, violent, and, ironically, completely intolerant and insensitive! Liberals were all for “academic freedom” in their defense of John Scopes and the teaching of evolution in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. They have been adamant on the necessity of “freedom of expression” in their endorsement of Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. But “equal time” and “academic freedom” for the teaching of a viewpoint that contradicts evolution? Not a chance!

Prior to the 1960s, when the Christian worldview thoroughly permeated American civilization, the anti-Christian forces clamored for “equal time” and “freedom to express dissenting, alternative views.” But now that they, to a great extent, have had their way, free speech and open discussion in the free market of ideas is out the window and opposing views are swiftly squelched. Talk about Gestapo tactics. The anti-Christian forces in American society now exhibit the same intolerant mindset that has characterized communist regimes across the world.

Undoubtedly, during the turbulent 1950s and 1960s, when subversive moral and social ideologies began to assert themselves, one of the strategic mistakes made was permitting the proponents to redefine the historical terms and concepts as originally articulated by the Framers and Founders. “Free speech” came to be defined as the right to practice and promote any and every idea or behavior that contradicted Christianity—no matter how immoral or depraved. Everything from burning the flag to pornography came to be considered “free speech,” while Christian restraint was “obscene.” The minority within America who has exhibited hostility toward God, the Bible, and Christianity have literally berated and bullied the majority into accepting, as justification for their outrageous stance, the backing of the Constitution. Yet, the historical evidence demonstrates that the Founders never would have countenanced the notion that “free speech” encompassed speech and behavior deemed immoral by Christian standards (see “Religion and the Founding...,” 2003).

To what are we to attribute this virtually irrational hostility against the teaching of intelligent design in the Universe? Simple. When once it is admitted that the Universe shows evidence of intelligent design, it logically follows that there must be an Intelligent Designer who is responsible for that design, i.e., God—the God of the Bible! To put it in terms asserted by the opponents of the course in the Lebec, California case, implying the existence of God as the designer “violates provisions of the U.S. and California constitutions barring establishment of religion” (Weinstein, 2006). Here are two of the great ironies in all this outrageous and ludicrous discussion (a discussion that should never even have been seriously entertained!): (1) the federal Constitution as well as the state constitutions (in this case, California’s) acknowledge God and the Christian religion as the only authentic expressions of reality, and (2) public schools were originally founded in America for the expressed purpose of honoring God and advancing the Christian religion!

Proof? Read for yourself:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law (Constitution of the United..., Section 7, emp. added).

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth (Constitution of the United..., Article 7, emp. added).

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution (“Preambles to...,” emp. added).

Observe that in both of the federal Constitution allusions, the Christian religion is acknowledged by the federal government as the religion of American civilization (1) by making allowance for the Christian day of worship (as opposed to Saturday for Jews, or Friday for Muslims, or no day for atheists), and (2) by dating all of human history on the basis of the birth of Jesus Christ (B.C./A.D. vs. B.C.E./C.E. [for atheists and Jews] or A.H. [for Muslims]). Observe further that every single state constitution that has a preamble (46 of the 50), with the exception of Oregon, refers to God in the preamble. Specifically, the framers of the California constitution apparently did not see their allusion to the existence of “Almighty God” as a violation of either the state or federal constitution.

Turning to public school education, history verifies that America’s schools were literally saturated with teaching from the Bible and the Christian religion. One instance is sufficient to establish the point. In the original state constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the purpose for the founding of Harvard College is stated in no uncertain terms:

Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-six, laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in church and state: and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America—it is declared... (Constitution of the Commonwealth...,” 2.5.1., emp. added).

Did you catch that? The “encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature,” i.e., the promotion of public education, “tends to the honor of God....” The purpose of the founding of Harvard University was to promote the honor of God and the advantage (i.e., superiority) of the Christian religion!

There you have it. If the Founders and Framers of the American Republic knew that we were even giving the time of day to those who seek to expel God and Christianity from public life, they would be outraged and heartsick. If they thought we were tap-dancing around to avoid referring to God in the school classroom, they would conclude that our nation is well down the road to spiritual and moral implosion. And they would be right.

Cabanatuan, Michael (2006), “Bay Area Anti-Abortion Ad on BART Angers Activists: Many Placards Have Been Defaced or Destroyed,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/13/BAGT9GMTU81.DTL.