“When it gets dark enoughyou can see the stars.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson“Complex technology of anysort is an assault on humandignity.It would be little shortof disastrous for us to discoverthe source of clean, cheap,abundant energy,because ofwhat we might do with it.”—Amory Lovins, RockyMountain Institute“Good intentions will alwaysbe pleaded for everyassumption of power... It ishardly too strong to say thatthe Constitution was made toguard the people against thedangers of good intentions.There are men in all ages whomean to govern well, but theymean to govern. They promiseto be good masters, but theymean to be masters.”—Daniel WebsterreduceEarthto thesize of a4inchtomatoand Mars to thesize of a2inch tomato; usingthis scale, thetomatoes wouldbe2,000 feet apart, over one-third of amileattheclosestpoint of their orbits. Supposethat youhad to shoot the Marstomatosothat onepieceofitlanded on theEarth tomato,withoutleavingadentin theMars tomato. Highlyunlikely,don’t you think? Mars has no giantcrater thatwouldindicateithadbeen hit with enough forceto knock afragmentall thewayto earth. Thewholepurposeof thehighly publicizedMars find was to pushaNASA fundinggrant throughCongress.It worked. The grant money was released, and, shortlythereafter, theannouncement was madethat theshapetheyhad seen on therockwas “actually lamellae-fractured surfacesof pyroxene andcarbonatecrystals which wereformed bygeologic processes” accordingto astudy led by John Bradley oftheGeorgia Instituteof Technology. SeeAviation WeekandSpaceTechnology, Dec. 8, 1997. Formoreon this topicsee thebookThat Their Words May BeUsed AgainstThem, by Dr.Henry Morris, availablefrom <strong>CSE</strong> -$19.50.Questions about public schools:11. Q:A:Should (or can) creation science betaught in thepublicschool system?This is agood question and itdeserves agood answer; however,there are otherquestions thatmust be answered firstbeforethis question can beproperlyanswered.The firstoftheseis: Should wehave apublicschoolsystem?The tenth amendment totheU.S. Constitution says, “Thepowers notdelegated to theUnited States bytheConstitution,nor prohibited by itto theStates, arereserved totheStates respectively, or to the people.” TheinterferenceoftheFederal government in theeducation of children in unconstitutional.Ibelieveif thegovernment was outof theeducationbusiness (as well as welfare andhundreds ofother socialistprograms they havegotten into), many otherproblems wouldbe eliminated and questions likethis would bemoot.Asecond question toanswer is: If wedecide to haveapublicschool system, whoshould run it? This willfurther eliminatequestions about what is taught. If the local community wantstoimparttheir values to the students and they arepayingthesalaries, then their values should be taught. Itis unfair andillegal(constitutionally) to forceeveryone(via taxes) topay tohaveallchildren taughtthings contrary to thebeliefs andvalues oftheir parents. The schools becamepublicin themid-1800’s as part of along-rangeplan for anew world order. Seethe article, “Why theSchools Went Public” by SamuelBlumenfeld (310) 391-2245for more on this.Now, tofinally answerthequestion: Not only can you legallyteach creation sciencein the publicschools, you can teachitrightout of the<strong>Bible</strong>, and teachordevoteaclass toreligion,Dr. Kent Hovind • office (850) 479-DINO (3466) •Fax 479-8562 64
65“It has never been againstthe law to teach creation. Nostatute exists in any state to barinstruction in ‘creation science.’It could be taught before, andit can be taught now.”— Stephen Jay Gould “ TheVerdict on Creationism,” NewYork Times July 19, 1987, p. 34“The Supreme Court rulingdid not, in any way,outlaw theteaching of ‘creation science’in public school classrooms.Quite simply it ruled that, inthe form taken by theLouisiana law,it isunconstitutional to demandequal time for this particularsubject. ‘Creation science’ canstill be brought into scienceclassrooms If and whenteachers and administratorsfeel that it is appropriate.Numerous surveys haveshown that teachers andadministrators favor just thisroute. And, in fact, ‘creationscience’ is being taught inscience courses throughout thecountry.”—Evolutionary biologistMichael Zimmerman, “KeepGuard Up After EvolutionVictory,” BioScience 37 (9,October 1987): 636The Supreme Court statedthat, “the <strong>Bible</strong> mayconstitutionally be used in anappropriate study of history,civilization, ethics, comparativereligion, or the like.”—Stone v.Graham, 449 U.S.39, 42 (1980)Creation Science Evangelism •29 Cummings Road •Pensacola, Florida 32503and havethe textbook be the<strong>Bible</strong>. We all know theeffects ofwhat happened in 1963 when the <strong>Bible</strong> was taken out, andevolution put in totheschools, butwehavebeen deceived bythatACLU again! In 1963, the SupremeCourtbannedtheuseofthe <strong>Bible</strong>totry toget kids saved, whichis not goodobviously,but it’s alot better than whattheACLUhas led us tobelieve. Theydid notthrow the <strong>Bible</strong> out!Wehavethrownthe <strong>Bible</strong> outbecause wehave allowed ourselves to bedeceived by the ACLU.In thelandmark rulingofSchool DistrictofAbington Townshipv. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, (1963) thecourtheldthat, “itcertainly may besaidthat the <strong>Bible</strong>is worthy ofstudyfor its literary andhistoricqualities. Nothing wehavesaid hereindicates that suchstudy ofthe<strong>Bible</strong>or of religion,when presented objectively as part of asecular program ofeducation, maybeeffected consistently with theFirst Amendment.”In therulingof Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), TheSupreme Courtstatedthat, “the <strong>Bible</strong> may constitutionally beused in an appropriatestudy of history, civilization, ethics,comparativereligion, or the like.”In Florey v. Sioux Falls SchoolDistrict, 619 F.2d1311, 1314(8th Cir, 1980), the courtfound that permittingpublicschoolobservances whichincludereligious elements promotes thesecular purposeof “advancingthestudent’s knowledgeandappreciation of the rolethatour religious heritage has playedin thesocial, culturaland historicaldevelopmentofcivilization.”There are at least twoother cases where theSupremeCourthas ruled that the<strong>Bible</strong>maybeused in its entirety forseculareducational purposes suchas: history, civilization, ethics,comparativereligion, culture, and themorals on whichthiscountry was founded!The Supreme Courtneverkickedthe<strong>Bible</strong>out ofschools in1963. Theproblem is: We, Christians, whobelieved theliethatthey did! The teachers arenot allowed to try to convertstudents whileon school time and property, but they canpresent creation. Now, Iunderstand that notbeingabletousethe <strong>Bible</strong> toget peoplesaved is discouraging, but, being abletouseit toteachcreation scienceor the morals thatthis countrywas founded on can and will reversethecurrent indoctrination!You cannotonly teachcreation science, you can doitrightfrom the <strong>Bible</strong>–verseby verse –or you couldgoout onadifferent subjectand teachhowthe<strong>Bible</strong>is the only moralabsolutethatthis country has. This country was founded onthe morals in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and without the <strong>Bible</strong>, allmorals arein-absolute, and aresubject to some human’s interpretation!You can teachthat! If you getin trouble(and thereis ariskbecausesomany principals havebeen misled orintimidatedby ACLU typelawyers) callACLJ (American Center forLawand Justice in Virginia–JaySekulow(757)226-2489), or theNational LegalFoundation(757)424-4242, or theAmerican