CSE Seminar Notebook - Free Bible Resources

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 Bible 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 theBible. We all know theeffects ofwhat happened in 1963 when the Bible was taken out, andevolution put in totheschools, butwehavebeen deceived bythatACLU again! In 1963, the SupremeCourtbannedtheuseofthe Bibletotry toget kids saved, whichis not goodobviously,but it’s alot better than whattheACLUhas led us tobelieve. Theydid notthrow the Bible out!Wehavethrownthe Bible 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 Bibleis worthy ofstudyfor its literary andhistoricqualities. Nothing wehavesaid hereindicates that suchstudy oftheBibleor 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 Bible 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 theBiblemaybeused in its entirety forseculareducational purposes suchas: history, civilization, ethics,comparativereligion, culture, and themorals on whichthiscountry was founded!The Supreme CourtneverkickedtheBibleout 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 Bible 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 Bible–verseby verse –or you couldgoout onadifferent subjectand teachhowtheBibleis the only moralabsolutethatthis country has. This country was founded onthe morals in the Bible, and without the Bible, 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