Legally
Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools
Transcript
of Presentation by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000
INTRODUCTION
I'm Mat Staver. As an attorney, I concentrate on constitutional law. Prior
to law school, I graduated from seminary and entered the ministry. After
pastoring a few years, I began to see how our faith as Christians interacts
with the laws around us, either negatively or positively. Through that
experience the Lord led me into law school. In 1989 I founded an organization
called Liberty Counsel. Liberty Counsel is a religious civil liberties
educational legal defense organization. We're based in Orlando, but we
operate throughout the entire country. Liberty Counsel provides free legal
representation to defend religious freedom. We have found that if Christians
have to go out and pay their own attorney to defend their liberties they
will give up the fight and walk away.
"Liberty
Counsel provides free legal representation to defend religious freedom.
We have found that if Christians have to go out and pay their own
attorney to defend their liberties, they will give up the fight and
walk away."
For
example, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) in Orlando, wanted
to participate in the homecoming parade. The school allowed the student
groups to make their own homecoming floats for the parade. The FCA student
club had a float like the secular clubs, but they wanted to have a Christian
message on the side of the float. Dr. Philips High School said, "You can't
have your float because it's religious, and we cannot allow a religious
float with the secular floats". If those students did not have a resource
like Liberty Counsel and had to obtain an attorney, they would have just
simply walked away. But they contacted Liberty Counsel. We resolved the
situation. The devil seems to have a way of shooting himself in the foot.
If the school would have allowed FCA to have their float like the other
secular student floats, the message of Christ would not have reached the
larger public. The school tried to resist. However, a couple of students
wanted to stand up for Christ, and because there was an organization that
was willing to stand beside them, Christ got wide spread media attention.
Instead of the FCA float being just one of other floats, the FCA float
actually led the homecoming parade. It was the first one in the parade
onto the football field. The news cameras were there and the media interviewed
the students. The students, and Christ, got a lot more attention than
they would have had the school not resisted. That is what happens when
Satan tries to suppress the message of Christ. As long as there is somebody
willing to stand for their rights, then the thing that the devil meant
for evil will actually come out for good.
One
of the areas of constitutional law that is very exciting to me involves
teachers. Teachers are the domestic missionaries to America whether in
public or private school. Teachers are on the front line over the battle
for the heart and soul of America.
TEACHING
IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Teaching
in public school is a fascinating challenge. There is no subject matter
that can be adequately addressed without talking about religion.
"There
is no subject matter that can be adequately addressed without talking
about religion, whether it's literature, science, or math. "
The
public school teacher is a citizen of two worlds. A teacher, on a public
school campus, is an individual, and an agent of the state. The Supreme
Court, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, said that
teachers, like students, don't shed their constitutional rights when they
enter the schoolhouse gate. Teachers have a first amendment right to freedom
of speech and a first amendment right to freedom of religion just like
any other citizen. However, unlike a student, who is not an employee or
agent of the state, a teacher also has certain restrictions. On the one
hand, teachers have Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. On the other
hand there is the Establishment Clause, which some people refer to when
they speak of "separation of church and state." However, the phrase, "separation
of church and state," is not in the Constitution.
In
the first amendment there are two clauses with regards to religion. One
that says Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment
of religion -- the Establishment Clause. The other states that Congress
cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion -- the Free Exercise Clause.
Also in the first amendment, there is the Free Speech Clause. Since students
are not agents of the state, they have the affirmative protections of
the Free Speech and the Free Exercise Clauses. They do not have the constraint
of the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause restrains government,
not private individuals. In order to have a Constitutional violation the
controversy must involve a private citizen on one side and a public entity
on the other side. I cannot violate your right to free speech. I can tell
you not to speak, but one private person to another private person creates
no Constitutional implications.
A
public school teacher operates in both worlds. Teachers are private individuals
protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses, but they are also
public individuals, and therefore, they have restrictions imposed by the
Establishment Clause. Let me just give you an example of the difference
between a student and a teacher. A student can give a gospel tract to
another student during non-class time, before or after school or in between
class. The tract can be an evangelistic tool advocating that someone accept
Jesus Christ. There are no problems with this situation because the Free
Speech and Free Exercise clauses protect students. The school would not
be involved in the distribution and, therefore, there is no establishment
of religion. However, under the Supreme Court's present interpretation
of the Constitution, the Establishment Clause would prohibit a public
school teacher from passing out the same tract. A student can proselytize,
can advocate and can promote their faith. A teacher cannot proselytize
or promote their faith, but they can objectively overview religion. A
student could say, "If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you'll go to
Hell," and actively advocate their faith. A teacher talking about religion
in general would have to say that, "Christianity teaches that if you don't
believe in Jesus Christ, then you will go to Hell." Teachers cannot personally
advocate, promote or advance Christianity, but can objectively overview
Christianity.
"Teachers
cannot personally advocate, promote or advance Christianity but can
objectively overview Christianity."
TEACHING
CREATION LEGALLY
Let's
now review several Supreme Court cases. In Epperson v. Arkansas the court
considered an Arkansas statute that restricted the teaching of evolution.
The Supreme Court struck down the statute. The Court said that it was
unconstitutional to prohibit the teaching of evolution. The Court found
that the reason this statute was enacted was to prohibit an anti-religious
viewpoint. The Court ruled it is unconstitutional for a statute to prohibit
evolution.
Edwards
v. Aguillard involved a Louisiana statute that said that if you teach
evolution, you must teach creation. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional
to require that a schoolteacher teach creation any time evolution was
taught. The Court felt in that the statute was attempting to advance a
religious viewpoint. I'll explain some of the reasoning later and point
out how you can still teach creation in the public schools.
A
third case is not a Supreme Court case. It is a case called Webster v.
New Lennox School District, 917 F. 2d 1004 (7th Cir 1990). The case did
go to the United States Supreme Court. This case dealt with a teacher
who was teaching creation. The principal told the teacher to stop teaching
creation. The teacher sued the principal on the basis that the teacher
had the right to teach creation. The teacher lost. It is important to
know why the teacher lost, what the court said, and what it didn't say,
because you might have somebody cite this case to you to make you stop
teaching creation. Basically, the court said that the principal had authority
to tell the teachers generally what kind of curriculum to present in the
classroom. It really was not an issue of teaching creation versus evolution
as it was the principal's authority over employees within the school.
The court held that teachers were not free to set their own curriculum
at will. The court went on to say that the teacher would be precluded
under this opinion from religious advocacy. The teacher, however, was
not precluded under this opinion from talking about creation in general.
In this case the teacher was actually promoting creation and advocating
a specific Christian view on creation. The court made it very clear that
the teacher cannot actively promote a religious Christian view while teaching
creation. However, a teacher can overview creation within the science
curriculum.
The
final case does not deal with teaching evolution, but it applies to teaching
in general. The case is called Lemon v. Kurtzman. This is the so-called
Lemon Test. It requires a three-part analysis. It is very simple once
you learn it, but it is kind of complicated as people try to put it into
practice. It says when looking at government activity with regard to the
Establishment Clause, the government activity involving religion has to
pass this three-part test. If it fails any one of the three parts, then
the activity is an establishment of religion. If Government action passes
all three parts of the test, then there is no establishment of religion.
Number one, the activity must have a, and underline and emphasize the
word "a", secular purpose. Number two, the activity cannot have as its
primary purpose to advance or inhibit religion. Number three, the activity
must not create an excessive, and the key word here is excessive, governmental
entanglement with religion.
"If
Government action passes all thress parts of the Lemon Test, then
there is no establishment of religion. The three parts are:
-
The activity must have a secular purpose.
-
The activity cannot have as its primary purpose to advance
or inhibit religion.
-
The activity must not create an excessive, goverment entanglement
with religion."
Most
of the Supreme Court justices have criticized the Lemon test. The Supreme
Court, nevertheless, has not thrown it out.
I
know the Supreme Court has veered from the original intent of the Constitution,
and I know the original understanding of the First Amendment didn't require
all these hoops. Nevertheless, these are the hoops we have to go through
today. I will use a nativity scene situation to explain how the test works.
City Hall, which is a government entity and is governed by the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, cannot legally establish a religion. Take
a nativity scene, standing by itself, on City Hall property with City
sponsorship, displaying Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Does it have a
secular purpose? The Supreme Court would say, "No." Does it primarily,
and the key word here is primarily, advance or inhibit religion? Well,
certainly, it doesn't inhibit religion. Does it advance religion? The
Supreme Court would say, "Yes." Does it cause excessive governmental entanglement?
The Supreme Court would probably say, "No." There is only minimal governmental
involvement in keeping and maintaining the nativity scene. It does not
involve government making religious decisions. The nativity scene passes
number three, but it has already failed numbers one and two. The Supreme
Court would rule that a nativity scene standing by itself, sponsored by
City Hall, would be unconstitutional.
"Within
the context of the Christian Christmas carols, put in a few secular
songs like Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer or Here Comes Santa Claus,
and under this magical interpretation, the presentation is now constitutional."
What
happens when you put Santa Claus or a reindeer or a Christmas tree within
the context of the display? Now you have Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and Santa
Claus surrounding the manger. Looking at this display in the total context,
does it have a secular
purpose? Does the whole presentation have a
secular purpose? The Supreme Court would say, "Yes." Why, because there
is a secular symbol of the holiday within this religious context. So at
least one of the purposes is secular. It passes number one. Is its primary
goal to advance or inhibit religion? It certainly does advance religion,
but is that its primary goal? The Supreme Court would say, "No," because
now there is a secular symbol nearby. Thus the display has a dual purpose.
Number three, does it cause excessive governmental entanglement? No, it's
just an administrative task to put up the display and take it down. That's
not entanglement. The government is not making religious doctrinal decisions.
So it passes number three. All of a sudden Santa Claus or a reindeer or
a Christmas tree, all being secular, make this display constitutional.
The same principals apply if students sing Christmas carols during the
Christmas season. If they only sang Christian Christmas carols, would
the Court say the Christmas concert had a
secular purpose? Answer, "No. It has only a religious purpose." Now, change
the scene. Within the context of the Christian Christmas carols, put in
a few secular songs, like Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer or Here Comes
Santa Claus, and under this magical interpretation, the presentation is
now constitutional.
Now
put yourself in the teaching context. Consider the three part test if
you were to only open up the book of Genesis and start focusing on the
Bible as the basis for creation. Does the presentation have a
secular purpose? No. Does it primarily advance religion? Yes, so you failed
number one and two. How do you change that situation? You change it just
like we did the nativity scene and just like we did the Christmas carols.
Within the context of teaching creation, you also teach or overview other
non-creation, non-theistic theories. For example, if you teach creation
and at the same time you include the theory of evolution, you have a secular
purpose. If somebody came in and saw you teaching creation one day, they
might conclude that you only have a religious purpose. But a reasonable
observer must look at the overall context, not just focus on one little
item. You need to look at the overall curriculum, the overall course.
By the way, I would suggest that you refer to creation as abrupt appearance
and to the topic as origins rather than creation versus evolution.
TEACHING
IN CONTEXT
The
three-part test is the test that governs public school teachers when teaching
about religion. If you're talking about literature, can you open the Bible,
talk about it and read from it as literature? Yes. For example, you might
talk about poetry. You might talk about how English poetry is different
than Hebrew poetry. Our poetry often rhymes words like ring with thing,
or something similar. Hebrew poetry uses thought rhyme or thought parallelism.
One thought is juxtapose against another. There are many different examples
we could cover. You can discuss religion when addressing any topic. If
you pick up a book, you can talk about the origins of the book. The book
comes from Christianity. Before the New Testament Christians, there were
no books. Writing was done on big bulky scrolls. The New Testament Christians
couldn't carry all these big scrolls, so they cut them up in pieces and
sewed them together on the edge. That became what was known as the Codex.
The Codex was the first book.
"The
three-part test is the test that governs public school teachers when
teaching about religion".
TEACHING
CREATION IN CONTEXT
You
can overview religion in whatever topic you teach so long as it is relevant.
About origins, you can overview different theories of creation. You can
discuss evolution some of the counter arguments from a creation or abrupt
appearance perspective. While there might be evidence of minor change
or adjustment over time, there is no evidence of major change. There is
no evidence to support a change in species (i.e. cat to dog). Certainly
there is no evidence of flora (plant) and fauna (animal) transfer. You
can overview the various theories and then you could say; "Now there are
a lot of different theories about evolution and abrupt appearance. Whatever
theory you hold, all theories have one thing in common, faith. Whether
it is evolution or creation, both require faith. To believe evolution,
you need a lot of faith to bridge the huge gaps in the fossil record.
There is no evidence of flora and fauna transfer. There is no evidence
for "macro-evolution". It takes a major leap in faith to assume that evolution
demonstrates how animals and plants originated. The theory of abrupt appearance
or creation also requires faith. While there is evidence to support creation,
nobody was there at the beginning. Nobody was there for evolution and
nobody was there for creation. You still must have faith that something
predated the first appearance of animals, plants, and humans. Deciding
what that was ultimately relies upon faith. Whichever theory of origins
you ultimately accept, neither can be considered a proven fact. Evolution
is believed by faith, and creation is believed by faith. Someone who believes
in abrupt appearance is not some weird wacko. You must get students to
understand that evolution is simply a faith-based theory just like creation
is a faith-based theory. Rather than elevating evolution and tearing down
creation you can show that both are on the same level - that is, both
are theories, not established fact. Indeed, if you discuss the evidence
for and against evolution, it becomes obvious that one must have more
faith to believe in evolution than in creation.
"It
takes a major leap in faith to assume that evolution demonstrates
how animals and plants originated."
After
you cover the scientific issues regarding origins, you can then consider
how world religions view origins. You can also point out that it is important
to look at origins, because from a philosophical standpoint, you must
know where you originated. You must know who you are, and you must know
your destiny. If you do not know one of those three, there is something
lacking in your self-understanding. Some scientists have tried to point
to evolution as our origin. Other scientists have tried to point to creation
as our origin. World religions look at the origin of the world as part
of theology. For example, you can discuss the Egyptian theology of creation.
The Egyptians in their Memphite Creation writings spoke about God, whom
they called Ptah, as the one who brought the world into existence by a
word. He spoke and the world came into existence. As for me, I don't mind
comparing Christianity to other non-Christian religions. You remember
the Old Testament prophet when he prayed to God while several hundred
other prophets prayed to Baal to bring fire in a demonstrable way. He
did not say, "Do not pray to Baal". He said go ahead and pray to your
God. I will pray to my God, and we will see which one answers by fire.
You know the result. Whenever you put truth and falsehood beside each
other, there is no question in my mind that the truth will win. I have
no reservation about using another religion when I'm talking about Christianity.
If I am afraid that Jesus is not big enough, powerful enough, and convincing
enough to put himself and his word along side some other word or some
other false theology, then I do not have enough understanding or faith
in my own God. So it does not bother me to allow someone else to have
a platform. That is why it does not bother me to have someone teach evolution
as long as you have the equal opportunity to teach abrupt appearance or
creation.
"World
religions look at the origin of the world as part of theology."
At
any rate, in addition to the Egyptian creation theory you could talk about
the Babylonian creation theory. Then you can discuss the creation story
in the book of Genesis and you can read from the book of Genesis. Whether
it takes one day, several days, or several weeks, you can conclude your
presentation by summing up the topic. You can overview the different evolution
and creation theories. The bottom line, when all is said and done, is
that both theories mut be accepted by faith. When you put all the information
before the students, it will probably be the first they've ever heard
of origins besides evolution. Until the time they come to your class and
hear you speak, they've probably heard one view, and that one view teaches
evolution as fact and creation as myth. When they come out of your class
they will say that is not true. You've have opened the door for them to
make a decision.
IDEAS
FOR TEACHING CREATION
While
teaching creation and evolution you can ask the students, "How many of
you believe that you had apes or monkeys in your ancestry tree?" Of course,
you'll probably get a lot of laughter. Open the class for discussion.
A teacher can bring outside material into their classroom, whether on
creation or other issues. You can bring in an outside speaker. What happens
when you bring in an outside speaker? Is the speaker an agent of the state?
No, the speaker is an individual citizen you invited. You can also host
a debate format, where you have an evolutionist and a creationist debate
the topic. Let them debate and let the students ask questions. The main
thing is you've opened up the market place in contrast to the narrow view
of the market place that they have been taught. You expanded their horizons.
You have allowed the students to have contact with another view that they
probably never heard of or had contact with before your class.
"While
teaching creation and evolution you can ask the students, "How
many of you believe that you had apes or monkeys in your ancestry
tree?'"
One
particularly good video is the Mt. St. Helens video produced by the Institute
for Creation Research. I don't know if you've ever seen this or not, but
if you have not seen it, you ought to order a copy. It is one of the most
amazing videos I've ever seen on this topic. The video talks about the
explosion of Mt. St. Helens. It talks about Spirit Lake and how the petrified
forest may have formed. You and your students may think it takes millions
of years to create the petrified trees. The video shows how the North
Slope of the volcano came down, hit the lake, caused the water to go up
the mountain beside it, broke the trees and brought the trees back down
into the lake. Then the trees got water logged and some of them turned
upright as the root ends were heavier. The trees settled on the bottom
at different times and the sediment stabilized these trees in a standing
position. In a short period of time a petrified forest can be formed.
The video also shows how layering can form in a matter of months rather
than millions of years.
"Teachers
have a lot more liberty than you think to teach creation and to teach
religious and Christian influences. "
CONCLUSION
Teachers
have a lot more liberty than you think to teach creation and to teach
religious and Christian influences. If you ever have a question, or encounter
a problem call Liberty Counsel at 1-800-671-1776. Give us a call at any
time. You can also find us on the web at www.lc.org.
We provide free information and legal representation
QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
The
information in this booklet was first provided as a lecture in a teacher's
workshop. During the workshop, teachers had the opportunity to ask Mat
Staver questions. This section provides those questions and answers. In
some cases others made comments at the workshop. To understand who is
talking, the initial question will be preceded by "Question" in bold.
Mat Staver's answers and comments are preceded by "Staver" in bold. Comments
by others at the workshop are preceded by "Comment" in bold without identifying
who made the comment.
Question:
As far as school clubs like FCA or Youth for Christ, when teachers sponsor
those clubs, are the teachers allowed to have an active part or are they
just sponsoring the students?
Staver:
Under the Equal Access Act of 1984 the teacher is supposed to be essentially
in a non-participatory capacity. The teacher is the sponsor, kind
of like the chaperone, and generally is not to have an active advocacy
role within that club. It is a student led, student-initiated club.
A lot of teachers do take an advocacy role. If the school chooses
to prohibit the advocacy role or active participation, then a school
probably could do so under the Equal Access Act. If a student club
met off campus, then a teacher could probably take an active role,
but during the school hours, they should take a non-participatory
role.
Question:
How would the school hours be defined?
Staver:
School hours generally are 15 to 30 minutes before or after school
is in or out. The general idea is to give the students time to get
off campus after school or have enough time before school that not
all the students are necessarily on campus.
Question:
Is there a particular reason you would not use the word creation, or is
it just because it is a hot word?
Staver:
Because it is a hot word. There is not any real legal significance
to it. But it is a hot word. I think you are presenting the same concept.
You could say abrupt appearance. For our purposes talk about abrupt
appearance. Something was not there, now it is, spontaneously. One
day it is not there. One day it is. It did not evolve through time.
Abrupt appearance takes the hot button out of the context of the discussion.
Within this context talk about both creation and evolution theories.
You have a secular
purpose because part of it is secular and part of it is not. Does
it have as its primary goal to advance religion? Well, part of it
would, but part of it does not, so it is not its primary goal. Does
it cause excessive governmental entanglement? No, because you are
objectively over-viewing the issue. You are not making doctrinal decisions.
You are simply giving an objective overview of the context or the
issue.
Question:
Do public school teachers need to go to the point where they document
that they have attempted to present the material in this fashion. If you
get sued and you cannot document this, and it is your word against that
student's, what happens?
Staver:
I think a teacher would probably be prudent to document in their own
personal outline what they are covering each day, so they can go back
and say on November the 20th, this is the topic we covered.
November 21st, this is the topic we covered, so that you
can see the broad parameter that the teacher is covered. I think if
you cover this broad parameter, you are going to pass all these three
tests.
Comment:
Just to add to it. Anything along this line, I try to make Xerox
copies, so it is not an argument later about what is said or not
said. It is very clear-cut anytime the administrators have questions
we can prove what happened in the classroom. The administrators
just want to stay out of court. They don't care about the subject.
They just want to stay out of court
Staver:
Right. A student may come up to you on the day that you talk about
the biblical view of creation and complain, or a student may complain
to the principal. If you can go to the principal and show that you
covered all these different topics, that was only one day. If the
principal does not want to get sued and wants to stay out of trouble
and if they see that you are being objective and you are being fair,
what more can they ask for?
Question:
We all know that there are many volumes of printed resources on the evolutionary
theory. What strategies might we use in our schools to try to get some
of these creation materials into our libraries on an equal opportunity
access basis? Do you have any suggestions? Our taxpayer money is being
used to buy these materials and our libraries are full of the other side.
What can we do to get equal opportunity and equal access for students
to be able to find resources on their own? A teacher lecturing from a
lectern is not as powerful as a student looking at a book and gathering
their own information.
Staver:
First of all you can't force the material into your library.
Questioner:
I was just thinking about what strategies we could use.
Staver:
One of the things that we suggest is that you donate a book to the
library. Get a book and donate it to the library. The library would
have a harder time refusing a donated book than it would to refuse
to pay for a book. Then if they refuse a donated book, you would have
to put them on the spot as to why they are refusing the book. Get
a reputable book that is going to be a reputable source of information.
One particular book I like is called "The Origin of Species Revisited"
by Wendell Bird. This is a reputable book in my opinion. There are
a lot of other reputable books out there. There are reputable videos
also that present the issue from an objective viewpoint. So try to
donate. Talk to the librarian to see what the process or procedure
is to get new books added if they want to purchase them.
Now,
once you get the books into the library, then you have a foot in the
door because the school cannot remove the book. There is a constitutional
implication for removing the book. The school cannot remove the book
for anything other than the fact that it is educationally unsuitable.
Educational unsuitability would be that you may have students that
are kindergarten and you have a book that is way above their heads.
Or you may have a book that's out of date or the book cover is torn
and tattered. If the school tries to get a book out because of the
content of the message, like because it's religious or Christian specifically,
then that action violates the right to Free Speech. Remember you have
the right to Free Speech that allows you to obtain information from
the government to read. The students have a right to Free Speech to
prevent the library from removing material if the removal is only
based on the content of the message. A lot of libraries, for example,
try to remove Bibles thinking they cannot have them. The library violates
the Constitution by removing religious books because of their religious
context.
Question:
I know that people have tried to donate books like, "What is Creation
Science" to libraries, and the libraries have refused to accept the books.
What would be the next step?
Staver:
If a library refuses a book, you cannot force the book in there. There
are some communities that have a review committee for books, and if
there are certain committees, get somebody on the committee that could
make recommendations for bringing certain books into the library.
I know that there are some in central Florida where parents are on
the committee to recommend certain kinds of curriculum to their library.
That would be one way to do it. The other way might be to go to a
school board and put it on the agenda to have them vote on the issue.
That would be the last resort because if you did that, it's going
to be public information. And the discussion will address why do you
want the book. Schools are supposed to be, according to the Supreme
Court, a market place of ideas, kind of a smorgasbord of ideas, all
different kinds of ideas. Some are good, some are bad, some are offensive,
and some are not. This is a view on a particular topic, and if you
are slicing the pie on only one view, you have not given students
the smorgasbord of the market of ideas. So I think you should approach
it from that standpoint, that this gives them a smorgasbord or a market
place of ideas where students can pick and choose. There are a lot
of students in the school that would want to have access to this kind
of material, but they are not able to get access. We are denying them
the right to have access to it and expand their educational horizons.
So from an academic market place viewpoint, why would you be against
putting this book in the school? Put the "monkey" on their backs.
What is your reason to keep this out? If their reason to keep it out
is only from a standpoint of preventing a religious viewpoint, then
the board may have violated the lemon test. Is their action primarily
to advance or is it primarily to inhibit religion? Lemon is a double
edge sword. You might ultimately say, "If you are refusing this primarily
because you are against a religious viewpoint, then you have violated
the Establishment Clause."
Question:
If you are presenting both sides, and the student asks you what do you
think, which one of these views, if any, do you hold? Are you allowed
to answer because you are an agent of the state, or is that not permitted?
Staver:
That's a good question. If the teacher is asked, "What's your personal
view? Then the teacher can answer, "My personal view is, I believe
in creation." You might add that your view is not necessarily the
school view. "You asked me my view. My view is I believe in creation.
I believe in abrupt appearance. I believe in the story that is presented
in the book of Genesis."
Comment:
I do not tell anybody my point of view, because I find out that
as soon as I do, then my plans for the year are ruined. If I tell
them, they know I am coming from a particular point of view. It
is a world of fun having them trying to figure out my beliefs.
I tell them that after we finish out the school year, I might
tell them. I work hard to know both points of view and play the
devil's advocate to anything that may come up.
Staver:
That is a good point because that kind of keeps up their curiosity
level. If you give them your particular view up front and they are
opposed to that view, then they are going to shut you off for the
rest of the course. If you keep an open mind, they will try to figure
you out. That is a good approach.
A
teacher once told me he was teaching a space technology course. During
the Persian Gulf War, the class studied smart bombs, satellites and
laser guidance, etc. While he talked about space technology, he also
talked about world events relevant to space technology. The question
came up, "Why do you think this little piece of land is always involved
in wars and conflicts?" One student might give some reason and another
student might come up with something else. The students will present
a lot of questions and answers themselves.
Question:
If you are doing a chapter on origins, and a student asks, "What about
creation?" and the students begin the discussion, how far can the teacher
go in encouraging that discussion to continue, or try to guide that discussion
before he has "crossed the line"?
Staver:
It is hard to say here in a sterile environment rather than being
in the classroom. I think the teacher has to know the class, be sensitive
to those particular students, and try to guide the discussion. I do
not think you want to let the discussion or the debate get to the
point where ninety percent of the students are beating up ten percent
of the students and cramming it down their throats. That is not good
for any kind of situation. If you see that, you might want to stop
them, and then even focus back on the ten students, and ask, "Now
why do you think that way?" Then turn to the other students and lead
a normal civilized discussion and debate among the students.
Comment:
In my class, we had rules for the debate between the students.
Absolutely no emotional responses. You can only use what is on
your card, and the material on the card has to be from your research
that was done before. Any remarks that were emotional or not from
the notes on the card are disqualified. In the class they give
their emotional responses when you are discussing this stuff.
But if you are going to do a side-to-side debate, then do not
allow emotional responses. Comments have to come from science
that the students researched.
Staver:
That is a good point. In fact, you could have one student volunteer
to take the creation or abrupt appearance presentation, and one student
volunteer to take an evolutionary point of view. That way you are
not assigning sides and the students go home and tell their parents
that they have to take a position they do not want to take. The other
way though is to bring in outside speakers, individuals who are adults
who want to make a presentation. I would make sure that the person
is going to give a good presentation. I always find that if you have
a reputable person presenting an abrupt appearance or creation viewpoint,
it will make the evolutionary viewpoint seem illogical.
Question:
The Mt. St. Helen's video contains an evangelistic message toward the
beginning and the last five minutes. Would you suggest that the teacher
not show that part?
Staver:
I would suggest that the teacher not show that part. You could start
it after that beginning, view it, then stop it before you get to the
evangelistic approach. To me, that video is very convincing in terms
of creation, and it is also very convincing in terms of a deluge and
the forming of the Grand Canyon strata within a short period of time.
That is a fantastic video and is an example of things that you can
present to your students.
Question:
Are you familiar with the process of textbook adoption in the state of
Florida?
Staver:
Not that familiar with the textbook adoption program. I know that
there is a mass curriculum that is adopted or a list that is adopted.
Once you get those books on the resource list you go to your school
and say this is on a resource list, now why do you want to leave it
off? I think you have an even more compelling argument.
Comment:
A lot of books like "The Amazing Story of Creation" and "Dinosaur
by Design" present the creation material from an obvious biblical
basis. The question may come up, what affect would that have on
taking material like that into the public school room? Mat may
want to expound upon this, but, basically, as long as you have
other material available, or are bringing other material in, or
it is not just these books against the textbook, but there are
other supplementary material available, that would probably be
all right. Did I get that right, Mat?
Staver:
Yes, it is the same principle that we talked about in terms of a secular
purpose, and primary purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion.
It is unfortunate, but the Supreme Court, in order to make religion
constitutional from the government standpoint, says that it has to
be mixed with something secular. As long as you mix it up, then it
is okay. So there wouldn't be a problem with taking some of these
books into your public school classroom as long as you have other
secular material.
RESOURCES
The following resources are available from Liberty Counsel
at (800) 671-1776.
"Teacher
Rights Brochure"
"Faith and Freedom"
"Religious Expression in Public Schools"
The
following additional resources are recommended.
"The
Literature of the Bible" by Leland Ryken. Published by Zondervan.
"The
Origin of the Species Revisited--Two Volumes" by W. R. Bird. Published
by Thomas Nelson.
"Mount
St. Helens, Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe" by Dr. Steve Austin.
Published by the Institute for Creation
Research (video).
|
|