CONCLUSION

We are privileged to live in a country where the most fundamental and cherished of all principles is that our nationhood and our personhood are the endowments of our Creator.  To this proposition we have dedicated ourselves, and staked our very existence.  That nation, "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" became the envy of the world.  It celebrates the formation of this unique nation annually on the fourth of July.

Its founders sought to protect the freedom of conscience of men to worship as they might.  In their minds, such freedom, such liberty could only be achieved by applying the principles of Christianity, which grants to all men the free will to choose whether they will, and how they will worship God.  The statements by our forefathers are manifold and uniform.

In the modern age, an interesting philosophy known as evolution has arisen.  Judging from the statements of its adherents, it is first and foremost a religious philosophy which seeks to establish man's autonomy from any transcendent Creator.  However, because of the great principles of liberty that underlie this nation, the teaching and belief in this philosophy has rightly been protected by our courts.

For sociological reasons quite beyond the scope of this paper, and perhaps any paper, the theory has gained sway throughout much of academia.  This is not new.  Strange doctrines and ideas from Communism to Nazism have inexplicably swept across nations and academies at various times, only to end up on the ash heap of history.  In a free market of ideas, the death of an inferior idea is inevitable.  The theory of evolution is such an idea.  It is idea bereft of scientific merit.  It has received infusions of life from museums displaying fraudulent pictures of "missing links" which in fact are still missing.  It has received infusions of life from the National Academy of Sciences, which, in its attempt to debunk the boogie man of creation science (evolution's only competitor), has redefined the scientific method into statements of absurdity %u2014 statements that would lead us back to a geocentric universe.

Because of their philosophical, theological, and moral dispositions, the adherents of the evolutionary theory have long been revolted at the philosophical and moral implications of the creationist theory.  Unable to compete in the free market of ideas, and sensing that their theory was dying, they have sought and found refuge in the courts.  Through a long tortuous route, the Supreme Court of this nation has determined that a bill requiring the balanced treatment of creation science and evolutionary science is unconstitutional.  That long and tortuous route has included redefining the subject, the verb and the direct object of the First Amendment by judicial decree.  It has been marked by sophisms of extraordinary creativity.  It has fanned and promoted the idea that a "wall of separation," an environment inimical to the practice of religion was the intent of our forefathers.  To reach this remarkable conclusion, the Court has been forced to ignore the statements of our founding fathers, and rewrite our nations history in its own image  Its pronouncements have become increasingly outrageous, until it finally outlawed the teaching of the foundational principle upon which this nation was formed.

As the secularization of our nation accelerated since 1963, parents have, in increasing numbers, suffered the financial burden of removing their children from government controlled schools to instill in them the values held so dear to the founders of this nation.  The expense to these families is substantial, and their outrage is palpable.  They are told such decisions are necessary to protect those persons holding an evolutionary philosophy from the offense of the creationist philosophy.  The fact that the evolutionary philosophy is neither scientific nor ennobling to the human spirit is irrelevant.  The fact that it is an affront to close to 90% of our society is irrelevant.  What is relevant is the tiny vestige of adherents to the evolutionary theory who might be offended by the thought of a Creator.  They have sought, and successfully gained protection from the Court.  With every new Supreme Court decision, it seems the secularization presses onward.  The people have no court of appeal, for these decrees have come forth from the Supreme Court of the nation.  Which leads so many Americans to ask -- 

Quis custodiet, ipso custodes?  (Who shall protect us from our protectors?)

The Creator in the Classroom: Conclusion