Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less Chapter 7 DOES THE ACLU REALLY SUPPORT THE 1ST AMENDMENT?        According to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”  This amendment clearly meant something far different to the Constitutional framers than many today pretend. ¹        Jefferson began editing the New Testament in 1804 while a sitting president.  After drafting the 1st Amendment, Madison stated it would aid in the spread of Christianity. ²  Franklin, a self-proclaimed deist, openly complained the framers weren't seeking God's guidance enough while drafting the Constitution. ³        Many today interpret “church” to include belief in God, while this term in the 18th Century referred to institutional religion.  Belief in God clearly does not equate with “church” within the writings of Jefferson. 4  Regardless, freedom of speech isn't dependent on what is actually true about either God, history or science.        Legitimate American polls report 80% educators, 75% physicians and 50% of U.S. scientists believe in God. 5  Even though so many agree the evidence demonstrates design, the ACLU refuses to protect their credentialed scientific conclusions.  Instead, the ACLU demands American educators deliberately lie to our children by omission, leaving out the fact major historical and many living scientists and every Declaration signer believe(d) the scientific evidence demonstrates design. 6        The “God question” is central to the scientific thought and inquiry of Darwin, Einstein and every major historical scientist.  Yet many today pretend God is not a question for science, including some of the same “progressives” angry over the one-sidedness of talk radio.  To allow only one myopic viewpoint is to teach our children questioning what is true isn't relevant to education.        Modern evolutionists do in fact, address the “God question”.  Any theory assuming life is a result of "unguided" processes is pretending there is no God, non-verifiable and irrational. 7  Our extremely tiny window from inside an immense universal fishbowl can't possibly determine the universe is either not created or unguided.  Atheism has no more protection under the 1st Amendment than any other religion.  Is freedom of speech or science really being served when our children are taught only one grossly superstitious non-evidence based assumption? 8        The Encyclopedia Britannica and astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson freely admit science doesn't know how life came to be. 9  Life may predate our own sun.  Thus, it is an obvious lie to state life came about by "random”, “natural”, “unguided" processes, as Tyson grandly proclaims in the television series "Cosmos", without providing a shred of supporting evidence.  He later contradicts himself, saying scientists shouldn't be afraid to admit what they don't know.  If science doesn't know how life came to be, this is what we should teach our children. 9        Should we forbid Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Pasteur, Einstein and leading DNA expert Francis Collins to teach a public science class?  Or, should we instead, provide our children with a proper education based on a search for what is true, while fairly and objectively presenting an accurate overview of what various scientists actually believe the evidence demonstrates?        You decide. 10 { See Does Science Really Know What is True? for related information. } NOTES: 1. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica; articles on deism, history of the United States and various biographies of prominent 18th Century Americans.  It is a very great historical and scientific error to equate belief in God as the Creator of the universe, with the terms "religion" and "church", as if these are interchangeable terms meaning the same thing.  Which most unfortunately, is what the ACLU and many modern educators have an extremely myopic and dishonest habit of doing.  It is historically ludicrous to extrapolate these three distinct terms into pretending that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Washington and the other American founders would oppose free and open discussion of evidence for design in a public science classroom; especially Jefferson, long credited for the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly imply it is scientifically irrational to deny the universe is designed.  Every signer of the Declaration, by virtue of their signature, affirmed they believed the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates deliberate design, later in the same document asking for God as "Supreme Judge" to pro-actively bless the revolutionary cause. This is very clearly what the Declaration of Independence expressly says, whether the ACLU and modern so-called "progressives" like it or not. "Separation of church and state", a phrase used in private letters by Jefferson and Madison, clearly refers to separation of a institutional religion and state, the American founders being familiar with the Church of England (Jefferson's family religion) and the Roman Catholic Church.  There is no historical evidence this phrase in any way, shape or form refers to separation of God and state and, there is overwhelming evidence against such a conclusion, including in particular Jefferson's own subsequent words and actions (see note #4 below). Separation of God and state is absent as a concept from the writings of the American founders and for the most part, entirely absent from European and American 18th Century historical thought and reality. It can be easily demonstrated that it is historically irrational to try and separate some of what today are called the "ten commandments" from either American or any other society.  For example, what kind of society would we have if there were no laws against murder, theft or false witness?  Such laws and various so-called "golden rules" are found all over the historical map, obviously based on our designed shared human conscience, just like the Bible says and like Jefferson grandly echoes in the Declaration.  Few if any modern people pause to consider that "thou shalt not steal" can be accurately translated into modern English as "you shouldn't steal", something virtually all modern parents teach their children and, something routinely found in public schools as a written in stone rule of student conduct, for which students can be expelled for violating. The American founders are often very wrongly broad-brushed as being “deists”.  Only two key founders, Franklin and Paine, claimed to be deists (some historians say Paine also didn't claim to be a deist); most of the American founders claimed to be Christians.  European and American deists who believed in God did not support separation of God and state but rather, they supported the opposite.  Deism arose in Europe as a deliberate attempt to separate ideas of God from religious dogma, tradition and orthodoxy and instead, place ideas and free discussion about God under science, education and reason, the opposite of how separation of church and state is very wrongly applied today.  Jefferson claimed to hold his own private individual religion, as did Franklin.  Jefferson, as clearly stated in the Declaration and elsewhere in his writings, believed God intervenes within the affaris of humanity, as did Franklin, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Washingon and virtually all if not all of the American founders, which is not how deism is commonly defined today.  It is thus grossly misleading to broad-brush the American founders as being deists, even though Franklin claimed to be one. There are logical reasons why God is prominently featured in the Declaration, while not mentioned in the Constitution.  Unlike many religious leaders, scientists and other people of today, 18th Century deists and Christians tended to hold a far more humble view, that God is "Supreme Judge" over all governmental, scientific, educational and other human ideas and authority.  As such, it would be arrogant and improper to equate or otherwise mix God with human governing concepts like those found in the Constitution.  Nor would it have been fair to do so unless every 18th Century American shared the same view of God, which quite obviously they did not.  It is fair to say that several but by no means all of the American founders had both deist and Christian leanings, as deism was defined in the 18th Century, while none of them were "deists" as the term is commonly defined today.  Paul and several other authors of the Bible also held some views shared by 18th Century deists (which is undoubtedly where 18th Century deists got such views), while Jesus and the authors of the Bible share virtually nothing in common with modern conservative Christianity and little with any other form of Christianity.  History has a way of getting both language terminology and historical reality all mixed up and turned around and unfortunately, few modern people seem to be aware of this most obvious reality of human history. There is considerable historical evidence that in the intentions of the Constitutional framers, the term "Creator", as used in the Declaration of Independence, referred to God as the universal Creator and "Supreme Judge", above and beyond any and all organized and other religious, scientific, political and other ideas, theories, conceptions and authority.  And, that they viewed the evidence for creation as being beyond rational dispute, the opposite of what many modern so-called "educators" pretend they believed.  Paine, often wrongly labeled an atheist both today and in his own time, references his belief in God and ideas about God many times in his various writings.  The term "religion", deliberately chosen for the 1st Amendment, rather than God, most likely in this amendment refers to organized institutional religion, which is often what is intended when the same term is used today.  Separation of "church" and state, that is, separation of established brand of religion and state--separation of Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and state, Christianity, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc. and state--is a far different idea than separation of God and state, especially in the view of 18th Century deists. The majority of 17th-18th Century deists believed in God and tended to separate God from organized religion, viewing God as being above all human understanding, religion, science and reason; a view found prominently in the Declaration.  To teach or imply otherwise is a historical lie.  In the historical and cultural background experience of the American founders, European citizens were persecuted not only because they were not Catholic and later, because they were not Protestant, but often also because they adhered to the wrong brand of Protestantism and to a lesser degree, Catholicism.  At various times in European history, it was dangerous to be a Calvinist as opposed to a Lutheran Protestant or, an orthodox as opposed to a reformed Catholic.  And, it was often even more dangerous to be something other than Christian, like Jewish, Islamic or atheist. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, many Europeans who considered themselves deists believed in a pro-active God, while probably most of them tended to distrust organized religion.  There is no historical evidence that any of the American founders were either atheists or agnostics, nor is there any evidence the founders of the United States were "Deists" as the term is commonly understood today.  It is dishonest and historically misleading for modern educators to broad brush them as such, without clearly explaining that many deists in the 18th Century believed in a pro-active God who interacts with the affairs of humanity, as God is clearly portrayed in the Declaration.  Based on their own writings and actions, the American founders overwhelmingly believed in a pro-active God, while at the same time, some of them, in particular Thomas Paine, harbored strong suspicions of and distaste for organized religion. Belief in God apart from organized religion might fairly be an example of deism as understood in 18th Century Europe and America, but deism in the 18th Century did not equal belief in a non-proactive Creator or an embrace of atheism, as some modern educators and others pretend.  There is overwhelming evidence based on the subsequent known actions of the various Constitutional framers, that the 1st Amendment clearly intends for U.S. citizens to be able to freely express any view they personally believe, in any public science classroom, forum or other public place at any time, without fear of loss of life, liberty, economic or other recrimination; some might even correctly argue, in the view of the founders, this also extends to privately owned property anywhere within the borders of the United States.  If one desires any understanding of human history at all, it is important to understand that belief in organized religion is not the same as belief in God in the teachings and writings of many prominent historical people, including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, the New Testament Paul and Jesus himself. The incredibly narrow-minded and regressive ACLU notion of "separation of church and state", referenced only in private correspondence by Jefferson and Madison, is as far away from both of their various writings and subsequent actions as the East is from the West.  Freedom of speech to both of them, based on their own writings and actions, very clearly means that one can freely express a personal religious or any other viewpoint anywhere, at anytime, without fear of recrimination of any kind whatsoever.  Modern intellectuals who pretend discussing evidence for God in a public classroom is against the intent of the 1st Amendment, are purveyors of tyranny, fascism and historical fraud, demonstrating no understanding of the 1st Amendment, the American founders themselves, freedom of speech or freedom of anything else.  It is against human rights for any human being to at any time or in any way, to attempt to suppress any other human being's personal religious or other fundamental view. Freedom of speech means "free" to speak without fear of recrimination of any kind, just as it implies.  It makes sense that in a science class, we can't teach everybody's opinion, just as in a history class we can't include a biography of every American citizen.  However, it is neither Constitutional nor does it make any rational sense at all, to allow what some scientists and educators believe the evidence indicates, while suppressing what many other equally or greater credentialed scientists and educators believe.  If we had true separation of church and state in the United States, there would be no tax exemptions for religious organizations.  And, if we had true separation of church and state, both the view of scientists and educators who believe in deliberate design and, the view of those who do not, would be included in public school science textbooks. There is very strong evidence that both Jefferson and Madison were in direct opposition to the government granting tax exemptions to religious organizations, which is what the ACLU and AUSCS should be loudly campaigning against, if they really want to support the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Education theoretically is supposed to provide a fair representative cross-section of what various credentialed authorities believe and, the history of science includes the biographies and beliefs of major historical scientists.  Belief in creation based on the evidence is not a minority non-scientific viewpoint, when 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American educators claim to believe in God, when virtually every major historical scientist believed in God and, when every signer of the Declaration of Independence agrees.  Even if only one scientist or educator believes the evidence demonstrates design, he or she has every right under the 1st Amendment to freely express that view in a public science classroom, when possessing equal or greater teaching credentials.  The ACLU has neither the authority, right or credentials to decide for the rest of us what science is or is not.  And, the ACLU has neither the right nor the credentials to pretend that "God is not a question for science", when Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, Darwin, Einstein and Francis Collins very clearly, based on their own words and actions, all believe God is a central question for science.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins has publicly stated the "God question" is central to all of science. It is historically dishonest and scientifically irrational to pretend that belief in God equals either religion in general or institutional religion, as if what people claim about God equals how God really is and, as if there was no distinction made by Jesus, Paul, Socrates, Jefferson, Einstein and a host of other historically influential people, between God and religion.  In particular, it is dishonest to pretend that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams and the rest of the prominent American founders were atheists, agnostics or believed in a God who doesn't interact with human affairs, the opposite of how God is portrayed in the Declaration of Independence and their subsequent letters and speeches.  For more information about 17th-18th Century deism, separation of church and state and historical errors due to changing definitions of human language over time, see Can Charles Darwin be Trusted? Notes 1 and 2. 2. Source: In Search of America; Peter Jennings and Todd Brewster. 3. Source: America's Three Regimes; Morton Keller. 4. There are many sources on the web and in various encyclopedias, historical volumes and other sources containing the written words of Thomas Jefferson.  In his own words, Jefferson clearly distinguishes between belief in God and institutional religion,  Jefferson also plainly draws a distinction between Jesus and Christianity.  There is overwhelming evidence within the body of his own writings, that Jefferson viewed belief in God as being distinct from religion in general and "church", that is institutional religion, in particular.  From selected references posted on the atheistic Humanist website, according to Jefferson, “I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus". . . [ the teachings of Jesus are ] "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man". . . [Jefferson urged] "getting back to the plain and unsophisticated precepts of Christ". . . {Jefferson invoked the blessings of] “that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe". . . [in his second inaugural address, he sought the blessings] “of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life.”  According to historian Steven Waldman “Jefferson was not a true deist". . ."Jefferson believed in a God who intervened in the course of history". . .“He was anti-Christian and pro-Jesus." Source. Suffice it to say, however right or wrong Jefferson personally was about God is not relevant to this discussion.  However, what Jefferson and Madison meant by separation of "church" and state is highly relevant to our American 21st Century reality.  It is a gross violation of human rights, freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment, to deny the right of a scientist, educator or anyone else to freely express in a public science classroom or anywhere else within the borders of the United States, what they personally believe the historical and scientific evidence demonstrates.  This is clearly the view of Thomas Jefferson; whether someone believes in no God or twenty gods, either way they have an irrevocable right endowed by our Creator to say so, superseding our myopic Supreme Court, inadequate and historically backward 'educational' system, the ACLU, AUSCS and any and all other authority, self-annointed or otherwise. 5. Unbiased surveys conducted by Rice University taking a large statistical sampling of over 2000 American scientists of all kinds, combined with surveys conducted by the University of Chicago and elsewhere, report that about 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American educators believe in God. Rice University Survey; Chicago University Survey. Some polls found on the web reporting smaller percentages are obviously biased and agenda driven rather than being legitimate surveys.  For example, one poll asks a sampling of scientists if they belong to a religion and, everyone that checked "no" was labeled as being atheist.  Those who conduct polls generally agree that a fair cross-discipline sampling of at least 1000 scientists from all over the world is necessary for any hope of reasonable accuracy as far as determining what scientists in general believe.  Yet another poll asks a small sampling of 500 hardcore British Darwinian biologists if they believe in God and then concludes based on such an obviously biased sampling, that only a small percentage of scientists on a global level believe in God.  Another survey asks scientists if they believe in either creation or evolution, offering no third option for the many scientists who believe in both.  These are obviously biased agenda-driven surveys, rather than surveys seeking legitimate results. An unbiased survey would ask a large statistical cross-discipline of scientists from various nations around the globe the question straight up, "do you believe in God", yes or no, without any mention of religion, evolution, creation or any other language added.  Apparently based on legitimate surveys, the majority of scientists in the world either believe in God, claim to not know or be undecided or otherwise, don't wish to address the question.  Only a small minority of scientists and likewise, a small minority of people in general on a global level, are great enough liars to say there is no God, as if they somehow would know and, the rest of us are all "delusional" for daring to challenge such gross superstition.  The majority of scientists once believed that disease spontaneously arises from piles of rat excrement and other garbage.  Atheists who openly scorn such a view today would have us believe that the entire universe spontaneously arose, as if they haven't learned a damned thing from the superstitious assumptions of their predecessors. Many educated people who believe in God don't belong to an organized religion, while most scientists when asked if they believe in either creation or evolution will check evolution, assuming the alternative is in reference to fundamentalist creationism.  Apparently, based on legitimate surveys like those noted above, it appears that 40% of scientists on a global level claim to believe in God when asked the question straight up with no qualifying factors, while many are agnostic or otherwise don't wish to mix their personal beliefs with their scientific opinion (which isn't the same as being agnostic).  Scientists who are truly atheists apparently remain a relatively small minority, unlike many polls posted on various atheist websites pretend.  This NY Times article details how large and diverse non-affiliated belief in God has become in the modern world: Religion Defies Easily Identified Patterns.  It is rarely considered but should always be remembered that scientists, like the rest of us, represent a great diversity of opinions and conclusions based on the same historical and scientific evidence. 6. World leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins, who was appointed by President Obama as director of the National Institutes of Health, effectively making him the leading American scientist, claims to believe in God and evolution.  Collins has publicly stated that modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes. Several of his peers who also believe in God are members of the Biologos Foundation; see Francis Collins: Biologos Foundation.  While this particular foundation mainly represents a minority Christian view, belief in God is widespread among modern scientists, as noted by the polls linked in #4 above.  Apparently, the vast majority of scientists who believe in God also believe in evolution, believing evolution is a human interpretation of how the larger grand design Creation functions. It should be noted that anyone who believes in God by default believes in some form of intelligent design.  Americans are easily and often deceived by those who deliberately confuse scientific evidence-based belief in grand design with so-called "intelligent design" theories and fundamentalist "creationism", which are not at all the same thing.  In the television series Cosmos for example, astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson fails to make any such distinction, nor does he even bother to mention that many of his modern peers believe in both God and evolution.  Such a white-washing and gross misrepresentation of the facts regarding what many modern scientists actually believe represents a gross injustice to the American and global general public population.  Whether the universe is designed and/or evolutionary theory is correct is not an "either/or" question.  Rather, modern evolutionary theory at best, represents a very partial and incomplete understanding of God's grand design.  Although this view is shared by Darwin, Einstein and many modern scientists, it's absence from the television series Cosmos speaks volumes regarding the incredible bias of modern American education. 7. Astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, in the television series "Cosmos", arbitrarily pulls several rabbits out of a dubious black hole hat, randomly inventing terms like "random, blind, unguided, natural" processes, without bothering to provide a single shred of supporting evidence.  In the very next segment, he contradicts himself by stating science doesn't know how life came to be and, scientists shouldn't be afraid to admit what they do not know.  Any grade school child might fairly ask, if science doesn't know how life came to be, then how does Mr. Tyson know that life is a result of "random, blind, unguided, natural" processes?  If nothing else, Mr. Tyson has managed to clearly demonstrate beyond all rational doubt, that modern science is deliberately pushing blind faith baseless belief in gross atheistic superstition, indoctrinating both our children and the general public at large with the worst kind of non-evidence based propaganda of magically appearing universes (no small wonder such baseless propaganda is featured on Fox Television). Not very long ago, the majority of scientists believed that disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement.  Not content with learning anything from such a dubious mis-assumption, today many scientists would have us believe the entire universe spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, as if motion, energy, light, intelligence, conscious awareness, along with zillions upon zillions upon more zillions of parts within parts, all somehow working together to eventually produce life as we know it, just somehow randomly appeared--self-created and self-selected on up and beyond the big bang chain of events, from some unknown pre-universal, completely inexplicable and entirely coincidental, random chance starting point. Why would anyone draw such a conclusion and, what supporting evidence do they have? Mr. Tyson seems like a nice enough man who sincerely wants to help save our planet and the people on it, but sincerity doesn't necessarily equal what is true.  Mr. Tyson says that "science is true" but if science is true, why is what science teaches today so much different than what I was taught in school?  I can't speak for Isaac Newton, but perhaps Newton might inquire of our science today, as to how a re-action can occur without any Primary action.  Newton might be puzzled as to why modern science would assume the least obvious rather than the most obvious, assume that somehow, motion can arise from non-motion, energy from no energy and, light from no light, rather than accepting what to him seemed to be obvious, that they neither can nor did.  Why would anyone assume such a least likely position and, what evidence do they have? One cannot honestly hide behind claims of random appearing particles or random motion arising from non-motion within quantum fields.  Whatever can be detected in quantum fields or anywhere else in the universe, is a "result" of the big bang or however the universe came into being and thus, by definition whatever we can observe or detect within the universal reality is not random, nor can it rationally be demonstrated to be random.  Such apparent randomness has also been explained by some quantum theorists as particles traveling in and out of dimensions we cannot detect and thus, only appears to be "random" from our three-dimensional plus time viewpoint.  It gets more and more difficult to be an atheist or agnostic, the deeper down one digs into the bottomless black hole sewer of such baseless inventions. It is of significance to note here that not long ago, it was discovered micro-organisms routinely "harvest" DNA from dead organisms outside of themselves and incorporate it into their own DNA.  This single finding throws a very big monkey wrench into long-held assumptions of “random” mutations assumed by the theory of evolution, as this could explain that changes which seem to be “random” are in reality, not random at all.  According to a scientist who was part of this discovery, “That DNA from dead organisms drives the evolution of living cells is in contradiction with common belief of what drives the evolution of life itself." This adds to the growing pile of genetic evidence that what is called natural selection is only one of several reasons why life adapts and changes. Besides what is noted in the article linked below, this new evidence adds a whole new wrinkle into theories of disease and disease origins and why disease exists and persists within a theoretically advantage driven system.  For example, if bacteria living within us make changes to their own genome that result in us having to battle a new strain of disease, this could in turn cause us to have seemingly “random” mutations, eventually leading to what science classifies as a “new” species.  And if viruses can do similar to bacteria, God only knows what seemingly “random” mutations might occur on up the chain of larger forms of plant and animal life. These implications are fundamentally important to the entire theory and concept of evolution by natural selection, which has long assumed far too much without supporting evidence.  To observe changes and then conclude they are “random” requires a great deal of blind faith that many scientists criticize others for having, not to mention it contradicts the entire notion of our universe beginning with a big bang; if our universe began with a bang, everything that follows is by definition, not random.  From lowly viruses and bacteria to ants, spiders and other insects, it is often the little creatures and small parts of matter acting like they supposedly should not, that manage to confound and humble the wise. Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA "Junk" DNA Apparently Not Junk After All Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Why DNA Without Intelligence is Irrational Cambrian Explosion: The Failure of Darwin's Theory Darwinian Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator New Evidence Shaking Darwin's Tree The astounding, strange and infinitely wondrous mathematical universal grand design, unusual properties of water and other fairly recent science are displayed in detail at the following links.  Many scientists who once assumed that evolution by natural selection is adequate, are now having second, third, fourth and far more thoughts.  Some scientists have publicly stated that Darwin is on his way out the door, similar perhaps to how the theories of Einstein significantly surpassed and supplanted those of Isaac Newton.  DNA is far more complex than previously assumed and it would seem that the deeper one digs, the more complex the functionality of life reveals itself to be: NOVA Video: The Great Math Mystery Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio) The Wonder of Water: interesting short video Unusual Properties of Water Molecules Speed of Light Might Not Be Constant Speed of Light Might Not be Maximum Speed DNA Far More Complex Than Previously Assumed Just a Little of the Difficulty in Understanding the Quantum Reality Random Chance Probability of a Single Protein Forming 8. There is a difference between a teacher stating his or her opinion, as opposed to a teacher pretending their opinion is scientific fact.  Based on the 1st Amendment, a public school teacher should not be allowed to present their personal opinion as the official U.S. school system version on any subject to their students.  However, every public school teacher should be allowed to freely express their own personal opinions regarding any and every subject, as well as every student should be granted the same freedom.  That is very clearly, what the 1st Amendment guarantees.  If and when, enough Americans decide that the 1st Amendment needs to be revised, there is a process left in place by the Constitutional framers to either modify or re-write it entirely.  The Constitution is not subject to arbitrary private interpretation and editing, just because certain modern intellectual Neanderthals are unhappy with the freedom it allows. Virtually no geologic or fossil record exists for the first 3-400 million years of the earth's existence, when life is theorized to have first arisen in some unknown form.  Modern scientific speculation ranges from life arriving here on asteroids or comets, to life appearing first in the ocean, in caves, in or near fresh water, in clay and even perhaps, first under the earth's surface.  Some scientists believe what causes life to form may be very common rather than rare and that life may be able to appear where ever there is a little wetness; others speculate that the earth was originally shrouded in a thick cloud cover and the subsequent "greenhouse" effect was conducive to the formation of life and thus, the earth is no longer conducive to original life forming. According to the Britannica article, "Evolution", modern science doesn't know how, when, where or why life first arose on earth, or what form it took.  This agrees with astronomer Neil Tyson noted above and many other modern scientists.  The process of how life arose on this planet is unknown and, many scientists now believe life probably predates our own sun. Whether life arose from a single primary source or several, hundreds, trillions or zillions of primary sources, is also unknown.  It is believed that the early earth was bombarded by untold millions of "space rock" objects.  Thus, if life itself or the building blocks of life arrived via such objects, life may have been seeded all over the earth, rather than arising from a single primary source as most evolutionists have long assumed.  And, life may well have originated in diverse places anyway, even if external solar objects weren't part of the process. Some scientists say life may have arisen several times, died out and then arisen again.  The truth is, SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW and, the truth is what American educators and textbooks should be teaching our children.  Any and all current theories regarding the origin of life on Planet Earth are entirely speculative, not scientifically proven or most probably, ever provable.  There is no general scientific or other consensus, nor should students ever be taught that there is.  If life existed elsewhere in the universe prior to our own sun, then there is no such thing as life ever having "evolved" on earth from scratch.  For all we know, life may have existed prior to our current universe and, life may continue to exist forever and ever, long after our universe has "passed away".  For more information, see Does Science Really Know What is True? Modern intellectuals and others who pretend that there is some sort of unified scientific theory on the origin of life are plainly liars.  Educators who believe we should lie to our children, rather than tell them modern science doesn't really know, should be forced out of their profession so they can't harm our children any more than they already have.  Because many people holding degrees in science and education believe the universe is designed, while others holding such degrees believe it is a result of chance, this is what we should tell our children.  If there is no general consensus or proven or provable theory, this is what we should tell our children.  To teach them anything else is to deliberately lie to our own offspring, the hope of our future. Education is not about including every origin theory in a science class, anymore than it is about including the biography of every American in a history class.  However, education is most definitely about including diverse theories and opinions that are held by prominent scientists, just as education is about including the biographies of prominent Americans like Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and others, who clearly disagreed with each other regarding many fundmental issues and beliefs.  If 50% of American scientists or even, if only 10% believe in God, then free discussion of evidence for design belongs in every United States public science classroom.  The 1st Amendment clearly guarantees a fair representation of both majority and minority viewpoints. 9. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Evolution”, science doesn't know how, when, where, why or in what form life arose on earth.  The article “Virus” concludes, in regards to viruses alone, science knows almost nothing compared to what there is yet to learn.  Scientists generally agree how life originally came to be remains "one of the greatest mysteries" of modern science.  Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson states many times in various public science videos that science doesn't know how, where or why life first came into existence and, that scientists shouldn't be afraid to freely admit what they don't know. Perhaps another one of the greatest mysteries of modern science remaining, is why anyone claiming to be a scientist while publicly admitting they don't know how life came to be, would randomly invent out of thin air or otherwise, pull out of a black hole rabbit hat and then use on unsuspecting students and the general public at large, terminology such as "unguided", "entirely random", "naturally selects", "self-designing", "unguided processes", "blind processes", "mindless evolution", "unguided evolution", "no breeder", "natural selection" and, various and sundry similar phrasing having no foundation in evidence and undoubtedly now and forever more, scientifically and otherwise non-verifiable.  For supporting links and further information, please see Does Science Know What is Really True?. 10. Because we don't understand God does not mean, as many atheists pretend, that we can't know there is a God who cares, any more than a small child needs to fully understand their parents before the child can believe that they care.  And, regardless of what Einstein or any scientist believes or what every modern scientist believes, the historical track record of what human beings call "science" clearly demonstrates that what science believes does not equal what is true as, what science believes today is more often than not, gone with the shifting winds of evidence verses human assumption and fallibility, tomorrow. See Does Science Really Know What is True? for many links to recently discovered science evidence and related information. Click Here to Go Back to Contents Click Here to eMail the Author Copyright © December 10th, 2019 by Richard Aberdeen. Copyright © December 10th, 2019 by Freedom Tracks Records. ( including from several earlier copyrights ) No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. For inquiries, please contact Freedom Tracks Records.  The essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.