Evolution/Misunderstanding of Establishment Clause

The controversy over the teaching of creationism vs. the scientific theory of evolution shows the lack of understanding by many people about evolution. Evolution isn't an "atheist religion." A majority of Americans believe evolution is true, but only about 10 percent of society considers themselves atheist or agnostic. Evolution doesn't assume God doesn't exist; it is a set of statements based on evidence in the fossil record, on the geological strata, on morphology, rates of genetic mutations over time that are fairly constant along with other evidence.A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory.
Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories. Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.


Establishment Clause Misunderstanding, letter

I found the recent letter by Jack Chesney about the First Amendment very interesting. He states, "Government can neither encourage or discourage religion, it must be completely neutral." I agree, the government should not take the view of supporting the idea that there is a God, with the slogan that we are a nation "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or on our currency.Not only are we told there is a God, but we are told indeed we as a nation are under this God. I wonder if this God is aware that we are under him.
I would oppose just as strongly any hypothetical pledge with the words that we are a "nation, under no God." The Pledge of Allegiance and our currency should leave any idea of God's existence or not out of it. Allow individuals to add whatever words they want while reciting our pledge if they so wish.Mr. Chesney then states, "When an agency of government acts to allow the building of a mosque, it is in violation of the First Amendment because it is encouraging the 'establishment' of a religion." Mr. Chesney seems to think that respecting the rights of Muslims to practice their religion by building places of worship that the government is encouraging a religion.Under that same logic, the government should ban the building of churches to stop an "establishment" of religion. Now, if he meant if the government was actually building or paying for the mosques, he would have an argument about a violation of the establishment clause.That is not happening, though.

Another quote of his, "When a school board decides that "Silent Night" shall not be allowed in a school program, it is discouraging a traditional religious custom, a clear violation of the First Amendment."I believe that schools should have songs like "Silent Night" along with songs from different religious traditions in the schools.It makes for a culturally diverse and interesting celebration of the holidays.It is not, though, a violation of the First Amendment because a public school is a part of the government, not of private citizens or a private organization.The free exercise clause is meant to protect people from the violation of their rights by the government, not a protection of the government from the government. Religious traditions do not have a right to be reinforced by the government, even if that government is just a local school.