Corruption

A February 1999 Gallup poll asked respondents whether they would or would not vote for a candidate based on certain characteristics. Atheists were the least preferred group, with nearly 50% of respondents saying that they would not vote for an atheist. This even led homosexuals, who were trailing around 37%.

There is no question that the United States is truly a nation under god: according to one study, 81% of Americans identify themselves with a particular religion, and 75.6% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. These numbers are, of course, declining over time, and this has led to the cultural divide that has caused controversy over such issues as abortion and homosexual rights. Most of these issues have arguments on both sides that are dynamic and not entirely based on religious dogma. On one particular issue however, the Christian fundamentalist forces are blatently flawed, and the effects of their ignorance are damaging the intelligence of children today. This contention is, of course, over the teaching of evolution and creationism in public science classes. The drive for creationism to be a part of public education in this country is still quite strong, and anti-evolution sentiment is passionate. This has led to new renditions of creationism, such as "intelligent design," which seek to sneak into public education by espousing the same fundamentals of the Christian beliefs of creation, while bypassing the Establishment Clause by simply not making reference to the Bible. With the alleged ideal of allowing students to get "both sides" of the "arugment," these initiatives have been somewhat successful.

The irony of the dispute is that there really isn't any scientific "argument" at all, as creationists posit. Virtually no biologists of any kind believe in creationist theory. Therein lies the inherent contradiction of creationist unreason. There is absolutely no logical reason for creationism being taught in science classes, regardless of whether it is even true or not. Science is the process of drawing generalizations from observed phenomena. Creationism does not do this. Creationism explains absolutely NO observed phenomena. It is mostly incompatible with natural observations. Since it is based in the supernatural, it is fundamentally impossible to determine whether it is right or wrong, so we must go on how well it explains empirical data. Evolutionary theories are not perfect, but they do a far, far superior job explaining nature. Creationism explains nothing because it's not science. And nonscience should not be taught in a class dedicated to science. Furthermore, the teaching of Biblical creationism would effectively constitute an act of state-endoresement, prohibited by both the "endorsement test" established by the Supreme Court in 1985 in Wallace v. Jaffee. It would also breach the "wall of separation" between the church and state and arguably fail the Lemon test established by the Court in 1971 by the ruling Lemon v. Kurtzman.

There is this odd tendency throughout history for religious fundamentalists to be proven wrong, time after time. There's another odd tendency for the "rabid secularists," atheists, and scientists to be proven correct, time after time. I find it rather perplexing.