A simple, one-sentence bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee on an 8-2 bi-partisan vote yesterday afternoon. However, the emotions and reactions to Senate Bill 89 are much larger than one might expect from such a simple bill. SB 89 has virtually no impact upon education unless a local school chooses to endure the scorn of the far left and educational elites. The bill has a long way to go before becoming law, but this fact won't prevent heated debates over its implications.
The bill states that a school corporation may choose to allow the teaching of other origin of life theories including creation science. This would allow alternatives to the theory of evolution presented and discussed. Based upon the reaction this bill will generate, you'll probably be surprised to learn that 200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin and the total domination of his theory being taught in public schools as fact for decades, only one-in-four Americans say that they believe in evolution.
I find the vocal opposition to this bill interesting. If evolution is true and creation is just so ridiculous, then what is the worry? If all the scientific facts support evolution, then truth will easily prevail, right? It reminds me of William F. Buckley's political observation, "though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view."
I was thinking of this topic a while back. Have you ever wondered why God created women? (This is not the start of a joke.) God made Adam, gave him tasks and later made a helpmate for him. Why was it a woman? Why not another man? Obviously we would say because of reproduction, but that's due to our view now. It seems perfectly logical to us. Yet, God could have replicated Adam and all men thereafter through another manner. God is God and can do things however He chooses. Thankfully, God made woman and complimented men and women in different ways to go together for a unique and important complimentary union, which is the foundation for marriage.
Along similar lines, it is interesting how many people embrace evolutionary theory and the belief that homosexuality is inborn, unchangeable or preset without realizing the contradiction in these views. Passing along a "gay" over time, serving no survival of the fittest purposes or human needs flies in the face of Darwinian theory. As an article published in the British Medical Journal, written by a Columbia University Department of Medical Genetics professor noted, "Support for a genetic hypothesis is further complicated by cultural and evolutionary considerations . . . From an evolutionary perspective genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction. Thus the purported linkage stands in apparent contradiction to the flimsy genetic and epidemiological evidence . . . A single gene or a particular genetic mechanism is unlikely to explain most of the variance in a phenomenon as complex as sexual orientation."
