Thoughts from “Expelled”, The Scientist, Religion, and the State

I recently watched the movie “Expelled”. This movie is about systematic removal of teaching alternative views to evolution from public schools. Ben Stein presents a good case. Preaching evolution in government institutions goes beyond political correctness, science, and our first amendment.

The present day governmental line is that we cannot teach other forms of human origins other than evolution, because it would violate the constitution. The government would then be adopting a religious stance.

However, the constitutional framers were believers of a deity, but were careful not to cater to one denomination or faith. Things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” should be a clue. I reference that famous quote from the Declaration of Independence not because it shows our forefathers were creationists, but rather they were believers in God.

What has changed is the “separation of church and state” argument (which by the way is not in the constitution, but rather an evolved interpretation that has recently been twisted by those who are atheists). The removal of a concept of God from our learning institutions has in fact forced the government to violate our first amendment right by adopting a very specific state religion, atheism.

Here is my proof.

Scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, was one of the scientists offering an opposing view (pro-evolution) in the movie “Expelled”. He is a professed atheist. His approach to God is that you cannot prove God exists. His conclusion therefore is that God doesn’t exist. I have a problem with this biased way of scientific logic. The scientist must always be agnostic when approaching the concept of God. If one cannot offer proof to a hypothesis, it simply means that the proof may not be measurable at that time or an experiment has yet to be devised to offer proof. So, to say that there is no God actually takes faith, faith that no experiment or data can be produced that God exists.

I ask Mr. Dawkins and all atheists. Show me proof there is no God. They can’t. As a deist and scientist one cannot make the logic mistake the atheists do by claiming the antithesis to their conclusion using the same data; since you cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then God exists.

Therefore, when examining the debate of the existence of God and more specifically the application of Dawkin's logic, atheism and theism both require faith (some would argue in that the deist usually expresses that they have had some sort of encounter with God providing them with personal proof).

We should be asking our government; why have you violated the first amendment by adopting atheism as the state religion and expunging the concept of God from our institutions? Don’t the first amendment words cry out this present day constitutional violation, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?

By removing creation (or maybe more generally panspermia) from the classroom as other hypotheses as to our origin, the state violates the first part of the first amendment by establishing atheism (or minimally advocating it). They violate the following amendment statement by prohibiting through law the "free exercise thereof" by refusing to allow the deist the freedom of debate.