The Teaching of Evolution

The Teaching of Evolution

   .
     Why do arguments about the teaching of  Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as well as objections to it, in public schools never seem to resolve the question of what we mean when we say teaching Evolution?  Do we mean teaching that Evolution is a true and accurate explanation of man's existence to the exclusion of other lines of inquiry?  Or do we simply mean telling students that Evolution theories do exist, which is true, what they are, that many scientists accept them as probably true, but that they are not undisputed by other accredited scientists, which is also true?  Are the Evolutionists such fanatics that they will not entertain the thought that some people, even Charles Darwin himself, have problems with Evolution?  Has there ever been another scientific theory, at least within the past 500 years, which has enjoyed such a privileged status?  Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity can be questioned, despite the fact that it, unlike Evolution, is universally accepted in the scientific community. Why does the presentation of the simple fact that some fully accredited scientists question what is purported to be a scientific theory violate the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment?   How?  How can an argument be religious when God is not mentioned or even alluded to?
     The late Fred Hoyle was an English cosmologist, a fully credentialed scientists and the man who originated the phrase "Big Bang".  He was an atheist, at least at one time, which would satisfy the Evolutionists until they are told that Hoyle said that the chances of a human being existing without a designer would be about the same as the chance that a tornado would roar through a junk yard and leave behind it a Boeing 747.
      Even when religion is introduced into the mix, one can adhere to almost any particular religion, or no religion, while believing one or the other, or all, of the Design explanations. Fred Hoyle himself was not a Christian when he offered his airplane-in-a-junkyard analogy.  Merely because something --- even the Big Bang itself --- may tend to support religion as far as it goes does not mean that telling students that Evolution does not enjoy unanimous scientific support is the teaching of religion in any sense.  (Even if you buy into the argument that it is teaching about religion it should not cause a reasonable person any problem.  The imprint of the world's religions on secular history is undeniable).  Religion depends on the concurrence of divine and natural causes.  Even an atheist can question Evolution, and some probably do.  How can the mere questioning of a scientific theory, on scientific grounds, amount to an "establishment of religion" in violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment?
     My own view is that the "argument" is more political and ideological  than anything else.  Nearly all Evolutionist fanaticism is advanced from the left because leftists are pragmatists --- if it works it's OK --- and religion, including anything which remotely supports it, is grounded in principle, in right and wrong as absolute categories by decree of God.  To the left, morality itself evolves.  That's why leftists are so fond of the idea of a "living Constitution", as distinguished from a Constitution which is what it is until amended.  Also, leftists crave power, and power cannot be absolute if it is checked by the commands of a desinging and creative God.