Author: Doug Sharp
Subject: Social Issues
A judge’s decision at Dover, Pennsylvania that forbids the mention of intelligent design
in science classrooms is yet another example of the dilemma that Christian parents face in
public education. One of the mandates of our faith is to bring our children up in the
knowledge of God. According to the scriptures, if we fail to do so, our children will face
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do these things which are not convenient:
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of
envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:28-32.
The current situation in the public school where the only worldview taught is naturalistic
evolution creates a condition of discriminatory harassment. This is against the law in
most states and we believe that the civil rights of Christians are being violated. Since
teachers in the public school are forbidden to mention God or teach science with the
possibility of investigating origins related to God, they create a situation where the
religion of atheism or other religions that have evolution as a tenet of their faith have an
advantage over Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God, and believe that
their origin was from special creation by an intelligent designer. Christians who do not
believe in evolution are required to subsidize schools that do through taxation. If a
Christian wants to fulfill their Biblical command to bring up their children in the
knowledge of God and teach them the scientific evidence against evolution, they must
pay tuition to a private school. These schools also face the problem that many of the
potential teachers for their children are brought up in a public school or university that
discriminates against those who wish to question evolution, and are unprepared to teach
science from a Biblical perspective.
For the most part, Christians do not like to accuse others of discriminatory harassment.
They figure that it is a poor witness of their faith to retaliate or go to the law when they
receive abuse. Furthermore, many Christians do not understand the extent of the damage
that is done to a child when they are taught that their origin is not from God, but from
random physical processes. Many Christian suppress the issue in their mind, and some
think that it is possible to believe in the Bible and evolution, too. But this kind of
compromise results in a theology that is vastly different from that taught in the Bible. The
fact that some people say that you can believe in God and evolution too does not negate
the fact that there are those who disagree. And if we are forbidden to reveal evidence that
demonstrates that evolution is untrue, that is discrimination.
Here are some further examples:
1. State universities refusing to admit home school students because they may
have been taught creation science.
2. Universities refusing to accept credits from other institutions that teach
3. Biology professors who give students bad grades because they believe in
creation or are Christians.
4. Secular, tax-sponsored publications that will not publish creationist material.
5. Christian science teachers who are refused positions in public schools.
6. Science professors who are denied tenure or lose their jobs because they speak
openly about their faith in God.
7. Science editors fired or demoted because they publish material on creation or
In Michigan and Oklahoma, bills have been introduced that protect teachers from this
type of discrimination in the name of academic freedom. I believe that this is the only fair
thing to do, and we must realize that a teacher does not necessarily represent the state, but
is free as an individual to air his own opinions as long as he states it as such. This goes
for any person of any religion.