CREATION &

 FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS


Early in 1992, Institute for Creation Research, ICR .won a stunning victory in Federal Court. The state of California had attempted to close the ICR Graduate School, branding those who believed in creation as non-scientists regardless of their scientific credentials and accomplishments.


But, by God’s grace and with His help, we eventually won three court battles reestablishing Christian/ereationist education on a strong legal foundation.


Today, June 2002, many Christian schools and even attorneys are unaware of this precedent-setting ruling and its benefits for all Christian schools.


Thus, the time seems right for a rehearsal of the events and details of the ruling of this important case.


The ICR Graduate School was founded in 1981 and given official state “approval” to operate in July. As it grew in size and matured in quality it pursued “accreditation” from the Transnational Association of Christian Schools


Its influence through publications, debates, and research was widening. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to us various doctrinaire anti-creationists (i.e., anti- Christian also) launched an international campaign to stifle the Institute and its Graduate School, viewed by Isaac Asimov as “public enemy number one.


Rightly assuming that a strong creation movement gives “credibility” to Christianity and dangerously weakens evolutionist control over America’s world-vicw they stacked the files of the Department of Public Instruction in Sacramento with what one state employee called a “two-foot thick stack of outrage” against us.


Chief perpetrator was Superintendent of Public Instruction, Bill Honig, darling of the teacher unions and political left in general.


At this same time, Honig was recruiting prominent evolutionists to produce California’s new ~‘science framework” for teaching science in the public schools.


This document aggressively integrated evolution throughout the entire curriculum and has led to similar documents across the country. It led to the uproar in Kansas in 1999, for instance, and is the basis for the current argument in Ohio. A masterpiece of propaganda and deceit it has done incalculable harm. . A major offensive against Christianity was underway and they felt ICR, with its bevy of very strong arguments and qualified spokesmen, had to be silenced.


In August of 1988 a team of scientists arrived at ICR to evaluate our application for the state’s newly mandated “re-approval.” Even though the team was very predominantly evolutionist, including one outspoken evolutionist who had asked to he on the team even though he had contributed to the “two-foot stack” mentioned above, they voted 3 to 2 in favor of re-approval. Two months later Honig pressured one member to change his vote and announced to the press that we had been denied by a 3 to 2 vote. Closure loomed!


Honig demanded that we take all creation teaching out of our classrooms. But, we are a private Christian school which had never taken one dime of public money. How could they do this?


In an attempt to survive without a lawsuit, we bent as far as we could hut reused to buckle. Honig sent another team in August of 1989 to “verify” that creation was no longer a part of our curriculum. A team of five investigators was hand-chosen, four of whom were nationally known anti-creationists. They were accompanied by a state lawyer and two anti—creation education bureaucrats, One of whom was well known in humanist circles . Needless to say they voted 4 to 1 and issued , in their words, “the death penalty” on ICR’s Graduate School.


Coincidentally. ICR’s pursuit of full accreditation through TRACS was successful in February of 1990. The TRACS team, fully aware of state scrutiny of ICR, was extremely rigorous in their evaluation, and found ICR’s ;teaching of the highest caliber.


Obviously, the problem with the state was of perspective, not of quality. The state was not merely withdrawing our accreditation, they were denying our right to exist regardless of quality and were beginning to squeeze other Christian schools in the state also . Perhaps they expected us to simply accept this ruling and close, but in May of 1990, after every other avenue was exhausted, we filed a lawsuit in Federal Court claiming abridgement of our religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and civil rights.


 Soon similar suits were filed in State District Court and Administrative Law Court, dealing with violation of the State Law and its Education Code, citing numerous improper actions and unprecedented and perhaps illegal “dirty tricks” on the part of the state administrators and lawyers.


Motions to dismiss the case were rejected by each judge in each case, and ICR proceeded to depose employees of the Education Department, visiting committee menibers, and intervening advocates. Our case, which seemed so strong, was buttressed by documentation of wrong doing and bigotry on the part of the state.


Each appearance before the Court was ruled in ICR’s favor and soon our approval had been reinstated and the negative reports thrown out. All that remained was thc Federal lawsuit, testing whether or not a state regulatory body can require a private school to hold a particular state-mandated philosophy.


Sensing great deléat and embarrassing public disclosure, the state attorney offered to settle out of court. We refused. We insisted on a formal “declarative judgment” which would have national application and very strong precedent. A wonderfully deep and wide ruling resulted which stands as firm testament to God’s sovereign power and His gracious aiiswer to prayer.


The ruling is reproduced in its entirety in the Back to Genesis” sectioil of this Acts & Facts. However, let me call your attention to a lew points in particular.


Point C: Allows any private school to design its curriculum and course content as it desires.


Point E: A private school may specify statements of belief and purpose and use them as a guideline br hiring faculty and accepting students.


Point F: Specifically reaffirms that First Amendment rights extend to Christiaii

schools.


Point G. Private schools may teach creation as correct. Also required is education in evolution. This was at Honig’s insistence, but it would be irresponsible for a school not to teach about this dominant view of scientists. (They also should teach why it is not correct!)


Point H: Extends the ruling to private K—12 schools and home schools.


These statements, while they do reflect some give and take typical of court actions, nevertheless provide powerful protection for all schools. The Lord powerfully intervened on behalf of all Christian education. Throughout the process we had prayed that these enemies of the cross would themselves fall into the pit they had dug for us (Proverbs 28:10) . It happened just that way.


SOURCE:

INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH Magazine

June 2002. Vol. 31 No. 6 (pgs. 1-3)

P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon , CA 92021

www.icr.org




Return to the words of wisdom, the legal index..

Return to the words of wisdom, main index..

Return to the main menu..

D.U.O Project
Church of the Science of God
La Jolla, California 92038-3131

Church of the Science of GOD, 1993
Web Designed by WebDiva