Requesting assistance on "Creationism In Schools" paper

There is a very complex creationist argument saying that it is stated in the declaration of independence that people are created equal with certain inalienable rights, and that this statement is the basis for the rights in the constitution. This is backed up by Thomas Paine, who was closely associated to the founding fathers, being expressely anti-evolutionist, expressely against teaching the descendancy of life without reference to the creator. The scientific merit of either evolution or creationism is basicly irrellevant in this argument.Some particular interpretation of Genesis, but still a literal interpretation, is broadly in line with science. For the 6 days creation to be literally true and be in line with science, you have to take into account the relativity of time. The creation event is then regarded as the point where it became a statistical certainty that for instance plants would appear later on, and not the appearance is noted as the creation.Aside from that you can make a bad faith argument against the science of evolution. That since evolution scientists had supported a textbook containing much eugenics writing portrayed as a logical extension of evolution theory to the American schools for a long time starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and that since the field is still awash with ideologists particularly in the discipline of evolutionary psychology and selfish gene theory, that the science has become suspect. The solution against these kind of bad textbook would then be to put it up to a classvote which science should be taught (which creationism would win).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I wrote a posting about Thomas Payne a long time ago, with the name Thomas Payne in the title, which contained a link to the argument and quotes of Thomas Payne's criticism of teaching without reference to a creator in France, but I can't find it again on the forum, since the posting history only goes back to the 30 last threads. Google also turns up nothing.===============
(edited to add: found the thing by browsing through the database)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R..."In fact, Dr. Henry Osborn, curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, describes the third period in the history of evolution [28]the period in which our framers livedas a period which produced the evolution writings of Linnaeus, Buffon, E[rasmus] Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, Geof. St. Hilaire, St. Vincent, Is. St. Hilaire. Miscellaneous writers: Grant, Rafinesque, Virey, Dujardin, d’Halloy, Chevreul, Godron, Leidy, Unger, Carus, Lecoq, Schaafhausen, Wolff, Meckel, Von Baer, Serres, Herbert, Buch, Wells, Matthew, Naudin, Haldeman, Spencer, Chambers, Owen. [29] Clearly, then, it was not in the absence of knowledge about the debate over evolution, but rather in its presence, that our framers made the decision to incorporate in our governing documents the principle of a creator.Thomas Paine provides one example affirming this. Although Paine was the most openly and aggressively anti-religious of the founders, in his 1787 Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris, Paine nevertheless forcefully denounced the French educational system which taught students that man was the result of prehistoric cosmic accidents or had developed from some other species:It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."
==================That the evolutionist scientific community supported teaching of a textbook containing eugenics is shown here:- link to an essay on the Scopes trial.
Page Not Found | Illinois Institute of Technology
- link to some more quotes from the textbook teacher Scopes used
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap08.html
- link to a site on the Scopes trial, with some photocopied pages of the textbook
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...rojects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htmAs an aside note, Mencken, the journalist most famous for covering the trial, is also infamous for making quasi-eugenicist statements like that half of the population of the USA are worthless people. The lawyer Darrow defending the accused, previously famously defended Leopold and Loeb from the deathpenalty for killing a "worthless" human being as some kind of intellectual game. You might also note that the Nazi-regime teached Darwinism in special Hitlerschools styled on Darwinist notions. It's good to bring up the Scopes trial, because as far as I'm aware neither the ACLU who organized the defense, or the evolutionist science establishment who was called in to testify, never did any introspection in their role in supporting a eugenics textbook for schools.Some description of the links of Darwinism to Nazism:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htmAs an example of contemporary ideology in evolutionism, you might refer to Dawkins teaching kids at a BBC television special that we are born selfish, that reproduction is every living object's sole reason for living. Notice that in no other science except evolutionism, are there influenteial scientists who say they have found a reason "why" people do anything.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-29-2004]

After just reading some Dawkins again, it's clear to me your parody of my argument is not half as "funny" as the crazy things Darwinist ideologists write.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu