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.htm
As 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.htm
As 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]