Brown v. Board of Education of Portage, Idaho has been decided in favor of the teachers in Idaho. The question before the Court was about the use of language in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy that used words which did not have the modern meaning when they were written. Modern ideas such as the use of multiplication in the Pentateuch were not in the thoughts of the authors of the books of these periods. Therefore the mere mention of these ideas does not mean that they had any influence on the evolution of mathematics.
How does the question of how does the passage concerning the origin of the universe relate to the premises of Brown v. Board of Education of Portage, Idaho? The main idea behind this question is that if there are no evolution facts then there can be no argument against the evolution theory. If this could be so, there would be no need for evolution to be taught in schools, because there could be no evidence for it, and therefore there could be no evolution. In other words, the idea that the origin of the universe is the result of chance or random forces outside of God’s will is a creationist attitude. If there is any kind of evidence that evolution is true, it would involve theistically-trained scientists who have been studying the facts all along and have found none, or none that support creationism.
If we accept this premise, then we have a dilemma. There are those who think that the evolutionist arguments are simply wrong, and there are those who think that they are right. Those who think that evolution is wrong to believe that the original laws of God were broken, and therefore the universe and the earth were created in the last thousand years or less. Those who think that the original laws of God were broken, and therefore the universe and the earth were created in the last thousand years or less, also believe that the present universe and the earth were created in the last million years or so, and that the original laws of God were never broken. And so, which is right?
The evolutionist arguments against intelligent design are usually made on the school board when a creationist author is asked to testify on behalf of the creationist school in a debate, or when the board is considering whether to teach intelligent creation in its schools. If the author is a creationist, or a Young Earth creationist, and if he or she chooses to testify in support of the teaching of creationism, or he or she chooses to write against evolution, then that is his issue. If the testimony is given by someone who isn’t a creationist or doesn’t understand the details of creationism, and if he or she chooses to write against evolution, then that person’s issue is irrelevant and should not even be given a chance to argue his or her point. Those are the issues of the creationist witnesses on the school boards who are creating problems for the teaching of evolution in the public schools.
Now then, how does the premise of Brown v. Board of Education relates to all of this?
Well, the fact that the same set of public schools have been refusing to teach evolution for years, is proof enough that there is no problem with teaching evolution in public schools. Now, how does the actual premise of the opinion reach that conclusion? Well, after taking one look at the opinion itself, it appears that the court was looking at the issue of paucity of scientific studies in support of evolution, and that the creationist argument had not been properly presented before the court.
The opinion also says that the facts of the matter are irrelevant in determining whether or not the teaching of evolution is appropriate. Well, if the court thought the facts of the matter were relevant, then they would have ruled the other way, or said that the facts of the matter were not relevant in determining whether or not evolution was accurate. If that were the case, then it would have been impossible for any teacher in public schools to teach evolution effectively, because any such teacher would be under a strict obligation to use only the most inaccurate arguments. So, as you can see, the actual premise of Brown v. Board of Education is irrelevant, as the facts of the matter show that the teaching of evolution in public schools is not only accurate but actually good for science teachers as well! Teaching evolution in the most accurate and legitimate way is good for science teachers, and for the students who want to learn about evolution.
