In my opinion, the evolutionists presented a very silly, shallow argument. They were arguing that evolution should be taught solely, without any teaching about other theories. In this way, they were really arguing that only their way of thinking should be taught. This is not a principle that this nation was built on. This nation is known for having an open mind to numerous ideas new, and old. Many of the evolutionists consider this theory their religion. This being said, they really do not understand the Constitution if they think that it says that science can be solely taught, but religion can never be taught, because they have made this theory into their religion. In so many schools today evolution is taught as if it were a religion, and since no other religions are discussed, children must choose between this seeming “religion of science” versus their personal religion. So really, it is the evolutionists that are confusing children. Also, Haught’s comment about idolatry being supported when we attempt to understand God through nature is completely absurd. Observing nature and attempting to understand God through nature can only enhance our understanding of His magnificence. The only way we would be limiting God is if we actually understood everything about nature. But since we definitely do not – since there is always something to study, always something we can learn more about, God cannot possibly be limited. He cannot be limited by His limitless Creation.
The defendants had very good comebacks to each of the arguments set against them, and they were much more open-minded. They were not arguing that only Creationism or any certain religion should be taught, but that other theories about the origin of the world should be taught alongside evolution. Then the students can come to their own educated conclusions about science vs. religion. Plus, the science of evolution and religion really do not have any conflicts with each other. These conflicts are opened up by scientists who do not understand any other religion, and fundamentalists who do not truly understand science. The two really can be reconciled, there is little need for these arguments from die-hards who are not rounded in their education, and are not open to new ideas and different opinions. Such arguments only dig deeper holes; they have little benefit for our students’ education.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
