The real problem with Newtonism in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way. Textbooks by modern Newtonist apologists, like Leonhard Euler and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, routinely assert that gravity has done away with the need for God. The claim is that mass and mutual attraction have demonstrated that we can have pull--or the illusion of being pulled--without a puller. In this sense Newtonism becomes propaganda for atheism, for pulling is God's job. Do you want to put your Lord out of work?
|Dinesh D'souza is the best-selling author of Falwell, Before the Millennium: A Critical Biography, available from dineshdsouza.com|
Typically evangelical Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Newtonian account of gravity with good, logical, Bible-centric arguments like argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad antiquitatem. This explains the appeal of "creation gravitation" and the "Intelligent Falling" (IF) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community, the majority of whom hate God, and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts, themselves filled to the bursting point with Liberal activist judges. It is only because he is merciful that God has not let go of these men and watched them launch through the stratosphere. Fortunately there is a better way to argue against Newtonism--by loudly screaming "WE'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG" until blood gushes from the Newtonists' unholy ears. Yet they insist on using their ungodly logic--but we can use this against them!
|Dinesh D'souza is the best-selling author of Ronald Reagan: How An Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, available from dineshdsouza.com|
Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbids the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated (if you are fired from your job at a private company for being an atheist, thankfully, you're pretty much up shit creek. Find Jesus, already!). In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."
|Dinesh D'souza is the best-selling author of Letters to a Young Conservative, available from dineshdsouza.com|
Yet, if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism, even if they can't teach anything at all to pull it off.
|Dinesh D'souza is the best-selling author of The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, available from dineshdsouza.com|
I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the physics classroom. No need to produce creationist or IF critiques of Newtonism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into Newtonology textbooks and Godless physics lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of Newton's "theory" of gravitation but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they can neither use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism, nor that they can get away with teaching science in science class.
|Dinesh D'souza is the best-selling author of What's so great about America, available from dineshdsouza.com|
In this way, Newtonism in the public school system would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular. Instead, supplanted by the Truth™, public schools would actively promote the Truth™, rather than unproven facts and the theories, like Newtonism, that attempt to form testable models based on them.
- Dinesh D'souza "Boy, the Christian Right sure likes having a guy with mocha-colored skin on their side". News.AOL.com, April 02, 2008