California Teen Asks School Board to Change Policy Banning ‘Religious Theories’ in Science Class

ANGELS CAMP, Calif. — A sophomore student at a public high school in California is requesting that his school district change its policy prohibiting the discussion of Creation beliefs in science class.

Grayson Mobley, 16, spoke to the Bret Harte Union High School Board earlier this month to ask that he be allowed to politely cite his beliefs when pertinent. His father told the Union Democrat that students were told from the start that God needs to kept out of the classroom.

Mobley attended a Christian school up until high school, and has earned math and science awards. He is currently a straight A student.

“I’m here tonight to safeguard my constitutional rights,” Mobley stated to those gathered. “Free speech is granted to all American citizens, including minors. I am an American citizen.”

Mobley’s attorney also addressed the board, and his pastor, Kevin Diamond of San Andreas Community Covenant Church, came prepared with a petition of over 100 signatures from those who support Mobley’s request that the board amend its policy.

“Philosophical and religious theories are based, at least in part, on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation,” the district policy, which originated from the California School Boards Association, reads. “Such beliefs shall not be discussed in science classes, but may be addressed in the social science and language arts curricula.”

“Grayson’s case is about allowing a student to scientifically, constructively, politely and relevantly express philosophical and religious knowledge when it is directly relevant to the subject matter already being discussed in class,” explained attorney Greg Glaser.

  • Connect with Christian News

Approximately 100 people attended the meeting, some of whom came to support to sophomore student.

“I have watched this young man grow up and I am in awe of the man he is becoming. I know him to be a humble, respectful, honest and kind young person,” said Dr. Jeff Whitman.

“For someone to say that ‘science is fact and religion is faith’ is just an incomplete statement of a question,” he continued. “Allowing Bret Harte science students to constructively and relevantly express their viewpoints is a good solution. It respects the Constitution, and it encourages critical thinking in an American academic environment.”

The board said that it would discuss the matter with its attorney to review the legality of the policy, while District Superintendent Michael Chimente also remarked that there was “no reason to believe” that the policy conflicted with the law.

Glaser said that the family is willing to take the matter to the courts if necessary.

Romans 1:20 reads, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”

John 1 also outlines of Jesus, the Christ, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. … He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • mikegillespie

    “God needs to be kept out of the classroom.”

    As if they could…

    • Lark.62

      The student can form a religious club and discuss the horrors of evolution with like-minded students.

      But students cannot take over a class and spew their religion at a captive audience. This student is also not allowed to take over the algebra class or home ec class to discuss feeding a multitude with a few loaves and fishes.

      There is a time and place for everything. And a public school science class is not the time or place for a student to talk about religion. The teacher directs the class, not the students.

      • TruthvLIes

        Such a silly and ignorant comment.

        First, the student has no intention of taking over the class.

        Second, he is not going to spew his religion.

        Third, learning is not enhanced when you are only discussing things with like minded individuals.

        Fourth, the student has not asked to take over the algebra class.

        Fifth, the students has not asked to take over the home eco class.

        Sixth, the student does not want to talk about religion.

        Seventh The student has not asked to direct the class.

        Do you have any more hairbrained comments to add?

      • Tom

        then they should also throw out all teaching about origins altogether, since no origins theory has any scientific evidence. Just teach science. Is that so hard?

        • Lark.62

          We agree. What schools teach about abiogenesis is “we don’t know yet.” There are some intriguing studies like Urey-Miller that can be discussed.

          Of course, the Theory of Evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is factual and is discussed in biology class.

    • DrIndica

      Whose god?

  • Incredible young man

  • Jacob Waldmiller

    “I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures, and engraving them on the hearts of youth. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution in which men and women are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must be corrupt.”–Martin Luther

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom:
    and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)

  • jim

    “Philosophical and religious theories are based, at least in part, on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation,”
    uhhh, isn’t evolution called ” the theory of evolution”?

    • Tim Matter

      Are you saying that because it is called a theory it is only a guess and we shouldn’t teach it? Do you feel the same way about all scientific theories such as quantum theory, general relativity, special relativity, the germ theory of disease, gravitational theory, etc?
      Also, does any other scientific theory mention God? Why should biology be the only one that allows a supernatural explanation into a theory that explains natural processes?

    • Lark.62

      Scientific Theories are supported by thousands of evidence based studies and belong in the science classroom.

      Religious “theories” are ideas held by individuals and vary by individual. How many different churches with different beliefs exist in that community alone? Religion is not supported by evidence and is not science.

      • TruthvLIes

        Lark is still larking around with unsubstantiated data.

        If ST is supported by thousands of evidence based studies you wil be able to tell us how life began.

        And no one has ever said that religion is science. Where did you get that stupid idea from?

        And what religion are you talking about as there are 42,000 of them? Be a bit more specific please.

        • Lark.62

          “According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world today.”

          Other sources say there are anywhere from about 33,000 to 43,000 christian different denominations.

          The Theory of Evolution describes the change in life over time. It does not address the beginning of life.

          I guess the Theory of Plate tectonics isn’t true because it doesn’t explain how life began. And Atomic Theory isn’t true because it doesn’t explain how life bagan. And the Theory of Gravity isn’t true because it doesn’t explain how life began. That is totally ridiculous.

          Grayson wants to discuss religion in science class. I’m glad we agree that that’s inappropriate.

          • TruthvLIes

            One. Another silly comment from Lark who is larking around again.

            Two. So what religion are you talking about?

            Three. Without a beginning there is no continuation so how did life begin?

            Four. Grayson does not want to discuss religion in class. He wants a rational discussion on alternative theories.The fact that the atheists are frightened to do this shows they do not have any faith in their faith.

          • Lark.62

            “A supernatural deity that nobody can see breathed on dirt” is not an “alternative theory.”

            When the 16 year old kid with a bible school science education publishes an evidence-based peer reviewed paper, then maybe he would have a basis to propose an “alternative theory.” As it stands now, there are no “alternative theories” that explain the data. The Theory of Evolution is it. This 16 year old kid who hasn’t finished high school and who apparently has never before been exposed to the Theory of Evolution does not know more than the thousands of scientists who study evolution, irrational arrogance notwithstanding.

            Grayson will also not be able to discuss the “dome of water over a flat earth theory” during a discussion of the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System.

          • TruthvLIes

            Lets try again…

            One. What religion are you talking about?

            Two. Without a beginning there is no continuation so how did life begin?

            Three. Grayson did not want to discuss religion in his class so why are you frightened that students might learn something they do not know?

            Four. An alternative theory is one that is different to that being taught.

            Five. The theory of evolution is not it as no one has observed anything that is claimed happened. Only rusted on unbelievers hold onto such a tenuous faith.

            Six. Grayson has been exposed to evolutionary theory in his class that is why he is asking for time to present an alternative theory.

            Seven. The irrational arrogance is clearly yours. Numbers who support evolution is irrelevant as scientists chase the money. Don’t take my word for it. They have admitted to the fact.

          • Lark.62

            One. What religion are you talking about?

            Christianity. There are between 30,000 and 45,000 versions of christianity. Each and every one claims to be the one correct bible based version.

            Two. Without a beginning there is no continuation so how did life begin?

            Carl Sagan said “To make an apple pie from scratch one must first invent the universe.” I understand where you are coming from. Yet I have a dozen recipes for apple pie and not one begins with the creation of the Universe.

            The change in allele frequency in a population over time is evolution, and that can be and is studied independently of abiogenesis.

            Three. Grayson did not want to discuss religion in his class so why are you frightened that students might learn something they do not know?

            This is gaslighting. Yes. Grayson did want to discuss his religion. He is 16 and has not performed research. He has scientific knowledge to share, just religious belief.

            Four. An alternative theory is one that is different to that being taught.

            Theories are supported by evidence. Where alternative theories exist, they are supported by some evidence but none of the explanations yet address all of the evidence. These are more accurately called hypotheses.

            Example – there are multiple views on whether life ever existed on Mars because there is not yet enough evidence for a conclusion. But there is evidence to show that Lyell was wrong about canals. And there is enough evidence to show liquid water once existed on Mars. Thus a school lesson on Mars could include alternate possibilities regarding life on Mars. But it would not include a statement that there might be constructed canals. And it would not include doubt over the historical presence of water.

            Five. The theory of evolution is not it as no one has observed anything that is claimed happened. Only rusted on unbelievers hold onto such a tenuous faith.

            You are incorrect. Open a decent book or find a reliable internet site.

            Your unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of evidence has not bearing on the existence of that evidence.

            DNA
            Vestigial traits and comparative anatomy
            Embryology
            Paleontology
            Geodiversity
            Etc.

            There is enough evidence 8n each of those fields to support evolution. The evidence in all those fields combined is incontrovertible. There is no alternative theory that accounts for all of the evidence.

            Six. Grayson has been exposed to evolutionary theory in his class that is why he is asking for time to present an alternative theory.

            There are no alternative theories that address all of the evidence. Grayson also cannot discuss the Theory of Demons in health class. He cannot discuss the Dome Holding Back Water Theory in astronomy. High school students do not get to present religion as an alternative to accepted scientific theory.

            Seven. The irrational arrogance is clearly yours. Numbers who support evolution is irrelevant as scientists chase the money. Don’t take my word for it. They have admitted to the fact.

            Let me know when you get your Nobel Prize for overturning the Theory of Evolution. Scientists disprove each other all the time. If Evolution was not supported by evidence it would not be accepted by the science community.

          • TruthvLIes

            One. If there are between 30 and 45,000 versions of christianity then their is no such thing as a christian religion. A christian religion is singular and if it is singular it must have only one belief system otherwise it is not singular.

            Therefore you will have to outline which of the 30,000 you are talking about.

            Two. I am not referring to apple pies. That is just a red herring to allow you to avoid answering the question which you do not know the answer to.

            Three. How do you know he has not conducted any research or does not have any scientific knowledge to share? You don’t especially as he is straight A student who very obviously is a cut above the rest. Your claim is pure hyperbole.

            Four. I have been told many times by evolutionists that it is theory because a viewpoint is only as valid as the next discovery that comes along. That means it is not fact but hypothesis which no one has seen.

            Five. Can you tell me the name of some of the people that have seen the supposed evolution taking place 13 million years ago?

            Six. He is not wanting to present religion as an alternative theory in a science class. That is pure hyperbole on your part.

            Seven. It is not accepted by the science community. It is accepted by SOME in the science community. I have several books written by scientists that say evolution is complete rubbish and I have a video of a scientist saying that evolution is implausible.

          • Lark.62

            Let me guess, the one correct christian belief systems is yours.

            The Carl Sagan quote about the apple actually supported your view. And the formal definition of the Theory of Evolution is on topic.

            Yes, I am confident that a 16 year old who has not completed high school and who does not understand scientific theories has not performed phd level independent scientific research. I am confident that scientists who have spent careers studying aspects of Evolution know more about their subjects than teenagers. I am confident Grayson has not published a peer reviewed paper. Grayson is regurgitating what pastors and other adults have fed him.

            You misunderstand what a scientific theory is, and what is meant by the fact that all theories are subject to change. Being subject to change does not change a theory into a hypothesis.

            Scientific theories are the highest level of cerainty. They explain all of the data and are not contradicted by any data. If new data is found, the Theory would be revised but it would still have to explain all the existing data. Existing data

          • TruthvLIes

            More blather from a demented evolutionist. I have heard it all before and I am not impressed.

            I have a book with each chapter written by a different scientist in a different field of expertise so we are not getting a one eye view of evolution.

            All of them produce the evidence necessary to say why evolution is figment of man’s imagination.

            I have a video of an eminent scientist who preached evolution and then one of his students asked him a question he could not answer.

            He said he would investigate the issue and when he did he saw another side of the argument. By the time he had finished researching, he realised what a fool he had been to believe in evolution as it was obvious it was untenable.

            And then there is Antony Garrard Newton Flew who was an English philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew was most notable for his work related to the philosophy of religion. During the course of his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto.

            For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.

            In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III. However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.

            How many universities have you taught at?

          • Lark.62

            Read some non creationist sources.

            Antony Flew was a philosopher not a scientist.

            If you are truly interested in evolution, read texts written by scientists who accept evolution. Why Evolution is True by Coyne is one of the best. This book clearly presents the evidence for evolution with a minimum of editorializing. If nothing else, this knowledge will allow you to oppose evolution more effectively since you will learn what the Theory is actually about.

            The Univ of California at Berkeley has an Evolution 101 website that is excellent.

            If you don’t stick up your nose at Wikipedia, the articles on Introduction to Evolution, Evidence of Common Descent, and Transitional Fossils are good starting points. Look up the references and follow the links.

          • Lark.62

            5. Science is supported by evidence. Eye witnessing an event is just one form of evidence. The fact that humans cannot witness events that occur over millions of years has zero implcations over the fact that those events occurred. You might want to learn about the many and varied types of evidence in support of evolution.

            6. Then explain what this 16 year old wants to present.

            7. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by the science community. The existence of people who reject evolution without evidence is not relevant, just as the existence of flat earthers does not mean the Heliocentric Tgeiry

          • TruthvLIes

            I have about 10 books that all produce evidence against evolution written by scientists who have held teaching positions at places like Yale, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge Universities.

            Seems as though your reading is very limited to a few people who agree with you.

            If as you say, “The fact that humans cannot witness events that occur over millions of years has zero implications over the fact that those events occurred” why have others said that evolution theory has been seen?

            It seems the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

          • Lark.62

            Humans can see evolution in real time when evolution occurs in real time. See European Blackcap.

            Evolutionary events that occur over millions of years cannot be “observed” by beings with a 100 year lifespan. Evolutionary events that occurred 13 million years ago were not “observed” by beings that have only existed for several hundred thousand years. None of that means the events did not occur, only that “eyewitness” is not the best evidence of those events. Fortunately, there are many other types of reliable evidence.

            What are the titles and authors of these books?

    • DrIndica

      Theory does not equal hypothesis.

      • TruthvLIes

        You had better tell the atheists that as they believe it does.

    • TruthvLIes

      And evolutionists tell us it is based on provable hypothesis. The only problem is that none of it is provable. it is only conjecture.

      • DrIndica

        Not true, where is your science to support your claim? DNA, fossils and super-positional stratification support an evolutionary process of life on earth.

        • TruthvLIes

          Funny you should say that as it is true as not one evolutionist has seen anything that they claim to be true.

          • DrIndica

            Try reading a book professor.

          • TruthvLIes

            So I read a book and that proves I saw what happened 13 million years ago?

  • ZappaSaid88

    Science is based on observable facts and experiment. Faith is based on faith (i.e. no evidence). Faith discussions don’t belong in a science classroom.

    • DrIndica

      Seems the student and/or the article are confusing theory versus hypothesis. Also, students do not necessarily have the same free speech rights in school, as those outside the school environment.

      • TruthvLIes

        Where does it say in the First Amendment that students do not have freedom of speech in the classroom?

        • DrIndica

          Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 1986, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988

          • TruthvLIes

            Are those cases in the First Amendment?

          • DrIndica

            Cases in which the Supreme Court interpreted laws and their applicability to the Constitution….you’ve heard of Separation of Powers right?

          • TruthvLIes

            You have heard of the First Amendment right? No, I didn’t think you had.

          • Lark.62

            The Constitution of the United States established the Judicial Branch and the Supreme Court and gives those institutions their authority.

            If you don’t like it that Supreme Court decisions are authoritative, tough beans. The Constitution is authoritative, you are not.

          • TruthvLIes

            So, what you are saying is that those cases are not on the First Amendment.

    • TruthvLIes

      Tell us then who observed a monkey becoming a human.

      • DrIndica

        Not a single credible scientist that has researched a theory of evolution would contend any monkeys became humans. Monkeys and humans are modern species that have common ancestors.

        • TruthvLIes

          You are so out of touch dearie. Plenty of evolutionists claim that man descended from monkeys.

          • DrIndica

            Name one.

          • TruthvLIes

            Theodore Davis.

          • Lark.62

            A rich lawyer who funded archaeological digs in Egypt 100+ years ago!?

            That’s all you’ve got?

            Davis was a lawyer with a hobby. He was not a scientist. And I found no evidence he said what you claimed.

            The Theory of Evolution does not say that any major modern species descended from another modern species. Cousins are not descendents of each other.

            Do you even understand what a common ancestor is?

            Do you have any idea of what the Theory of Evolution actually says?

          • TruthvLIes

            Do you have any idea what the Theory of Evolution says?

            And the Theodore Davis you are talking about is not the Theodore Davis I am talking about. I have never heard of yours.

          • Lark.62

            And I have never heard of yours

          • TruthvLIes

            Are you one of those people who believe if you haven’t heard about someone they do not exist?

            Have you heard of Roland and Heidi Baker?

      • Lark.62

        Tell us then who had observed TruthvLies becoming his cousin?

        No one. Because people do not become their cousins. Cousins are distinct separate people who are descended from a common ancestor.

        Monkeys likewise do no become people. Duh. The common ancestor of monkeys and humans lived about 13 million years ago.

        • TruthvLIes

          And do tell me who saw them living 13 million years ago?

          • DrIndica

            Again…DNA, fossils and stratigraphic superposition

          • TruthvLIes

            So DNA, fossils and stratigraphic superposition all saw what happened 13 million of years ago? So why haven’t they told us?

          • Lark.62

            Intelligent people would learn about the types of evidence available.

            “I am too lazy or intellectually stunted to look at evidence”
            =/=
            “There is no evidence.”

          • TruthvLIes

            So what you are saying is that no one has seen what happened 13 million years ago.

            So what zappa said “Science is based on observable facts and experiment.” Is not true.

  • Lark.62

    “Grayson’s case is about allowing a student to scientifically, constructively, politely and relevantly express philosophical and religious knowledge when it is directly relevant to the subject matter already being discussed in class,”

    The proposed revised policy will not say “Grayson may present religious knowledge” it will say “any student may…”

    Consider how many religious kids are at that school and how many creation myths will be presented.

    First, there is the Genesis 1 version where Adam is created second to last. And there is the Genesis 2 version where Adam is created first. And there is the official Catholic view where the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is true, except man was specially created. And then there are the views of about 1/3 of catholics who reject the official church teaching. And then there are the Young Earth Creationists who think Usher was right. And then there are the Young Earth Creationists who think Usher miscounted and the earth is more like 10,000 to 20,000 years old. And then there are multiple versions of Old Earth Creationism.

    So after each and every christian gets to present their creation beliefs as fact, the students with Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Sioux, Inuit, Polynesian and Norse beliefs will be allowed to present their creation myths as fact.

    And Grayson and every other student will need to listen to all of these alternative religious beliefs. Every religious belief is given equal weight because there is no evidence that places one person’s sincerely held belief above another’s.

    Seriously, is this what you want in science class.

    Meanwhile, the school district will spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars defending a policy the Supreme Court has already declared to be illegal.

    Just say no.

    Science is taught in science class. Science is objective and supported by evidence.

    • TruthvLIes

      “Creation myth…?” One of the biggest creation myths is the core of science in the classroom. it is known as evolution. Putting it succinctly “from goo to you via the zoo.”

      • james blue

        Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be.
        If you are going to argue against a subject perhaps you should learn what the subject actually teaches.

        • TruthvLIes

          You have not worked out how silly your sound. Everything has a beginning. Until you know what it is you cannot give any facts as to how it works. All you can give is guesstimates and hypothesis which may or may not be true.

          If I build a house it has a beginning as a tree, as mud, as glass etc. etc. Saying my house has nothing at all to do with trees is total rubbish and you are saying evolution has nothing at all to do with how life came to be is another way of saying “I don’t know.”

          • james blue

            I’m sure that makes sense in your head, but you are confusing the theory of evolution which deals with how life changed with the theory of origins which deals with how life came to be. They are 2 different subjects.

          • TruthvLIes

            How did that tree grow so beautiful?

            I don’t know it just did.

          • TruthvLIes

            So what you are saying is that you don’t know how life begins. I have read material by scientists who are christians and they all know how life begins and how life continues.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            If you want to argue about origins, why are you talking about evolution, which is about change over time?

            The subject you want is cosmology. Or abiogenesis.

          • TruthvLIes

            If you don’t know the answer to your question you should not be here discussing the subject.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            I’m only pointing out to you that an understanding of what evolution is – and isn’t – might help you in your argument.

  • Michael C

    Children don’t set the curriculum. That’s not how it works.

    Children don’t get to occupy class time in other courses to offer “alternative history” or “alternative math.” Not even if they’re polite. Mobely is free to preach to his classmates on his own time.

    “I’m here tonight to safeguard my constitutional rights,” Mobley stated to those gathered. “Free speech is granted to all American citizens, including minors. I am an American citizen.”

    It appears Mobely’s civics education also suffered at his prior school. Children don’t have the First Amendment right to commandeer their schools.

    • ZappaSaid88

      I demand that my child gets to speak about alchemy during chemistry class!

      • Tangent002 ✓

        Sex education should include Stork Theory! Teach the controversy!

    • TruthvLIes

      Another one of those silly comments that attributes actions that are not intended.

      He has not asked to set the curriculum.

      He has no intention of preaching to his classmates. He has asked for the right to present an alternative view which is essential if you want to learn anything. It is only atheists that want to shut down alternative views because they can’t handle the truth.

      He has no intention of commandeering his school.

      Now would you like to make a comment that is not full of lies and half truths.

      • Lark.62

        “Grayson’s case is about allowing a student to scientifically, constructively, politely and relevantly express philosophical and religious knowledge when it is directly relevant to the subject matter already being discussed in class,” explained attorney Greg Glaser.

        Gee. I wonder why we think Grayson wants to discuss his religious beliefs in science class. Maybe because his own lawyer said so.

        • TruthvLIes

          Gee, I wonder why lark goes mute when confronted with the truth?

          • Lark.62

            Try discussing the substance of my comments instead of deflecting with insults. You are getting boring.

          • TruthvLIes

            I would if there was any substance but there isn’t. All we get from you is atheist dogma which as we all know lacks any substance whatsoever.

            And if I am boring try doing something about it. Stop reading what I say.

  • james blue

    Creationism no more belong in a science class than evolution belongs in a bible class. They are two different subjects.

    • TruthvLIes

      Just to show how ignorant you are, we welcome the discussion of evolution in bible class because it enables us to examine the truth and examine lies.

      And you are so wrong about writing those answers in a sciences paper. I have attended two universities and have three degrees and in every case when the prevailing view did not line up with what I knew to be the truth, I stated the case and gave a full explanation as to why. Not once was I penalised for doing so.

      • james blue

        Yeah, the only “three degrees” you have would be the record “When Will I See You Again”

        • TruthvLIes

          And here’s me thinking that atheists were intelligent. Oh well, you can’t be right every time.

          • james blue

            You think I’m an Atheist?

      • Lark.62

        Yet you have demonstrated that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Theory of Evolution nor the wealth of evidence that supports it.

        Agree or not, you mistate the facts about evolution. To properly discuss opposition to a theory, one first has to know and honestly present what that theory says.

        • TruthvLIes

          Adn you have demonstrated that you have no evidence for what you believe. All you have told us is that you are right and we are wrong.

          If I said that in my essays which I wrote at uni everyone would be a fail. The fact that I did not get one F on my essays suggests I do know what I am talking about and suggests that you do NOT know what you are talking about.

          • Lark.62

            What college?

            What class?

          • TruthvLIes

            The ones I attended and was awarded a degree for.

          • Lark.62

            Were these papers for an English/ sociology/ religion/ philosophy type class or a science class? Do instructors and students at this university sign statements of faith requiring them to stick to one religious view?

          • TruthvLIes

            These papers were for various subjects and I have no idea what the management demand of its lecturers in the two universities I went to.

  • Lark.62

    Grayson doesn’t want freedom of speech. He already has that. He can make a video and post it on YouTube. He can hand out pamphlets. He can form a club and talk to other people in the group. He can talk to people during non instructional time.

    He just cannot make people watch the video or read the pamphlet or join the club or listen to him talk. Bummer.

    What Grayson wants is to use the authority of the government that compels school attendance to gather himself an audience. He wants to violate the freedoms of others by using a required class to cause other people to listen to him. This he has no right to do.

    He cannot compel any person to listen. He has no right to talk about his religion in a public school science class.

    • TruthvLIes

      More pseudo righteousness from Lark and distorting of the truth.

      One. He doesn’t want to make anyone watch anything. If you read the story which you obviously haven’t he asked for permission…..if you ask for permission you are not making anyone watch anything.

      Two. He doesn’t want to violate the freedoms of others. He wants to investigate alternative theories which are essential for good learning. it is up to the students what they believe but they cannot believe if they have not heard.

      Three. By asking for permission he is not compelling anyone to believe what he believes.

      Four. He is not asking to talk about his religion in a science class. He is asking to consider an alternative view to evolution which if the school wanted the students to be fully informed they would allow. The fact that any school will not allow an alternative view shows they have very little faith in their own views.

  • MCrow

    To become a theory, there must first be a hypothesis. A hypothesis requires that something be falsifiable, or able to be proven false. Religious beliefs, by their nature, cannot be falsifiable, and thus don’t belong in a science classroom

  • getstryker

    An ‘outstanding’ young Christian man with a clear vision of timeless truth, with the faith, intellect & fortitude to speak it for ALL to receive. May our Almighty God of Heaven bless him!!