The American public school system has long been a battleground for competing worldviews, particularly when it comes to the origin of life, the nature of truth, and the role of God in human history. Behind every textbook and every curriculum decision lies an underlying philosophy—one that shapes not only what is taught but what is allowed to be questioned. While the Constitution guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, many educators have discovered, often to their dismay, that these freedoms do not always extend to expressions of faith in the classroom.
This post will explore the constitutional rights of teachers to express their theistic beliefs, the ideological manipulation of the Scopes Trial, the flawed assumptions of evolutionary science, the rise of secular progressivism as a de facto religion, and the tragic legacy of anti-Christian activism in public education. It will also examine the diversity of Christian thought on creation, while affirming a core orthodoxy that includes biblical inerrancy, the special creation of Adam and Eve, a literal Fall, and God’s exhaustive omniscience.
Teachers and the Constitution: Where Faith Meets Censorship
Imagine a science teacher in 1980, standing in front of her students and honestly stating: “I am required to teach Darwinian evolution, but I do not personally believe in it.” A fellow teacher hears this and calls it “unconstitutional.” Was it?
The short answer is no—not in principle. The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Public school teachers, as American citizens, retain those rights. However, because they serve as agents of the state while on the clock, courts have ruled that they must not use their position to promote religion. That fine line—between transparency and proselytization—has been interpreted so narrowly that any personal expression of faith is often viewed with suspicion, or even as grounds for dismissal.
Though there is no Supreme Court ruling that prohibits a teacher from expressing their own beliefs when done with appropriate discretion, lower courts have often sided with school districts when teachers speak from a Christian perspective. In Bishop v. Aronov (1991), the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a professor could not interweave his Christian beliefs into his lectures. Yet this same standard is rarely applied to progressive ideologies that dominate education today.
Even more troubling is the possibility that teachers may face covert retaliation for their beliefs. Public schools are not above dismissing or reassigning teachers under ambiguous pretenses when their faith becomes “inconvenient” to the administration. In such cases, the official reason for termination might be framed as “professional misconduct,” “curriculum deviation,” or “creating a hostile learning environment.” But behind the bureaucratic veil is often a simple truth: the teacher dared to express a Christian worldview.
Personally, I doubt that teacher unions would defend a teacher that was dismissed as covert retaliation for their beliefs, because major teacher unions are fundamentally Neo-Marxist.
These dismissals rarely make headlines. But they send a chilling message to Christian educators: remain silent, or risk your livelihood.
Academic Freedom vs. State Control
In some states, teachers have a limited shield through “academic freedom” laws. Tennessee, for example, passed a law in 2012 permitting educators to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of theories like evolution and climate change. Other states have followed suit. These laws aim to protect intellectual diversity—but they are frequently challenged by progressive organizations that argue such freedom opens the door to religious indoctrination.
This double standard is striking. Teachers may be reprimanded for even hinting at theism, while others are praised for integrating “social justice,” “critical pedagogy,” and other left-wing ideologies into their lessons. A teacher skeptical of Darwin is dangerous; a teacher promoting gender theory is progressive.
What we are witnessing is not neutrality, but selective enforcement—a slow but deliberate marginalization of Christian thought in public life.
The Scopes Trial: Manufactured Myth and Media Manipulation
No discussion of faith and science in American education would be complete without examining the infamous Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925. It is often presented as a decisive victory for science over religious superstition, with enlightened rationalists triumphing over backwoods fundamentalists. But that narrative is largely a myth.
The trial began when the ACLU sought a test case to challenge Tennessee’s Butler Act, which prohibited teaching human evolution in public schools. John Scopes, a young substitute teacher and coach, agreed to be the defendant—even though there was doubt he had ever actually taught evolution.
William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate and devout Christian, joined the prosecution. Clarence Darrow, an agnostic and defender of eugenics, led the defense. What followed was more theater than trial. The town of Dayton welcomed the publicity. Journalists descended. And the secular press—especially H.L. Mencken—portrayed the event as a clash between reason and ignorance.
Hollywood sealed the caricature with Inherit the Wind (1960), a fictionalized and heavily biased retelling of the trial. The film ignored key facts, altered the personalities of the real-life figures, and implied that Bryan, representing Christians, was irrational, spiteful, and anti-intellectual. The truth is that Bryan made compelling arguments against materialistic science and warned of the moral decay that would follow from reducing humans to mere animals.
While Scopes was found guilty, the conviction was overturned on a technicality. The Butler Act remained in effect for decades. But in the court of public opinion, secularism had won—not through argument, but through distortion.
Evolution, Assumptions, and the Limits of Science
Darwinian evolution depends on naturalistic explanations for the origin of species. Yet these theories often rest on assumptions that cannot be empirically verified—especially when it comes to dating methods like carbon-14.
Radiometric dating techniques, including carbon dating, assume:
- Known initial conditions – Scientists must estimate how much of the parent isotope was present originally.
- Constant decay rates – The assumption that decay rates have never changed over millions of years.
- Closed systems – That the sample has not been contaminated or altered by external forces.
These assumptions are not provable. In fact, there are numerous cases where radiometric dating has yielded clearly erroneous results—such as dating recent lava flows as millions of years old. When methods are flawed, so are the conclusions built upon them.
Moreover, the fossil record is often presented as clear-cut evidence of gradual evolution. But even many secular scientists admit that the record shows long periods of stasis interrupted by sudden appearances of new life forms—patterns more consistent with special creation than with Darwinian gradualism.
Christian Orthodoxy and Creation: A Personal Affirmation
As the author of this post, I do not claim to settle the old earth vs. young earth debate. Faithful, intelligent Christians can disagree on the age of the earth or the length of the creation days. However, I do affirm what I believe to be the minimum orthodoxy when it comes to creation:
- The inerrancy of Scripture – God’s Word is without error in all that it affirms.
- The special creation of Adam and Eve – They were real, historical people, made uniquely in the image of God.
- A literal Fall – Sin entered the world through Adam’s disobedience, resulting in death and the need for redemption.
- The exhaustive omniscience of God – God knows all things past, present, and future. I reject open theism and process theology, which portray God as limited or evolving.
These doctrines are foundational to Christian theology and cannot be compromised without undermining the gospel itself. Any theory of origins that denies them is incompatible with biblical Christianity.
Neo-Marxism: The New State Religion in Schools
While Christian expression is increasingly banned from public education, a new dogma has filled the void: Neo-Marxism. This ideology—steeped in class struggle, critical theory, and identity politics—now permeates public education, often under the guise of “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.”
Neo-Marxism functions as a de facto religion. It offers a creation narrative (oppressors and oppressed), a moral code (wokeness), and a redemptive arc (liberation through activism). Its sacred texts include the writings of Karl Marx, Paulo Freire, and bell hooks. Its prophets are grievance-studies professors and TikTok influencers.
Students are not simply taught facts; they are catechized into a worldview. Teachers are encouraged—or required—to affirm gender fluidity, question the nuclear family, and identify “systemic oppression” in every corner of society. This is not education. It is ideological formation.
Yet those who push this new orthodoxy are the very ones who insist that Christian teachers remain silent. The hypocrisy is staggering. Progressives demand a strict separation of church and state, while installing their own secular religion at the heart of the curriculum.
Madalyn Murray O’Hair and the Anti-Christian Agenda
Perhaps no figure embodies this crusade against Christianity in public schools more than Madalyn Murray O’Hair. A militant atheist, she spearheaded the lawsuit Murray v. Curlett, which was consolidated into the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp. That case banned Bible reading in public schools, following on the heels of the 1962 decision Engel v. Vitale, which outlawed state-sponsored prayer.
O’Hair was combative, vulgar, and openly contemptuous of religion. She described religious belief as a “neurological disorder” and mocked Christians as ignorant. Her organization, American Atheists, continued her work of purging any trace of faith from public life.
Tragically, her life ended in violence—kidnapped and murdered by a fellow atheist in 1995. But her legacy remains: schools where the Bible is forbidden, prayer is mocked, and moral absolutes are replaced with relativism.
Yet even in this story, there is hope. One of O’Hair’s sons, William J. Murray, became a born-again Christian. He renounced his mother’s atheism and became a powerful advocate for religious freedom. His testimony is a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of God’s grace—and that the gospel can break through even the hardest hearts.
Conclusion: A Call to Courage and Clarity
The marginalization of Christian views in public education is not accidental. It is the fruit of decades of ideological warfare—fought in courts, classrooms, and culture. While secularists demand neutrality, they enforce a godless worldview. While they denounce indoctrination, they demand conformity. While they silence Christian voices, they enthrone progressive ideologies.
Teachers should have the freedom to express their beliefs honestly and respectfully. They should not be punished for acknowledging a Creator. Nor should they be forced to pretend that Darwinism is infallible science or that wokeness is morally neutral. Parents, pastors, and policymakers must stand up for these teachers—and for the students whose minds are being shaped every day.
The goal of education should be the pursuit of truth—not the suppression of it. And the truth is this: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Without that foundation, we are not educating. We are deceiving.
May we have the courage to speak truth, the wisdom to teach it well, and the faith to stand when others fall.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@basedchristianity.org
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
Some sources of information may reflect a libertarian and/or atheistic perspective. I may not agree with all of their opinions, but they offer some worthwhile comments on the topic under discussion.
Additionally, language used in the videos may be coarse. Coarse language does not reflect my personal standards.
Finally, those on the left often criticize my sources of information, which are primarily conservative and/or Christian. Truth is truth, regardless of how we feel about it. Leftists are largely led by their emotion rather than facts. It is no small wonder that they would criticize the sources that I provide. And, ultimately, my wordview is governed by Scripture. Many of my critics are not biblical Christians.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@basedchristianity.org if you want to comment on something, though.
I will continue to add items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.