ANOTHER ITEM TO THE "HATE CRIME" LIST

Does believing in the theory of organic evolution make a mechanic more, or less, capable of servicing your automobile? Should a non-evolutionist (specifically a creationist) be barred from being a dispatcher, fixing lawn mowers or driving an ambulance? Who can set a broken bone more efficiently — an atheist or a Christian? Who can add, subtract, multiply or divide a list of numbers more correctly — an evolutionist or a creationist?

The questions are absurd and the answers should be obvious.

And yet, physicians, social workers, dentists, surgeons, and numerous others in the medical and specialized helping professions are often denied certifications, degrees and licenses to practice medicine, attend the physical needs of others, engage in social work, and serve in the public arena as civil servants because they hold certain beliefs about origins. A trend which is becoming the norm, is to deny a large number of people from such employment for no other reason than that they do not accept the theory of evolution as the explanation of all things, and especially if they do adhere to a personal Creator. What sense is that? It's not sense, it's nonsense fraught with fear and prejudice . . . . or, perhaps, an underlying agenda?

How can those who stringently employ the evolution "litmus test" — in the broad and militaristic manner in which it is currently applied — be consistent with their own reasoning when they praise, honor and revere those from the past who contributed positively and indispensably in countless ways to the very foundations of scientific knowledge, research and precedent upon which they themselves build, who gave no credence to their theory of origins? How can they in good conscience, and without violating their current principles and actions, accept the work, research, conclusions, discoveries, etc. as foundations upon which they themselves accept as legitimate and true upon which to build their research? For instance, Doesn't gravity work the same for everyone — regardless of who "discovered" it, uses it, attempts to explain how it works, etc. — whether evolutionist or creationist?

In reality, are these not bigoted "hate crimes," to discriminate against intelligent, qualified, inventive people whose ability to perform is not altered in the least by rejecting the theory of organic evolution? Nevertheless, they are often denied prominent teaching positions, medical degrees, public leadership opportunities, etc. for no other reason than that they disagree with a theory, or may have been educated in an institution which affirmatively denies the evolutionary theory, and for this reason only they are not acceptable to the evolution-obsessed boards and individuals who disagree.