Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Intelligent Design - An Unconsititutional Theory?

A Pennsylvania federal judge thinks so. Today he entered the outer reaches of reason by ruling that to mention Intelligent Design theory in biology class somehow violates the constitution. The offending reference was a brief statement, read once in class, that says (in its entirety):

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

I'm not understanding how suggesting to young people that they should research a complicated issue in order to make informed decisions about their personal conclusions offends the Constitution, except in a hypersensitive, politically correct universe where no one questions anyone and we all have to drink the proverbial Kool Aid. What an artificially homogenous place that would be, hardly anticipated by the Constitutional framers who were known to engage to spirited debates and very public disagreements in their day.


At 12/21/2005 08:26:00 PM, Blogger Matthew Kruse said...

J, didn't you know that science and religion don't mix.

Unless, of course, your science propagates the belief system/religion that is secular humanism. Then it's cool. Go nuts.

Door A: we evolved from monkeys and I've got evidence that seems to fit my idea. Talk about it and you're doing legitimate science.

Door B: we were intelligently designed by a transcendent God and I've got evidence that seems to fit my idea. Talk about it and you're a non-scientific closet evangelist.

This is all about the definitions of science and religion.

Who said that science cannot at least consider the possibility of transcendence? Scientists can't figure our a million different things. Doesn't mean those inquiries are not scientific. I.e. we don't know jack about light, can't figure it out. Are theories on the reasons that light acts the way it does non-scientific because they are postulations on observation? Same thing with I.D. Maybe what we see has an explanation you can't prove in a lab. Still should be discussed in a 10th grade science class.

Also, what is the definition of religion? If Jesus is in it, then it is religion? What we need is for someone to clearly communicate that public schools are dogmatic, religious institutions whose religion is secular humanism... man is god, worship him and his ideas in all his (supposed) glory... or we'll take you to court.


Post a Comment

<< Home