I made it to school early today, so I was here before they replaced Friday’s edition of the Daily Cougar with today’s. Today’s has an interesting article on the controversy in the Kansas school system on whether ‘intelligent design’ should be taught in tandem with evolution. The author seems to think that there is no problem with this, and that despite the fact that this is mostly being pushed by Christians, it is a move that would benefit all religious groups, as the ‘higher force’ is not specifically named.
What a load of crap! So are we going to be teaching astrology as an alternative to astronomy also? People — Christians are the ones seeming to make a big deal about it — should realize that when they place their kids in a public school, they’re going to be taught science. If you disagree with science, send your kids to a private school. Forget the fact that as far as sane and honest people are concerned, the closest we as human beings will ever get to the truth is via science, there’s an even better reason to teach science in schools, as opposed to pseudo-religious propaganda: science has no objective but to build a body of knowledge, and as such is free of religious and social influences. Well, maybe not completely, but I charge you to find a system as close to impartiality as science.
Here’s a reply I sent to the author:
Hello,
I read your article in the opinion column on the evolution controversy
in Kansas.
There is a very practical reason for not including intelligent design
in the curriculumn: if science is abolished as the metric with which
the truths taught in schools are measured, what’s to prevent our kids
from being taught the validity of astrology or magic the next time a
group decides to protest?
Instead of teaching religious beliefs— however generic, sanitized,
and pseduo-scientifically supported ‘intelligent design’ may be, it
*is* a religious belief—, why not simply emphasize the fact that
evolution is ‘only’ a theory? After all, one of the things any child
should learn is that the ‘truth’ as defined by science is rarely
immutable, and in the past, even ‘Laws’ such as Newton’s have been
shown to be incorrect. Certainly that is a more realistic goal than to
give our kids the idea that either evolution or intelligent design is
the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.
The agitators should realize that if ‘intelligent design’ was worth
its salt as a scientific theory, it instead of evolution would be
being taught as the leading scientific theory. So if they want to
replace evolution, they should go and do their homework like Darwin
did, instead of trying to fight dirty.
Alex Gittens
EE/Math major