How Sad
Judge Rules Against PA Biology Curriculum
Somehow people in this country have gotten the idea that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state and that, instead of freedom of religion, we have freedom from religion. Since we then cannot have God, or anything that could be construed as God, in our public schools, science teachers are expected to teach a theory and forbidden to tell their students that it is, indeed, a theory. In Dover, PA the school board wanted to offer their students an alternative theory - Intelligent Design. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force. The idea of any kind of higher power really seems to scare some people. But, if our children are going to be taught at least one theory about how life came to be, why not teach another one. After all, if they can't be scientifically proven, why not teach multiple theories and let the students decide for themselves what they will believe? No, someone has already decided for our children what they must believe, but the only way to ensure that is to make sure they are only exposed to that one theory.
I think they must have taught the theory of evolution when I was in school, but I don't really remember that much about it. I suppose because I already knew and believed in Creation, the theory that things could just somehow evolve (against such astronomical odds that it could somehow accidentally just happen) just didn't hold much water.
I also read this New York Times editorial
I have to admit that I absolutely do not understand what these people are thinking. But, just because they can't scientifically prove God exists, doesn't mean that He doesn't. They can continue to teach evolution in the schools, but that doesn't make it true.
Part of what bothers me is this statement:
By injecting intelligent design into the science curriculum, the judge ruled, the board was unconstitutionally endorsing a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
How is it a particular version of Christianity? I would think that most religions, regardless of what they call their god, believe in a Creator. By not naming the Designer, no one religion is endorsed or advanced. However, mainstream Christian holidays are routinely celebrated in the schools, and that does endorse one particular religion.
Somehow people in this country have gotten the idea that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state and that, instead of freedom of religion, we have freedom from religion. Since we then cannot have God, or anything that could be construed as God, in our public schools, science teachers are expected to teach a theory and forbidden to tell their students that it is, indeed, a theory. In Dover, PA the school board wanted to offer their students an alternative theory - Intelligent Design. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force. The idea of any kind of higher power really seems to scare some people. But, if our children are going to be taught at least one theory about how life came to be, why not teach another one. After all, if they can't be scientifically proven, why not teach multiple theories and let the students decide for themselves what they will believe? No, someone has already decided for our children what they must believe, but the only way to ensure that is to make sure they are only exposed to that one theory.
I think they must have taught the theory of evolution when I was in school, but I don't really remember that much about it. I suppose because I already knew and believed in Creation, the theory that things could just somehow evolve (against such astronomical odds that it could somehow accidentally just happen) just didn't hold much water.
I also read this New York Times editorial
I have to admit that I absolutely do not understand what these people are thinking. But, just because they can't scientifically prove God exists, doesn't mean that He doesn't. They can continue to teach evolution in the schools, but that doesn't make it true.
Part of what bothers me is this statement:
By injecting intelligent design into the science curriculum, the judge ruled, the board was unconstitutionally endorsing a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
How is it a particular version of Christianity? I would think that most religions, regardless of what they call their god, believe in a Creator. By not naming the Designer, no one religion is endorsed or advanced. However, mainstream Christian holidays are routinely celebrated in the schools, and that does endorse one particular religion.