Replies

You, OTOH, are so chicken you think you need to have the notion of intelligent design quarantined from your children. Ha!

I just don't want it presented as though it were science. I support the actions the Brits are taking, the topic of this thread, making ID part of the history of science.

I also have no problem with it in philosophy, theology, or rhetoric classes.

My primary problem with the notion of religion being discussed at any level in the public school system, is that it removes a portion of my ability as a parent to shape my kids religious beliefs, and sets up a possible confrontation between what they are being taught at school, and what I am teaching them at home, or by the Church of my choice.

It gives the NEA access to my child's religous upbringing, and places the State in the position of constructing a curriculum built around religious beliefs, without offending the sensibilities, or contradicting the beliefs, of any one religion in doing so.

I'll repeat myself...I can pick my preacher, but I can't pick the religion of my child's school teacher, so I'd rather not let that teacher's religious beliefs influence of science, or any other subject for that matter, and by extent influence my child.

That's my job, and I will not relegate it to anyone else.

I just don't want it presented as though it were science.

Whether you like it or not, science entails the application of shaping principles which in and of themselves are not scientific. The details of life as it transpires before our eyes give plenty of substance for any public school science cirriculum to deal with. But when the bigger picture is presented as to who, or what, is generally responsible for the course of life as we know it, everyone steps out of science and into philosophy or theology.

If it concerns you so much that every thing taught as science must be wholly provable, empirical, immutable fact, then you must be willing to see the presumption that life is the result of unguided causes withdrawn from science class as well. Not only so, but the unscientific notion that science may only treat of natural phenomenon. But science limited to wholly provable, immutable fact is sterile. The greater part of science is reasonable conjecture. Too bad so many evolutionists are not convinced of as much and instead pass themselves of as sole keepers of the truth when in fact they are but pompous, philosophical conjecturers.