[Mylo]

I don't want to live in a reality limited by only what science knows. That is why I am a scientist and try to learn more. I also like fiction.

But school biology, chemistry, physics, and math class should be limited to what is actually observable and detectable and reproducible.

Literature, history, religion, music, art; that we can leave open to interpretation and taste and "teach the controversy".

[D-fendr]

Literature, history, religion, music, art; that we can leave open to interpretation and taste and "teach the controversy".

But even the slightest mention of the existence of reality or truth on the level of religion is prohibited from being taught. Even the basics of the philosophy of science or knowledge is not taught. And, by ommission, public education infers that only what can be known by science is true.

Also, it is not an "interpretation" that scientific knowledge is a subset of knowledge and reality. It is a "provable" fact.

My objection is not to evolution, and I'm not a fan of ID. I object as strongly to using science to infer metaphysics as I do using religion to deduce science. If Dawkins is the example of an evolutionary scientist then a great deal more than science is being taught under the disguise of science.We may be creating better scientists, but our education has lost more valuable things that used to be part of a basic education.

Thanks very much for your reply.