Well, at my elder daughter's school they all have to do a course in Domestic Science -- basic cookery, in fact (not high-octane academic subject, just a practical prep for adult life). One of the lessons is how to cook pork safely. The Jewish and Muslim students do a different exercise that day, which is fair enough. But by your logic, that class should include a lesson on why some religious groups regard the eating of pork as ungodly. Where do you end? Do you really want religion discussed in science class? Surely safer to leave religion to philosophy in schools, to parents at home, to ministers/rabbis at church or synagogue?
the ridicule and dogmatism from the Church of Darwinism should end
I don't favour ridicule of anyone's sincerely held beliefs. But the ID lobby invites ridicule when it is caught out lying, as in the Dover case. And many ID/Creationist advocates invite still more ridicule by demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding about basic science. By all means, challenge Darwin scientifically; challenges mounted from scriptual authority alone have no weight in a science classroom. And, as a Conservative and a Christian, embarrass me.
Hi Tory! This relates back to your fine post from last week, which I didn't have time to respond to.
Is it a purely religious assertion to expect science to concede its limitations? Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. Nor can it confirm nor deny His involvement, or even necessity, in the existence of the universe, its laws, or life within it. Why is there so much hysteria in the scientific community at noting these limitations within science class or texts?
The ACLU, Judge Jones, and the evolution lobby would blow the roof off the nearest courthouse in outrage if a schoolboard were to require that kids be told outright that science is clueless about whether or not life could exist without God (or to satisfy the inevitable FSM trolls, a deity or deities).