First Person Life


Intelligent Design Decision - Double Standard

That public schools have become a haven for social engineering and societal brainwashing is one of those things we'd like to ignore. We have moved far from the early days of school administration and teachers acting "in loco parentis" (in place of the parent) to being an overt arm of the government able to indoctrinate the children of our society with whatever compliments the aims of those in control. The debate for control of the science curriculum is an obvious case in point.

Witness the recent Federal District Court case Kitzmiller vs. Dover. This case is over a disclaimer pasted in school textbooks which indicates that there are multiple views regarding the origins of the universe and the Darwinian Evolution is the name of a scientific theory which attempts to explain those origins. It then goes on to indicate that other explainations exist including the explaination of "Intelligent Design."

In this case, the sticker was ruled unconstitutional. Part of the rationale was that parents "condition their trust [in the public schools] on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family." (p. 36)

My disagreement is not with the ruling of "Intelligent Design" as a religious explaination of origins. With this part of the ruling, I agree whole heartedly and I really wish the "scientific creationists" would just admit this fact.

My problem is that in the rationale for striking down this sticker, the court itself ignored the trust that parents place in the schools when it said: "Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the Origins of Life, ...[children are reminded that they]... 'can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,' thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class's study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt..." (p. 44)

Logically speaking, isn't any message which would cause students to question the "beliefs taught by their parents" the advancement of "religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family?" And since it is done through official curriculum of the state, is it not then a "religious message that appear[s] to carry official imprimature" from which this very court declared that these "impressionable students" must be protected?

This whole debate has gotten patently rediculous. I admit "Intelligent Design" is a religious theory for the origins of the universe. I proudly declare that fact. But the fact is that "Evolution" is ultimately no less "religious" although it may be couched in better "scientific sounding language" (p. 21)

EDIT NOTE: Changed "Kitzmer" to "Kitzmiller" -- oops.

Technorati Tags:


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home