The verdict is in in Pennsylvania: it is now ‘unconstitutional' to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution in a public school classroom. It cannot be mentioned, studied or discussed by students or faculty. apparently, the only constitutionally acceptable explanation for our existence is Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which of course is taught freely in every public school's biology curriculum.
If one studies Darwin's theory, it becomes clear that there are indeed some gaps and areas that aren't explained. That's what gives it the label of ‘theory' and not ‘fact'. Darwin himself admitted that he did not claim to understand how we've become the complex beings that we are. He merely studied the process of change that has occurred within our species, noting how we have ‘evolved'. His theory is sound, it is based on rigorous research and tangible findings. Yet there is still no evidence of how, or why these changes have taken place, it offers nothing more than the speculation of ‘natural selection' to try and explain the force behind the changes noted. There are more answers to be found.
Intelligent design does not in any way negate the findings of Darwin, though those against its teaching would like us to believe it does. Intelligent design theory does not name a creator, or ‘God'- it does not promote any specific religion or set of religious beliefs. It is not, nor has it ever been, Creationism. Intelligent design does not have a Biblical basis.
Intelligent Design is very simple. It speaks to the possibility of something, an unnamed and unseen force controlling the development of life on earth. For some, that may be a God, for others, something else.
For a moment, let's put ideology and politics aside in this argument. Can anyone see what is really going on here? One side of an issue is effectively silencing another. We aren't banning religious teachings in our public schools, we are banning free thought and discussion, a chance for our children to see two sides, explore two theories and come to their own conclusions. What does this do for our kids? It doesn't protect them from some kind of forced religious practice.
They lose out on reading the opinions and work of Michael J. Behe and Kenneth R. Miller, who write from both sides of this issue. They won't get a chance to understand the concept of ‘irreducibly complex' and ‘successive modification' and how that applies to biology. Do you know what WE lose? The possibility that one of the future great minds in science is sitting in a Pennsylvania classroom, hearing only one half of the story, raising her hand to ask a question only to have her teacher state that the topic ‘can't be discussed'. Where is education in that?
Some of the reactions against the exploration of Intelligent Design have been quite disturbing. Why can't a school put inserts into textbooks stating that
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is, well..a theory? Why would a court of law ban that action? When I last checked, it was still a theory. Why can't other theories be presented, discussed, and evaluated? What are we so afraid of?
as much as I hate to repeat myself, we are losing our democratic beliefs and replacing them with Liberal socialism. Liberals don't want a fair or challenging argument, they only want to present one side of an issue, hoping that their theories will be taken as fact. It seems they have succeeded here, but their success comes at a huge price.
My apologies to the many students in Pennsylvania who will suffer from this ruling. For the rest of us, speak out against the banning of free thought and discussion in our public schools. When our government starts telling us what we can learn and how we can think, government has gone too far.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement