Eroding the Science of Science

OK. Here we go again.

Intelligent Design and Darwin are having a rather inevitable legal fistfight. They just won't play nicely together. This time it is happening in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, to be exact. According to the lawsuit being currently adjudicated before U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III , the Dover school district has adopted a policy requiring school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says, "Charles Darwin's theory is not a fact and has inexplicable gaps. It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information."

"Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.

Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state."

Again, with this nonsense? First, the obvious: tolerating the theory of Intelligent Design, or, as in this case, merely MENTIONING that it exists at all, in American science classrooms is not a Congressionally or State mandated religion.

Second, my question: how, exactly, does teaching children that one man's scientific theory is not fact and introducing the mere reference to the existence of other scientific theories to challenge it, crossing a sacred (oops, sorry. Perhaps I should consider changing my wording, lest I be sued by the ACLU over crossing the other equally fabricated line of separation between "church and blog".) line in the Constitutional sand. Intelligent Design is a scientifically merited, not religiously mandated, theory. It proposes to challenge Darwin's theory, among others, and must be allowed its rightful place in any science classroom dedicated to examining ALL theories of our origins, not just those on the ACLU approved reading list.

"On Monday, Miller ( a witness for the families bringing the suit) said the policy undermines scientific education by wrongly raising doubts about evolutionary theory.

"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," he said. But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences in evolutionary theory."This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., said in his opening statement."


WRONGLY RAISING DOUBTS? I'm sorry, but I must have missed the memo declaring Darwin and his theories wholly immaculate, flawless, perfect, scientific FACT.

What is violating to our Constitution or national conscience in raising doubts about a scientific THEORY brought forth by another theory? Is science not based on the very necessity of raising doubts about existing scientific theories based on new evidence, competing theories, or flaws? Is it not a cornerstone of the scientific process to challenge, to experiment, to examine, to seek, to discover, and to continually test existing theories against forever expanding understandings and newly emerging evidence of natural processes? To take or create a hypothesis and test it relentlessly in order continually sharpen our knowledge of the whole truth with every available resource, not just those to whom we personally subscribe?

WHY is Darwin exempt from the very scientific process that those who ardently cleave to this "separation of church and state" claim as their motivation? If we truly value "scientific education", should we not PROMOTE the process of challenging scientific theories with other competing theories in the quest to truly understand our origins as exactly and as well-informed as possible? Why are some so openly intolerant of Intelligent Design's presence in the universe, going to radical extremes to avoid presenting it alongside Darwin's theory? Why have the Intelligent Design theories been allowed classification as a "church" of some kind and thus deemed inappropriate for consideration within public educational discourse?

I submit it is out of fear and intolerance at the hands of an agenda with a stranglehold whose grip seeks to only get tighter.

PUBLIC includes all of us. We must demand that our children be allowed exposure to ALL predominant scientific theories of our origin. Including Darwin's AND Intelligent Design.

Is there any doubt about the motivation for the increasing numbers of American children being removed from our public school system by their parents in DROVES in favor of private or homeschooled education?