The Sun-Sentinel features this article (spotted via Critical Miami), in which the author of the Sun-Sentinel article apparently ”doesn’t get” why evolution is taught in schools but “intelligent design” is not.
The author does have some good points. In some ways, a belief in evolution requires its own dogma. Many people who believe in evolution can be as overzealous as religious fanatics. She does have a point that evolution (which apparently may be renamed to “biological changes over time”) is taught as if it is the absolute truth, and “intelligent design” (religion) is not taught at all. However, the author seems to ignore that one of the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded was the idea that religion and government should not be commingled, and separation of church and state is exactly why we don’t teach “intelligent design” in schools.
Why must it be called “intelligent design”? My hunch is that it is an attempt to make religion sound more like science, and therefore to make it more acceptable to teach in schools. I drive by the Church of Christ, Scientist every day on my way to work and wonder if members of this congregation spearheaded the “intelligent design” movement. And here’s a personal anecdote (and the “blawg” part), which proves my point that “intelligent design” = unabashed religion. One day I’m picking a jury in a criminal case. The judge has all members of the jury panel fill out questionnaires that ask about the basic details of their lives including where they live, what their careers are, their hobbies, etc. I misread one man’s answers due to handwriting that only leads me to believe that he should have become a doctor. Rather than reading “graphic design” as his career, I misread his career as “organic design”. I was quite intrigued by this and decided to question him further. When I asked him what he does as part of his career in “organic design”, he corrected me and told me that he does graphic design. Then he followed up with, “Organic design? Isn’t that God?” The entire jury panel errupted in laughter. Case closed.
I’m impressed to think that there are parents out there who care about what their kids are doing at school. It’s unfortunate that the author has to “de-program” her kids as a result of what is being taught, but that’s exactly why people can feel free to send their kids to private schools or to home school their children. When parents don’t like what schools are teaching and they want to teach their own theories, that’s fine. But the fact that they choose not to home school or send their kids to private school, doesn’t mean that the rest of us should have to teach their theories in school or to water down our curriculum with things that don’t belong there, such as religion.
Now if you want to be technical the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn’t say that religion has to be separated from school or even that “church” has to be separated from “state”:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Through various court interpretations, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights has come to mean that religion cannot be forced upon students in public schools. One of my middle school English teachers had the right outlook on this and had a poster that said, “As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.” Although religion is not taught in schools, students will continue to believe in it and even practice it, right in the classroom.
Boo on the Sun-Sentinel for posting an article that seems to ignore our Constitution and even seems to suggest that we should allow the erosion of our Constitutional rights. Ok, maybe I’m being over dramatic, but you know, you give them an inch, they take the whole yard, etc. Double boo for publishing authors who seem clueless about our rights. (That’s what blogs are for: where clueless authors can post whatever they want. Lol.) Yay, I guess, to the Sun-Sentinel for pushing freedom of speech and freedom of the press? And double yay for a parent who cares what her kids are doing in school.
And now I’m really off on a tangent, but I do want to say that my favorite battle between evolution and religion is among the car fish. First of all, whoever came up with the Darwin car fish in response to the Christian car fish must have been a genius. (Check out this article for neat ideas other people had for car fish.) Second, I want to address the Christian fanatics who in response to the Darwin fish now carry on their cars a large “Truth fish” eating the smaller Darwin fish.
Doesn’t this car emblem reflect a dogmatic lack of thought? Doesn’t this emblem reflect a belief at least in natural selection, the mechanism of evolution? If you put this fish on your car, you are admitting that at least part of the theory of evolution is correct in that the bigger, stronger, more well-adapted organisms eat the weaker, smaller, less-adapted organisms. By putting this fish on your car, didn’t you mean to show that evolution is not true? Again, this is where a dogmatic lack of thought can lead you. You could be one of those morons, who goes around blindly sticking fish emblems on your car, planning to show the world that evolution doesn’t happen and that Christianity AKA “intelligent design” AKA “Truth” is the winner. Too bad that you accidentally confirmed a belief in part of the very theory you were intending to disprove. And what were you thinking anyway when you thought that you were going to disprove a theory when you stuck a plastic fish to your car? But I digress….