My home state of Missouri is the latest to debate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools. The proposal, now in the state House of Representatives, is being greeted with great wailing and gnashing of teeth from secular scientists.
“This is so sad to see this in this day and age,” said Charles Granger, curators’ distinguished teaching professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a member of the board of the Academy of Science of St. Louis. “I hope we don’t make fools of ourselves like Kansas.”
Panicked science teachers are claiming this will prevent teaching such things as the periodic table in chemistry classes, and could prevent American students from competing in the sciences with students from foreign countries.
That’s hogwash, of course, but it shows the level of fear in the scientific establishment.
I personally don’t have a problem with teaching evolutionism in school–IF it’s labeled a belief system and not a scientific theory.
A theory must be able to be tested so that it produces observable, reproducable results. Can’t do that with evolutionism. You’ll never see a mammal hatch from a reptile egg, or a flying creature born of a land animal. Evolutionism, like creation science, is simply the interpretation of the painfully thin fossil record.
However, evolutionists keep protesting that creation science is all about religion:
Supporters of intelligent design are trying to bring creationism and religion into schools, said Rebecca Litherland, science coordinator for the Columbia public schools and a past president of the Science Teachers of Missouri.
There is no such intent, said Joe White, president of the citizens group that worked several years to prepare for the legislation that Cooper introduced.
“We are not defining who intelligence is,” said White, a Boeing engineer who lives in St. Charles. “If you are Christian, you may say God. If you are an atheist, you may say it was an extraterrestrial intelligent cosmic being.”
Biologists and paleontologists admit privately that the evidence for evolutionism–the “missing link”, if you will–just isn’t there, and yet they hold to their belief with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher at revival. What is it called when one holds to a belief in something unseen, that can’t be proved, and for which no firm evidence exists?
Oh, yeah: Religion.
I say, in the interest of true scientific objectivity, present the evidence side by side and let kids make up their minds. But that is exactly what secular scientists are afraid of.