Comments on: Teach the controversy http://www.jasoose.com/2005/12/30/teach-the-controversy/ Normal is a variable. Bitching is a constant. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:20:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Tom Weishaar http://www.jasoose.com/2005/12/30/teach-the-controversy/#comment-53 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:02:14 +0000 http://www.jasoose.com/2005/12/30/teach-the-controversy/#comment-53 Ben - the issue the court was looking at was not which of the two theories was correct, but whether Intelligent Design was a scientific or religious theory. The Constitution specifies that the government - including public schools - can't favor one religious theory over others. In this case the court held that Intelligent Design is not science, but is a religious theory, and thus it can't be taught in public schools. I continue to think this is a great case for social science classes to study - no matter what your religious beliefs. Ben - the issue the court was looking at was not which of the two theories was correct, but whether Intelligent Design was a scientific or religious theory. The Constitution specifies that the government - including public schools - can't favor one religious theory over others.

In this case the court held that Intelligent Design is not science, but is a religious theory, and thus it can't be taught in public schools. I continue to think this is a great case for social science classes to study - no matter what your religious beliefs.

]]> by: Ben Terrill http://www.jasoose.com/2005/12/30/teach-the-controversy/#comment-51 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:06:37 +0000 http://www.jasoose.com/2005/12/30/teach-the-controversy/#comment-51 I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state, and Evolution is no more a science than Intelligent Design (ID) -- in the macro sense. What I mean is that the point of teaching ID or Creation Science was to offer an intelligent (pun intented) alternative to what the standard biology texts and most science teachers teach about Earth and humankind's beginnings. In other words, I object to the way evolution is taught as "the explanation" for life, and I just can't buy that. It's like waking up one morning to see a new car on your driveway and offering the explanation that somehow all the mater came together in just the right way at just the right time -- must have taken a bazillion years -- to become this car here in my driveway (Oh, thank my lucky stars!). So, teach evolution (small 'e') as a theory and micro-evolution as practical science, but if you are going to start teaching it -- in the science room -- as THE only sacred explanation for how we all got here then id, creation science, and Gary Larson all deserve at least equal time. I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state, and Evolution is no more a science than Intelligent Design (ID) — in the macro sense. What I mean is that the point of teaching ID or Creation Science was to offer an intelligent (pun intented) alternative to what the standard biology texts and most science teachers teach about Earth and humankind's beginnings. In other words, I object to the way evolution is taught as "the explanation" for life, and I just can't buy that. It's like waking up one morning to see a new car on your driveway and offering the explanation that somehow all the mater came together in just the right way at just the right time — must have taken a bazillion years — to become this car here in my driveway (Oh, thank my lucky stars!). So, teach evolution (small 'e') as a theory and micro-evolution as practical science, but if you are going to start teaching it — in the science room — as THE only sacred explanation for how we all got here then id, creation science, and Gary Larson all deserve at least equal time.

]]>