Debate is good for education, for science, for life.

Debate, a discussion involving opposing points, is good for education. Simple memorization of facts (or fiction) does not teach how to think or rationalize new ideas. Real education is not memorization. Educators should not be teaching what to think, rather how to think. In the science classroom, opposing views should be taught. I strongly disagree with Kansas Board of Education Member Janet Waugh:

"Why not be honest and say it is a faith issue? I personally believe in the biblical version of creationism, but I don't believe that my beliefs should be taught in a science class."

If you have two valid, yet opposing, views both should be taught in the classroom. Students should be taught to take conflicting theories about the same facts and decide for themselves which they find has more credibility. Anything less than that is not education.

I disagree though, with the Kansas board deciding to change the definition of science to include "supernatural explanations of natural phenomena." That is not science. Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Science cannot establish God or any other supernatural being. However, science can point to a supernatural explanation of the natural phenomena. The key difference is that science is not the study of the supernatural explanation but the study of the natural phenomena.

I don't understand, though, why the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association would revoke copyright privileges if the new curriculum was invoked. Do they want to stiffle debate and thereby stifflng education? Or are they just financially motivated (which would make no sense because they would lose the profits from the book sales)? Further study is needed.

People who haven't learned how to think in school are at a major disadvantage in life. Schools failing to teach that fail at their primary mission: preparing students for life.