Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
The trouble with this ruling, as well as the coverage surrounding it, is the faulty logic. That logic is most likely based on a bias. Unfortunately, since most people are emotional about religious viewpoints, anything that smells like religion will draw an emotional response.
First to those who believe in creationism-- Intelligent Design (ID) does not prove the Bible, nor does it espouse seven literal or figurative days. ID does not state who the creator is or could be. This is not a way to teach children about the Bible in school. This is not a religious theory and it does not purport to be.
Now, for those who do not believe in creationism-- Intelligent Design (ID) does not prove the Bible, nor does it espouse seven literal or figurative days. ID does not state who the creator is or could be. This is not a way to teach children about the Bible in school. This is not a religious theory and it does not purport to be.
Neither evolution nor ID is a religion, for both are scientific theories. Adoption of either of those theories can lead someone to a religious opinion and anyone can put forth either of those theories. Just because someone who puts forth ID also believes God exists does not make ID religious. Just because someone who puts forth Evolution also believes God exists does not make Evolution religious. The opposites of those statements are also true. But based on most biases, ID = religion. Hence Evolution = religion based on the same argument.
When anyone tries to use ID to promote religion, that leads others to see ID as religious. Hence the judge's ruling. At first I was upset about the ruling, finding it to be wrong. However, after reading the full opinoin, the judge rightfully saw people using ID as a way to teach religion.
Should ID be taught in schools? Yes. Should it be used for sneaking religion in? No. And because people tried to do that, ID and thereby true education, is not being taught to children. Shame on us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment