Mr. Randy Logue is confused on many fronts regarding the
evolution and intelligent design discussion. A theory in science is
not the same definition as the colloquial definition of theory as
used in daily conversation.
”
I have a theory on how to sneak into a movie theater without
paying.
”
Editor,
Mr. Randy Logue is confused on many fronts regarding the evolution and intelligent design discussion. A theory in science is not the same definition as the colloquial definition of theory as used in daily conversation. “I have a theory on how to sneak into a movie theater without paying.” “I have a theory on how to avoid paying additional federal taxes.” These are conjectures without substantive data to support them. Science theory is an aggregation of facts or phenomena that lead to statements that can be repeatedly tested and used to make future predictions. Evolution does this; intelligent design does not.
Scientists are not questioning Mr. Logue’s conservative Christian belief system, nor are public schools implying that religion is a dirty word. Religion has never been removed from the public schools. Our secular U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court clearly states that evolution fits the standards of science and religious belief systems do not. Intelligent design, whatever scientific principles it might have and has yet to state, will clearly not meet the three-prong Lemon test for constitutionality.
If there are very intelligent people out there who believe in intelligent design, can any of them share with us the scientific data supporting their beliefs? The new proponents of intelligent design are the same folks who supported the now-forgotten scientific creationism proposals of the 1980’s.
So, Mr. Logue, why don’t we hear from those folks any more? Have they changed their opinion about scientific creationism? Was their belief system so shallow that it was not worth the battle? Maybe it is easier to reconstitute it into intelligent design and spin it as another valid scientific theory.
Why would intelligent design be delegated to a world religion’s class or philosophy class? Religious beliefs are faith-based with no scientific or empirical evidences to support them. World religion classes are taught at the high school level, and teachers should be neutral in any presentation of curriculum as is required by California’s Education Code just as they would in a math, history or language class.
Finally, Mr. Logue mistakenly informs the public that state funding to districts is based upon test scores. Wrong again. School districts get funded by type (elementary, unified and high school) exclusive of test scores.
Mr. Logue, the realities of modern science and our secular Constitution should not be questioning your personal religious belief systems. You are the only one who should be questioning your own belief system.
Dale Morejon, Gilroy
