I’m trying hard to understand Mr. Logue. He declares his
personal religious beliefs in a public setting, attempts to equate
an unproven religious belief concept with a thoroughly proven
scientific theory, is unconcerned that his belief system has no
basis in fact and attempts to utilize public polls as if they were
significant in constitutional matters.
Editor,
I’m trying hard to understand Mr. Logue. He declares his personal religious beliefs in a public setting, attempts to equate an unproven religious belief concept with a thoroughly proven scientific theory, is unconcerned that his belief system has no basis in fact and attempts to utilize public polls as if they were significant in constitutional matters.
What Mr. Logue doesn’t get is a little thing called the U.S. Constitution. Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court dispelled the commonly used religionist’s ploy to “… present all options to our students and then trust them to make an informed decision” as mere sectarian verbiage for teaching religious tenets alongside biological evolution.
The 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard case detailed that teaching sectarian beliefs regarding the origins of life in a biology course did not meet the three-pronged Lemon test. Obviously, Mr. Logue is unaware of, or feigns ignorance of, this two decade old decision, and rehashes well-worn religious “equality” issues that are meaningless.
How significant are polls when assigned to scientific debate? Current polls show that some people still believe the world is flat, that the alignment of planets and stars determines one’s future, the sun revolves around the earth, and aliens have landed on this planet. Do we teach these as well in our science classes?
Mr. Logue trusts polls. I trust our secular Constitution.
Dale Morejon, Gilroy
