Edward Houston understands
”
what is science
”
and
”
what is not,
”
but cannot accept the unconstitutionality of the
”
what is not
”
in science classrooms.
Editor,
Edward Houston understands “what is science” and “what is not,” but cannot accept the unconstitutionality of the “what is not” in science classrooms. His false conclusion is typical religious fundamental “Babel speak.” I have not heard one scientist stipulate that the questioning of evolution is to bring religion into the science classroom. Rather, it is religionists who bring their belief system into science while attempting to debunk evolution. Mr. Houston should be consistent and genuine: science welcomes refutation, religion abhors it.
Where Mr. Houston and I agree is that this discussion is precisely about good science education. If public schools were to allow creationism, scientific creation, intelligent design (ID), Wicca, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam or paganism into the science classroom, how does one distinguish between the nature of science (naturalism) and gods (supernaturalism)? Mr. Houston’s idea of good science education is unconstitutional in Federal and Supreme Courts. What about this does he not understand?
Two weeks ago the El Tejon School District, admitting it made a mistake attempting to teach creationism and ID, dropped a blatantly illegal course called “Philosophy of Design” taught by a local religious fundamentalist minister’s wife who had no certification in teaching science, religion or philosophy. The special education teacher’s “philosophy” class description stated “the class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid. The class will discuss intelligent design as an alternative response to evolution.”
Teaching religion in public schools is illegal whether it is in a science, philosophy or comparative religions class. Teaching about religions is legal as long as no one religious belief predominates and the intent is to discuss religions not teach doctrine. El Tejon School District understood this and correctly dropped its unconstitutional philosophy class. Even John West, senior fellow at intelligent design’s Discovery Institute, stated the course “was misconceived.” The philosophy course used the Institute’s videos to present religious theories as scientific.
This discussion will end once biblical fundamentalists understand they have no preeminent claim to teach their religious views in public school science classrooms.
Dale Morejón, Gilroy
