After reading Brett Rowland’s article and the many letters to
the editor about intelligent design being incorporated into the
public school curriculum, I am forced by my beliefs to make a
stand.
There are three points I would like to make on the issue.
Editor,
After reading Brett Rowland’s article and the many letters to the editor about intelligent design being incorporated into the public school curriculum, I am forced by my beliefs to make a stand.
There are three points I would like to make on the issue. First, wen did being a conservative Christian become a dirty word in our society? Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of American life and culture, and I am certainly proud to say that I am a conservative Christian. I am also proud to say that I attended public elementary school, junior high, high school, junior college and a California State University, (Chico State no less), and somehow still managed to have these religious values.
This brings me to my second point. When I went through the public school system, I was taught “The theory of evolution.” I took it as just that, a theory. When I went through the system 25 to 30 years ago, the teachers made it clear to us as students this was one possible theory of man’s origin and existence. We were taught about the “Monkey Trial,” and about Darwin, his studies and the “holes” in his theory.
What I want know is when the theory of evolution become the “facts of evolution.” In education 2+2 = 4 is a fact. Apes evolving into men is a “theory.” I have a real problem with my children being taught the theory of evolution is a fact that is to be memorized, tested and, most scarily, made a California state standard to be tested on. Remember people, educational monies are doled out based upon test scores, and schools’ API and AYP scores are also based upon standardized test scores.
My third point has to do with the idea that “intelligent design” should be taught in philosophy class or as philosophy as mentioned by Mr. Schallhorn, in the original article. In a typical modern public school, this would of course be done by a teacher who is not allowed to express his or her own person feelings about this subject, would have to use a watered down curriculum and probably doesn’t believe it in the first place. I ask what kind of objective chance would it have?
I have always thought that it is very interesting that we conservative Christians who have chosen to support the public schools have been willing to let our children be exposed to an environment where religion is basically a dirty word. Yet those of you who think religion is a dirty word panic at the thought that “intelligent design” might some how sneak into the science curriculum through the back door. What are you afraid of? Possibly that your children might decide that the “theory of evolution” is just that and not the “fact of evolution.” There are a lot of highly intelligent people who support the notion of “intelligent design.”
Randy Logue, Hollister
