Our secular constitution, as interpreted by the judicial system,
says that religious beliefs cannot be imposed upon those with
different religious beliefs, or none at all. This is exactly what
Intelligent Design and scientific creationism proponents have been
pushing the last three decades in public school science
classrooms.
Editor,
Our secular constitution, as interpreted by the judicial system, says that religious beliefs cannot be imposed upon those with different religious beliefs, or none at all. This is exactly what Intelligent Design and scientific creationism proponents have been pushing the last three decades in public school science classrooms. When one religious group attempts to impose their belief system into science classrooms, our court system has said that it is illegal.
Why should our court system be selective and allow ID to be the only religious belief system on origins be taught in science classes? Mr. Logue never answers that question. Why stop with Christian ID? Why not add Wicca origins? Buddhist origins? Greek mythology? Native American? Where does one stop?
Mr. Logue asks, “Why is the scientific community so afraid of ID and similar ideas being introduced into classrooms?” Once again, Mr. Logue conveniently eliminates the crucial word “science” before classroom. Scientists have no problem with teaching ID or any religious belief system, but not in the science classroom. Scientists say teach ID with Wicca, Buddhism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. in a social studies class where scientific proofs and facts are unnecessary. Do you notice religionists never push for teaching ID in comparative religions classes where our court systems say it should be taught?
ID and scientific creationism proponents want their religious beliefs taught with science, but they don’t want the reverse. Years ago, in similar letter-to-the-editor discussions, I asked if scientific creationists would allow evolution to be taught in their Sunday school classes considering that religionists implore that evolution and biblical creation be given “equal time” in science classes. Their response was a resounding No! They commented, “Science should not be taught in religious classes. It should be taught in science classes.” Excuse me? Did I miss something?
Mr. Logue’s propensity about commenting on issues but not giving a true case scenario is disturbing, but not inconsistent with other ID proponents. His comment, “Well now the University of California is considering not accepting classes from private school that don’t meet their ‘criteria,'” gives the impression that the UC system has just “now” begun selectively approving course work for UC admittance. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we are searching for truth, are we not?
For decades, UC has denied course work from private and public schools that don’t meet UC acceptance rigor. In 2004-05 UC had over 7,000 courses submitted for acceptance, and they denied 35 percent of them or over 2,400 courses. Why? The high school courses were either not rigorous enough; UC was provided too little information about the course work; or the courses were too biased or too narrowly focused. What keeps the UC system at the top of all public universities in the world? Tough prerequisite criteria. Mr. Logue failed to mention this, thus giving the impression that the UC system is selectively biased against private schools.
Dale Morejón, Gilroy
