Fact v. Faith in public schools

Editorial

By:

Posted: 3/31/05

Subject matter outside of philosophical thought in public schools should be limited to what either stimulates critical intelligent thinking or reinforces proven theories and relevant hypotheses.

Nine states have recently proposed legislation that could hinder science learning by introducing a form of religious teaching in public schools, strategically referred to as "intelligent-design theory," or IDT. The theory - a term very loosely used when discussing such matters of creationism - is based on the opinion that life might be too complex to evolve naturally, thus requiring a supreme creator.

In contrast, scientists present solid theories of evolution, claiming to have many answers for what creationists have deemed not provable or inaccurate.

Both sides have seemingly well-intentioned motives, but one argument has a clear disadvantage regarding relevance in a public education system.

The idea of teaching IDT in public schools undermines numerous noble attempts to separate church and state and stirs controversy regarding theories of evolution, which have clear and plentiful evidence.

While one should respect all ideas and concepts regarding the origin of life, IDT in public schools clearly violates walls created to prevent the establishment of any one religion. Opening school doors to IDT would set a precedent of allowing any idea to be presented as regular public curriculum, regardless of its lacking in scientific support or educational relevance.

Historically, religion has surfaced publicly and has worked its way into everyday governance. Unfortunately, one set of beliefs stands above the others, and religious minorities in the United States, as a result, have been the subject of mockery and hatred.

Traditionally, Christianity has been the most predominant religion to influence American culture, and slip-ups have resulted in Christian ideas remaining in public and governmental forums. For example, God likely will remain on U.S. currency, and the battle for removing a supreme creator from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance likely has a future of heated debate.

But a play on words and redefinitions of Christian beliefs are hurdles to free religion that can still be avoided.

Arkansas legislatures earlier this year shot down attempts to have IDT implemented in this state, a remarkable feat considering Arkansas' recent history of adopting religious foundations as law.

The basis for preventing IDT in public schools is simple. In addition to the fact that religion has no place in public schools, IDT presents no credible scientific grounding to constitute its teaching to future generations. IDT and similar theories should be restricted to their proper settings - churches, for example.

Suggesting IDT is a science is an insult to actual scientific theories that have been rigorously sought after and have survived attempts at disproving.

By definition, a scientific theory must be comprised of testable hypotheses, which IDT severely lacks. In fact, the premises of the "theory" suggest no proof exists at all.

A fine line exists between a theory and the concept of faith. Neither should be taken lightly, and one should not impose on the definitions of the other.

If one chooses to deny proof of evolution, he or she has that right, but to counter scientific teachings by presenting alternative unscientific ideas to impressionable youths crosses a dangerous line.

The battle to keep evolution in public schools might not end anytime soon, but creationists discredit their fight when they impose their beliefs on state institutions.

The battle of Science v. Faith continues to consume valuable legislative time, and in the meantime, the ones suffering are the children at risk of being denied a valuable and relevant education.