Teaching Creationism an intelligent plan
Jeffrey Padgett
Issue date: 9/18/06 Section: Opinion
Lake Argyle is a beautiful place, well, at least pretty - I'm not sure if I'd really call anything in or near Macomb beautiful … except some of the girls here. But if you've ever spent some time at the lake alone, or any place in nature where you're surrounded by the beauty of the earth, doesn't it seem as if there is something spiritual about it? I mean, if you throw away your bias and emotion, don't throw away your intelligence or education and you honestly ask yourself if it is possible for a reason, or force, or some kind of power to be behind it, and behind your own existence well, how do you answer yourself?
Like most of you, ever since the third grade I have had the evolution theory drilled into my brain each year in the public schools. That was fine by me, because it's quite natural for a young student to trust a teacher, and scientists said it had a lot of evidence, so I believed it for a long time. But eventually, we become adults and we learn to think for ourselves and question our sources to find out truth. At least I hope you do.
It just didn't make sense to me how so many people could believe in something supernatural when there was so much evidence for natural evolution. So, I started searching my public library, magazines and Internet to find out how real, educated people could believe in the creation idea (which in its basic form says life is too complex to have evolved without some "intelligence" creating it).
And I feel like we've been lied to.
In truth, I discovered that there is much good, hard scientific evidence supporting and denying the theory of intelligent design, just as there is much that supports and discounts the concept of evolution. The reason public schools do not teach us the theory of intelligent design in science classrooms is because they equate it to teaching religion, and of course we must keep church and state separate.
But if the state is in fact being unbiased, then shouldn't they present the scientific evidence for both sides? This is the only way to be fair, and it certainly isn't forcing a religion on anyone. What is the harm in teaching all of the evidence for evolution and for intelligent design?
Like most of you, ever since the third grade I have had the evolution theory drilled into my brain each year in the public schools. That was fine by me, because it's quite natural for a young student to trust a teacher, and scientists said it had a lot of evidence, so I believed it for a long time. But eventually, we become adults and we learn to think for ourselves and question our sources to find out truth. At least I hope you do.
It just didn't make sense to me how so many people could believe in something supernatural when there was so much evidence for natural evolution. So, I started searching my public library, magazines and Internet to find out how real, educated people could believe in the creation idea (which in its basic form says life is too complex to have evolved without some "intelligence" creating it).
And I feel like we've been lied to.
In truth, I discovered that there is much good, hard scientific evidence supporting and denying the theory of intelligent design, just as there is much that supports and discounts the concept of evolution. The reason public schools do not teach us the theory of intelligent design in science classrooms is because they equate it to teaching religion, and of course we must keep church and state separate.
But if the state is in fact being unbiased, then shouldn't they present the scientific evidence for both sides? This is the only way to be fair, and it certainly isn't forcing a religion on anyone. What is the harm in teaching all of the evidence for evolution and for intelligent design?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
J. Q. Public
posted 9/18/06 @ 7:45 PM CST
The main reason intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom - is that it is BAD SCIENCE. Good science involves far more than explaining why things exist or happen. (Continued…)
Heath Foster
posted 9/19/06 @ 2:03 PM CST
Jeffrey, I thought your article was outstanding. It took guts to take your position. it is not worth much but i applaude you. I too have been attacked because of something I posted. (Continued…)
a.rosenthal
A Rosenthal
posted 9/25/06 @ 11:39 PM CST
Hi,
I am a devoted evolutionist who has no problem teaching "the controversy". In total seriousness I would teach Creationism/ID including: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, gap creationism, day-age creationism, theistic evolution, and progressive creationism. (Continued…)
Post a Comment