Spring Break
Fact v. Faith in public schools
Editorial
Issue date: 3/31/05 Section: Opinion
- < prev Page 2 of 2
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.
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.
