Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Read other letters about this article
Survival of the unfittest
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled that intelligent design is not fit for science classes. But I.D. remains rooted in U.S. schools, where science teachers are pressured to address God in the classroom.
By Gordy Slack [2005-12-21]

  • In response to James re: "ID should be mentioned in science classes briefly"..

    James says:

    "It's [ID] a philosophical position, and it should be covered in science classes in about two sentences."

    Why would we present a "philosophical" position in a SCIENCE class?

    If we briefly presented EVERY theory that "some people" believe in a classroom, then the entire class would be spent giving equal time to *unequal* hypotheses. "Some people" (a lot of people!) believe in Scientology. Maybe we should present that in science classes too! Hey - it's got the word "science" in it!

    I think a lot of this superficial argument misses a deeper point. As a society, we (including our founding fathers) have chosen to root our civic structures in rational thought (logos*) and science while relegating religious and mystical thought (mythos*) to private life. Since ID has no scientific basis but is instead rooted in mystical thinking, it cannot and should not, by our system, be taught in schools.

    Those who are aredently pushing ID in public schools desire to subvert the rational basis of our civic structures and return to a world where mythos rules. That's called a Theocracy.

    (* Read Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God"... interesting treatise on fundamentalism).

    -- dawdler
    [Read dawdler's other letters]
    Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:00 AM
Read other letters about this article

Letters Help