Teaching and Preaching

The debate over including intelligent design in public school science curricula continued in today's Globe-Republican opinion pages. I've seen all manner of twisted logic used to argue against the teaching of evolution, but today's LTE from Jerry Lytle is the first I've seen to bring Hitler into the mix. Lytle claims that intelligent design should be brought into the classroom "to balance the scales" with evolution. His argument is flawed, because evolution, in and of itself, says nothing about the existence of God and as such can't truly be considered a polar opposite to I.D. In fact, whether or not a student believes God is involved in the process is already a matter of personal opinion. Bringing I.D. into the classroom would change that dramatically.

The basis behind I.D. is that life is too complex and seems to well thought-out to have simply just happened. There must be a divine, intelligence (i.e. God) behind it all. Proponents of I.D. want a teacher (or text book) explicitly telling students the driving force behind evolution is God. "Give the students all the options and let them decide for themselves.", state supporters of I.D. OK, fair enough. How about that same group of students being told explicitly by a teacher (or text book) that the origins of life are completely random and God is imaginary, and then backing up that claim with real world observation. Is that a debate I.D. supporters want playing out in public school science classroom? We're giving students ALL the options and letting them decide for themselves, after all.

I.D. in the classroom also brings up the sticky issue of how much God is too much? Where would the line be drawn between teaching and preaching? Who will make that determination, the state or the local school boards? It is a Pandora's box of issues that will very likely blow up in the faces of its supporters.