Dear Editor,
Let’s see, they tried it with creationism. The courts threw that
out. Then came scientific creationism, that is, creationism with a
scientific spin, but again without any scientific data. The Supreme
Court tossed that out as well. So far, 0-for-2. Not looking good
for the home town boys.
Dear Editor,
Let’s see, they tried it with creationism. The courts threw that out. Then came scientific creationism, that is, creationism with a scientific spin, but again without any scientific data. The Supreme Court tossed that out as well. So far, 0-for-2. Not looking good for the home town boys.
Now intelligent design has stepped up to the plate. What do all three have in common? They all work from the same Christian, biblical, fundamental premise: Since a divine being has created everything, and science does not have all the answers to evolution due to life’s complexity, then the Christian view of life’s origins are to be taught in biology classes.
The originator of intelligent design, Philip Johnson a retired law professor who converted to Christian biblical fundamentalism, stated in 1996, “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” Empirical evidences, testable hypotheses, and the ability to prove something false are the tenets of science, not religion.
So why should we allow intelligent design into the science classrooms?
Do I hear 0-for-3?
Dale Morejón, Gilroy
