Intelligent design is making yet another attempt to gain support in the classroom. Listening to NPR this morning, I heard the end of a
story in which they were commenting that I.D. supporters wanted to pass a bill making it the teacher's decision what to teach, and
not that of the BOE. This is unacceptable on many planes, and if said bill ever passes (I doubt
it will), the current administration will have taken yet another step away from the constitution.
The problem with intelligent design is that it is merely western religion with a sugar coating. While it is billed as a science by its
supporters, it is nothing of the sort. Sciences are logical, and have a fixed method for approaching situations. ID eventually boils
faith to explain certain elements. No science would ever leave such a glaring omission, and as such, intelligent design
is not a science. There needs to be absolute proof, or substantial proof, and we have yet to find any hard evidence that a god or
creator ever existed. Evolution, while not complete in explanation, is more logical than modern religions. But many religious pundits
and other groups will dismiss evolution as
just a theory. This is a matter of a difference of vocabulary. In
common English, theory means a disputed fact that does not yet have absolute evidence supporting it. In Scientific English, however,
theory means something entirely different. Theory means an idea that has been so thoroughly tested and developed as to be infallible. In
some ways, the word theory in science is synonymous with the word law. Both are absolute.
A matter of Tolerance
As a good Unitarian, I support a view of tolerance. I believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and as long as these beliefs do
not cause bodily harm to others, I am willing to accept them. But most modern religions have adopted a policy of
shun the. All religious groups have their ways of describing unbelievers. Heathens, infidels, atheists, gentiles, all are
synonymous. They mean one who does not believe exactly what another person does. In that sense, we are all unbelievers, as we all have
The groups pushing intelligent design, however, do not want any other form of science to be taught, for it might contradict them. This
is intolerance, and it has caused conflicts for all of eternity. It caused the crusades, it caused the holocaust, and it will continue
to cause problems. But intolerance is how religions sustain themselves. To keep supporters and money up, early religious philosophers
adopted a principle of suppress everything else, to ensure that their belief set was the ONLY one. People who left said belief were
shunned, and even hunted down and tortured or killed.
A thorn in their side, the Constitution
Another thing these groups do not realize or seem to care about is the fact that intelligent design would violate many elements of the
constitution. First and foremost, it would be establishing a state supported church, and that violates the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.
That amendment is perhaps the most important in the entire Bill of Rights, for it proclaims not only freedom of religion, but freedom of
speech as well. While the current administration has almost completely ignored the constitution. The amendment proclaims that the United
States Government, or any branch of said government (Board of education) included, will be able to adopt or enforce a particular
religion. While the current administration will try to make you believe that the United States was formed by pious men as a Christian
nation, this is a flat lie. The US was formed with one thing in mind, NO state religion. Therefore all religions are valid. The addition
of God to the Pledge of Allegiance and money is a recent doing, created during the McCarthy hype of the 50's. The oath a president
takes to be admitted into office has no mention of religion in it, and does not have to be taken on a bible. All the constitution states
about the oath is the following:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
As you can see, our country was founded to be religiously open and accepting, and as such, forcing religion in schools is in violation
of all that is American, and is perhaps the most unpatriotic act one can imagine.