More Thoughts on Intelligent Design

I wrote a post from Cape Cod, back on August 16, in which I talked briefly about the whole "intelligent design" approach to how the world began, and my thoughts about it. I have since gotten some feedback that I wanted to share. My very smart and often opinionated brother put it this way: The concept that the original spark that caused the beginning of life on earth as we know it was created by God -- as opposed to by natural forces provable through scientific method -- is not, in and of itself, offensive. (This was more or less what I was musing about back in August.) What is offensive is that this theory on the creation of life would be taught to children as science. Science classes -- particularly at the elementary and middle school level -- should be about teaching science. Biology. Chemistry. Ecology. Geology. You know -- SCIENCE. The theory that God created the first spark that led to life on earth is appropriate to teach to children in Sunday school, or in a class about philosophy or religion. It is not appropriate to teach to children in their science class, as an "alternative" to biology or chemistry or astronomy ... or evolution. (For other smart and opinionated things my brother has to say, visit www.elijahwald.com.) I couldn't agree with this more. Nor can it be doubted that the folks who want intelligent design taught to children as an "alternative" to evolution have a political agenda that involves giving religion (specifically the Christian religion) a much more central role in childhood education -- including in public elementary education. I cannot -- and do not -- support this erosion of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, my musings aside, there is a political war being fought here, and sides must be taken. So let me be clear that even if I'm prone to thinking that magic may play a role in our universe, I do not want children taught magic -- or religion -- in their science classes. 'Nuf said.....