On evolution

Editorial gets a failing grade on science, religion Lane, Bob . Nanaimo Daily News ; Nanaimo, B.C. [Nanaimo, B.C]24 Dec 2005: A8.
ProQuest document link


ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
1. Factual content: F. The judge did not rule that “ID” should not be taught. In fact, he recommended that it be
taught in socials or comparative religion. He ruled that “ID” is not science and so should not be taught in a biology
class. Testimony from the “ID” experts showed that under their definition of science, astrology would be
considered science and should be taught.


FULL TEXT


THE EDITOR:
As a person who has marked English and Philosophy essays for almost 35 years I could not help but have a red
pen approach to your borrowed editorial on the recent ruling by the conservative U.S. judge in the Dover, Pa.
“intelligent design” case.


Below are my comments for that unknown writer:


1. Factual content:

F. The judge did not rule that “ID” should not be taught. In fact, he recommended that it be
taught in socials or comparative religion. He ruled that “ID” is not science and so should not be taught in a biology
class. Testimony from the “ID” experts showed that under their definition of science, astrology would be
considered science and should be taught.


2. Science knowledge:

F. Teaching ID along with Darwinism is like teaching the care and feeding of unicorns along
with veterinarian science.


3. Religion:

F. As Kenneth Woodward puts it: “But the designer God of intelligent design is no more necessary to
Christianity (or other monotheisms) than was the deistic God of Newtonian physics. In both cases, God ends up
being made in the image of an intellectual system, much like Aristotle’s unmoved mover. That is not the God of
revelation.”


4. Argument:

F. To argue that students should be free to study whatever is just silly. To follow that “fairness”
argument to its logical conclusion would mean that biology classes would be required to teach every creation
myth in human experience. My favourite is the spider story.


As you can see, the piece would earn an ‘F’ in any number of ways. If your readers are interested in an editorial that
presents the Judge Jones ruling in an objective way, I recommend the Globe and Mail editorial from the same day.

Nanaimo

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Please join the discussion!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s