I’ve mentioned previously that I don’t feel that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom. And I applauded the Pennsylvania town that threw out their creationist school board members in the last election.
So it is exciting to learn today that, “U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching ‘intelligent design’ would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.”
I’m very pleased with this result for a few reasons. I don’t put stock in intelligent design, that’s true, but more than that, it just isn’t science. Science seeks answers to nature’s mysteries. It once was unknown why things fell from higher to lower ground. Thanks to Newton we know it’s gravity. We once thought the Earth was flat. Thanks to Columbus we know it’s round. The list goes on.
I don’t want id taught in science classrooms because it is trying to explain something through a means contrary to science. I don’t want to undermine the teaching of the scientific method — hypothesis driven research — with remarkable stories. But I do understand that faith is a very important part of many peoples’ lives, and I certainly encourage conversations about the nature of life and how we came to be, among other spiritual questions. But those conversations belong in a different forum than the science classroom. Have them at home. Have them at Sunday School. Have them with friends and family. But stick to science in the science classroom.
So it is with this sentiment that I smiled yesterday, pleased to have read this entry from Eric Zorn, a columnist-blogger for the Chicago Tribune. Zorn was responding to a pro-intelligent design column in yesterday’s Trib by Dennis Byrne, and brings a breath of nice air to the debate, I think.
