Find a place for intelligent design in public schools

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“Borrowing nothing from my Christianity, I would say as a pure matter of logic that an omniscient creation is far more plausible than the belief that we are all here just by chance. Others may disagree. Let them, and please let it be within earshot of kids in school. A philosophy course, social studies, whatever anyone wants to call it -- but let's not be hamstrung by the phony argument that this amounts to religious instruction.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mr Davis misunderstands the conflict. Scientists don't object to teaching philosophy in schools. Or comparative religion. Teaching the Christian creation myth in a sociology class or a comparative literature class alongside creation myths of "the ancient Norse cultures, the Egyptians and a host of other societies" is a worthy subject of study. Teaching philosophy, which at its heart is the teaching of logical, critical thinking, as opposed to rote memorization of revealed Scriptural truth, would also help train our youth for success in our challenging world.

No, you'll get no objection from scientists to such a curriculum. The objection will come from the Christian fundamentalists, who aren't interested in dispassionate study of "something most of the world believes." They have no interest in animism or Buddhism or Hinduism. They do want religious instruction -- in their own particular interpretation of the Christian creation myth. They want Christianity taught as revealed truth. They will not be happy with comparative religion classes or philosophy classes. They will certainly not be happy with schools teaching religion as something children are free to make up their own minds about. That's a liberal notion that would draw more vitriol from conservatives than banishing religion from the schools altogether does today.