No but science will enter a public school and censor ID. No where in our Constitution or laws is religion excluded from the public square and confined to a church building.
Opposing theories such as ID have just as valid a place in the classroom as science's also unproven theories. They don't have to be taught in the same classroom if it makes scientist's queezy. But is has a right to be taught also.
Go find a thread on teaching ID in a philosophy class. You won't see many objections, if any at all.
Anything is omitted from a science class that is not science. Art Appreciation and Civics, for instance. That is simply because what is taught in a science class is supposed to be science.
Do you find this a difficult concept?
Sorry, but I have really tried--and completely failed--to distinguish your point here from the standard liberal special pleading for marginal points of view, which rips through educational institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.
Place the scientific literature (= the evidence) for ToE in one pan of the scales, and the scientific literature for Creationism in the other: the scales do not come close to balancing. But you hold that Creationism/ID is somehow "entitled" to 'equal time'?
Here (UK), large portions of British history are no longer taught in secondary schools because it is "imperialistic" and "Euro-centric." Well, that's because the British Empire was (for better and for worse) precisely those things, too bad if that offends some people!
According to many of your compatriates, ID is not about religion.
According to many of your compatriates, ID is not about religion.
No, it doesn't. This amounts to affirmative action for minority viewpoints.
Science class must teach the dominant paradigm. There are many reasons for this. The first thing to consider is that children spend precious few hours receiving science instruction as it is. There's not enough time as it is to discuss legitimate alternative theories and minority opinions, much less to go off on theological tangents. Secondly, curriculum must teach the basics. Students at this level are expected to learn the material, not question the material. It's like a math student questioning the teacher's derivation of the quadratic formula. Students need to learn to do the work. Thirdly, as must public schools are operated as college prep, science class must teach the subject as students will be expected to understand them when the continue on to college. If students arrive at university with thoughts of "Baramins" and "Kinds" when they get to biology class, they have been ill prepared for higher education. Finally, science class is one of the last bastions of critical thinking and problem solving left in the schools. Isn't there enough of this culturally sensitive crap in the schools already?
Science class must teach science.
*BZTTT!!!* Not true (but thanks for playing). ID and Creationism may be taught in religion,. philosophy, theology, etc.
Opposing theories such as ID have just as valid a place in the classroom as science's also unproven theories. They don't have to be taught in the same classroom if it makes scientist's queezy. But is has a right to be taught also.
ID is not an "opposing theory" -- it is a disguised Creation Myth, which only "opposes" other Creation Myths. As the article points out, the only "queasiness" scientists feel is seeing mythology taught as "science." It is the "queasiness" one feels when seeing someone teach children that "airplanes being held aloft by angels" is a valid "opposing theory" to physics.
A more correct statement would be - 'No but science will enter a public school and censor non-science'.
Why should the scientific community allow a non-science be taught in a science class. You will note that there is no opposition to ID being taught in a philosophy or science history class. Science classes should teach science and only science. Liberal arts can teach the other stuff.