The proposal of teaching evolutionary theory, intelligent designu00a0theory,u00a0and the creationistu00a0science in science classes in schoolsu00a0sounds a mid-way solution, friendly, and even democratic, however, it is not so, and here is why.n
If one proposed they should teach all religions to our children and let our children decide which one they wanted to follow or none at all, I would think it is a great idea given that religion is personal. However, natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, are not personal.
When a scientist publishes a scientific paper the scientist does not do it for school children to review but the scientist’s own peers. The peers of a natural scientist in a certain area are natural scientists in the same area. Bystanders are simply unqualified to comment on the works of the specialists, at least not meaningfully.n
We have scientific methodologies that all branches of science must abide by. Therefore, when the source of any given information is the scientific community, we know that the information is the result of work that followed scientific principles. As a result, we receive information from the scientific community that we can trust because we know how the scientists who producedthat piece of information worked.
Non-scientists, including school children and school teachers, are not to assess scientific matters.n
We do not have the competence to devise ideas about the quantum theory of light that would have any scientific importance, what makes anyone think the theory of evolution is different?
Tamer: Agree. If schools want to teach ID, then it should be done in a religion class along with other creation stories where they can be known and recognized as theological constructs, not science.