| | As long as there are enough (and, there's more than that in America, nm the world's population) people who do not see 'science/scientific explanations' of patterns/'orders' (structural or dynamic, short-time interval or super-historical) in NATURE as inherently/necessarily requiring such explanations to be in terms of, and within the framework of,ONLY NATURE, then any 'explanation' re any questions 'about' it will include some acceptance of talking about what's conceivably outside of nature (ie: Trans-/Supra-/Super-nature, aka the supernatural.)
Hence, creationism, ID, Annunnaki, Thetans, whatever, will be seen as 'scientific' explanations re the questions, given that some of the questions will not be seen as inherently contradictory. Ergo, unfortunately, most parents will consider "maybe it should be taught next to 'evolution' as an alternative theory," not realizing that they may as well support astrology being taught in astronomy and psychology classes as well.
Creationism seems to have lost force as an acceptable idea for fundamentalists to con into science classes, ergo, the arguers got a little more sophisticated in their 'ID' thesis. But, as long as ID is showable as being irrelevent to 'science' per se, (especially in courts, where most of these educational conflicts end up), there may be some chance that even public schools won't be turning out too many followers of that unevolved monkey, Bryan.
The worse thing about all this, really, is that Fed and State courts are generally accepted as proper in deciding such matters, given the idea that the 'state' has the legal right to set and enforce standards for schools, above and beyond even the local town or city. Oh, well...
LLAP
J:D
(Edited by John Dailey on 10/05, 12:57pm)
|
|
