So I was reading the campus newspaper, and this scientist made a speach to the effect that, while creationism and intelligent design had scientists in favor of them, their teaching in public schools is a violation of religious freedom by presupposing a deity. He also said that while he didn't think evolution was that different, it was so important to biology that it should be taught anyway. Excuse me while I comment.

1.) Evolution also presupposes a deity, because evolution doesn't answer the question "Where did all this stuff come from" nor does it deal with abiogenesis (sp?) in any meaningful way. Darwin wasn't an evolutionist, he was a philisophical materialist that pushed his ideas into "science". Why it's ok for Darwin to expound philisophical materialism and for this religion to be taught in schools, but any other type of philosophy is unscientific remains unaddressed, probably because there isn't a good answer.

2.) There are intelligent design people that don't in fact thing that a deity had anything to do with human origins. The professor in this article apparently didn't do any real research into the movement, because if he had, instead of spouting, he would have found a certain discoverer of DNA was one of it's adherants, and he thought humanity and life on earth was designed by aliens. Why can't we teach it in schools if we say aliens did it?

3.) If he acknowledges that Darwinian evolution is indeed philisophical in it's origins, why does he make an exception because it's important? I think that learning Catholic history is vastly more important to your life, but I don't go pushing it on curriculums. Why does his judgement of what's important matter more?

4.) Why do we allow philosophy to be discussed in public schools? Philosophy invariably gets tied up in religion, and we wouldn't want THAT bloody menace roaming the halls. It's so much better in France where you can't even go to school if you're a Muslim girl or a Jewish boy. They have it down pat.