Intelligent Design Curriculum

The wide and relative perspective of knowledge has sent education policy makers and implementers into confusion. The attempt to make learning more meaningful has attracted a lot of debate and interventions. However, the current issue pending your signature, your honor, is not worth the effort. I strongly recommend the ban on intelligent design curriculum in science classes.

I acknowledge the diverse views presented by the issue at hand, and every stakeholder is guided by both informed and personal views. If the purpose of learning entities is to become a forum for any possible scientific and non-scientific theory, in case the duty of a teachers is to simply expose learners to the many societal trends and the numerous fringe theories, then I won’t argue that creationism has a place in the school science curriculum. However, the notion implies that knowledge does not exist, or simply the world of education lack experts who can inform the learners about any facts (Head n.d). After all, if learners are left on their own to sort truth from the world of fact and fallacy, and falsehood, then even the teachers will lose confident to teach. If schools turnout to be debating societies, then the administration will be forced to adopt a totally non-committal angle on what is considered true; the administration will merely render equal every competing opinions (Bliss 4). I believe this would be ultimate exercise of radical skepticism, or simply insecurity.

Conversely, if education, amounts to passage of once discovered knowledge from generation to generation, and if we hold on such a thing as "knowledge," and accept that certain individual has acquired the trait more than others, then creationism has no place in our classroom; it does not exist (Top10 Myths about evolution: And How We Know It Really Happened). The argument is that, presently, the consensus of knowledgeable scientists who operate in the fields of evolution or the ones related to it, maintains that there is ground for holding creationism as a true knowledge. While evolution evidences have been presented with lots of certainty, the evidence in support of creationism is too insufficient for it to be held a scientific knowledge base (The National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine n.d.).

 My position will not go beyond individual parent discretion. Parents are major stakeholders in the education sector, they have the right to choose, through vote, the sort of education they would want their children to be exposed to, and the quality of school administration they would recommend in the office (Bliss 12). In case they are okay with "back to basics" education model, if want their children to learn facts rather than toy with opinions, then they need not approve "equal time" for creationism in science classrooms.

 Let accept the bitter pill. Parents consider "equal time" as American apple pie. They infuse it with politics and other social constructs. However, education structured to impart factual knowledge can never be politicized, it involve a gradual learning experience (Head n.d). In such a system, the winner can never be the one who garners most votes, but the merits they hold on the case.

To this point, creationists, readily present two answers. One, thy hold that we who believes in factual knowledge have fought creationism to the edge and discriminated against it that it has never been given an opportunity to test itself. Second, they argue that evolution itself has not been accepted that much, except it has been heavily voiced. The strong voice upon evolution has made it stronger and accepted in the education policies.

To counter the claims, I will argue that these are tactic adopted by most pseudoscientific charlatans in everyday business. At any time there are rejected, because of poor presentation or evidences that cannot hold, they are quick to shout "conspiracy" and face the public (Bergman 64). This is why their actions are inclined to political campaigns than education systems. It does not take millions of test for a standard to be reject standards when the supporting theory does not hold up (Bergman 65). It is always easy to adopt political stance when a theory is being a forced upon people. This is the case with creationists.

In the basic education context that support the existence of knowledge and guided professionals who have come to consensus on a body of knowledge, inclusion of "scientific creationism" in science classroom is deemed opening a can-of-worms. This will be the start of a cracking wall. With time, any lame body of knowledge with be strongly advocated for inclusion in the curriculum: Your honor, here are possible list of subject that will be presented before you for assent:

• Astrology lobby to have equal classroom time with astronomy.
• Pyramid power group will send bills demanding equal match and recognition alongside the modern physics.
• Divining rod technology would demand a special place in the curriculum since they hold an important place for the future of hydraulic engineers and oil geologists.
• The debatable Christian Science and the toxemia theory of disease would demand equal time and recognition with the germ theory.
• The flat earth theory will need more efforts and recognition as the space program.

Your honor, the list is endless. Just look at the mess we will expose our education into once theories that lack factual base are given space in the education curriculum. Up to this point I object and propose the ban on the bill presented before you.

At this point, some people will counter my argument that I am raising unnecessary alarms that there is high chance creationism will enter the school curriculum. They will consider my position as simplistic scare approach. However, the issue at hand is real and is actually happening. As at now, most of these materials are in the school libraries: Transcendental Meditation, physics phenomena, astrology, and UFO have found their content in science classrooms (Bergman 67). The ideas are reeling around us, parents and students are struggling with them every day. It is so easy for an idea that has prevailed student and parents lives to find itself in the curriculum. A bold step is necessary to stop the risk. Your honor, you have the power to maintain the integrity of science education free from any form of dilution.

Works Cited

“Top10 Myths aboutevolution:(And How We KnowIt Really Happened).” Web. 19 October, 2017. https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/top-10-evolution-myths.pdf

The National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine. Evolution Fact: Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? Web. 19 October, 2017. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Bergman, Jerry. "The Attitude of University Students Toward the Teaching of Creation and Evolution in the Schools." Origins. Volume 6, Number 2, 1979, pp. 60-70.

Bliss, Richard. "A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin of Life From a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying From a Single-Model Approach." Acts & Facts. June 1978, ICR Impact Series No. 60.

Head, Tom. Should Intelligent Design Be Part of the Public School Curriculum?Web. 19 October, 2017. https://www.thoughtco.com/teaching-intelligent-design-in-public-schools-721621