Can ID arguments be presented as “critically analyzing” theories, as the standards call for?
If “critical analyses” present genuine scientific arguments and debates in their actual scientific context, they are probably fine for classroom use. But, if “critical analyses” are based on misrepresentation of mainstream thought – for example, saying that science can’t begin to explain the “Cambrian Explosion” – then they are inappropriate for the science classroom. Misrepresenting evolution as “atheism” is subtle religious indoctrination In the end, creationism, Intelligent Design, and their newest variant, “evidence against evolution” are all about religion and God. Anti-evolutionists of all stripes preach the same mantra against teaching evolution in schools: they try to convince the public that evolution is part of an atheistic, anti-religious agenda. The truth is, however, that students do NOT have to choose between science and faith. Numerous religions accept the findings of modern science, including evolution. Many believers, including theologians, find that knowledge of scien
