Taltos

I was looking up this Willard guy, and there seems to be two things that I found interesting that I would like to include in the discussion:

According to CNN.COM in their 2005 article, Willard didn't introduce an Intelligent Design curriculum, nor was the support of Intelligent Design necessarily his goal. He suggested that recent evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution should be taught to students.

They cited their goal as "academic freedom."

The second half of the article is, of course, much more contentious and to the point of this thread. It talks about how the "scientific standards" have been changed so that matters outside of empirical provable evidence can be discussed.

It seems like the goal wasn't made to introduce a curriculum about intelligent design, but rather to allow a teacher to say, "Or maybe God did it; we just don't know." without losing his job.


The second point I wanted to introduce was a more personal one and may be outside the scope of this discussion (and, if so, just ignore it): Why is including religious ideas within high schools seeing as wrong to begin with? I mean, in U.S. secondary education institutions, taking courses in comparative religions and philosophy actually fill vital humanities and general education requirements. Why is it so terrible for the basis of these courses to be taught as part of the high-school curriculum, even if it just a three paragraph section at the end of chapter 4?

__________________
Though we are not now
That strength that in old days
Moved Earth and Heaven;
That which we are, we are:
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and flesh
But strong in will
To seek, to strive, to find
And not to yield.
-Alfred, Lord Tennyson