Intelligent Design: What We’re Really Banning
January 04, 2006 12:32 AM EST
by Nathan Tabor

The verdict is in in Pennsylvania: it is now ‘unconstitutional’ to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution in a public school classroom. It cannot be mentioned, studied or discussed by students or faculty.

Apparently, the only constitutionally acceptable explanation for our existence is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which of course is taught freely in every public school’s biology curriculum.

If one studies Darwin’s theory, it becomes clear that there are indeed some gaps and areas that aren’t explained. That’s what gives it the label of ‘theory’ and not ‘fact’. Darwin himself admitted that he did not claim to understand how we’ve become the complex beings that we are. He merely studied the process of change that has occurred within our species, noting how we have ‘evolved’. His theory is sound, it is based on rigorous research and tangible findings. Yet there is still no evidence of how, or why these changes have taken place, it offers nothing more than the speculation of ‘natural selection’ to try and explain the force behind the changes noted. There are more answers to be found. Commentary