Where is the outrage concerning President Bush's remarks that "intelligent design" should be taught in our nation's schools [front page, Aug. 3]? What has happened to the separation of church and state? Intelligent design is a religious theory, and, as such, it has no place being included in the curriculum of a publicly funded school.
JANE G. MAYER
President Bush's suggestion that "intelligent design" be part of the public school curriculum is a good idea.
The origin of the universe, the Book of Genesis, the theory of evolution and intelligent design should all be taught in a course using rigorous scientific scrutiny. Learning the best that science has to teach as well as fraudulent "theories" -- and I put Genesis and intelligent design into this latter category -- would provide our children a more complete education.
Learning what is false strengthens our understanding of what is true.
President Bush is right: Students should be introduced to intelligent design and evolution -- to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as well as Stephen Jay Gould.
Both Teilhard, a Jesuit priest, and Gould were famous paleontologists. The former believed that evolution is God's incarnation ("directed chance") through history, while Mr. Gould believed that evolution is merely blind chance and irrelevant to belief in God. Both men used scientific evidence to support their views. Any academic course concerning evolution that leaves out the thoughts of these two scientists is incomplete and one-sided.
Mr. Bush, considered intellectually challenged in left-wing circles, once again shows his simple comprehension and articulation of complex subjects.
President Bush showed a startling myopia in his statement about teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution in our schools. When he said, "Both sides ought to be properly taught," he was ignoring the many religious beliefs about creation that stand, as equals, beside his preferred belief.
If the president wants to have all the nonscientific ideas of creation taught, he would be calling for one of the biggest educational ventures ever undertaken. Any balanced curriculum would have to address, for example, Hindu and African tribal creation stories. And, certainly, the president would want the teachings of Native Americans to be given equal time. But, sadly, the president's statements do not show much understanding of the complexity of this debate.
CRAIG W. CULP