| Kasz216 said:
Regardless, "Objective" would be the term here. So long as it's kept Objective... why shouldn't there be debate on any issue? Assuming the teacher is competent in any way he should be able to answer any objections... that's what teachers are supposed to do you know... teach... and explain things. Rather then just state facts for people to memorize. |
I completely agree; indeed, the point of the article and editorial in the same issue is to say that we can't strike down the laws as completely wrong because the kind of debate you imagine is constructive. However, the wording of the bill itself mentions issues (evolution, origins of life, climate change) that are exactly the kind of thing the religious right wants to cast doubt upon, and the bill's supporters aren't using your argument as their rationale; they're using the same religious and/or unscientific justifications they give when justifying teaching ID in science, which has been judged as illegal by a US court before. So, it's not broad debate the bill is intended to target; it is obvious the bill is intended to give religious organisations an opportunity to intervene in science education.
