I Don't Understand Why We're Not Teaching Alchemy in Science Class

I just told Marigolds over at The Blue Voice that I thought Time Magazine is making too big a deal out of idea that people can believe in God and in the science of evolution. 

Maybe I'm completely wrong, though.  I don't think I know anyone well who sees a conflict between the two. And my children have been blessed with science teachers in both public and private schools who simply do not countenance discussion of creationism or intellient design in science classes.

On the other hand, our state school board has introduced some idiocy about intelligent design into the state standards, thereby rendering our already dismal overall school record even less competitve in the context of the worldwide community.  And I do know a couple of people in real life, and have come across many more online, who are under the misapprehension that the magnificent poetry and mythology of Genesis I is reducible to a third grade science text.

So maybe I should be more concerned.  Herewith, the best cartoon I've seen on the topic today:

Fundamentalist Theocracy

I do recall discussing Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Alchemist" in American Lit in college.  It's clear that we need to move that discussion into high school Chem so that the kiddies can waste time debating the relative merits of turning base metals into gold as opposed to learning the science of chemistry.  I'm sure one is a good as another.  After all, no less a personage than our fearless and Yale-educated Commander in Chief has noted that "part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

P.S.  I finally got the Time Magazine story to open.  It includes the following vignette:

"Sometime in the late fall, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at the public high school in rural Dover, Pa., will witness an unusual scene in biology class. The superintendent of schools, Richard Nilsen,will enter the classroom to read a three-paragraph statement mandated by the local school board as a cautionary preamble to the study of evolution. It reads, in part:

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

OK, maybe I am about to develop some serious concern.  If our school board mandated the reading of that drivel, I would personally lead the next election charge against them.