School Intelligence

President Bush wants 'intelligent design' to be taught in schools around the country.

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

This makes logical sense, as the President himself says:

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The only problem with teaching intelligent design is that federal funds used to support public education would now be being used toward teaching an idea that allows for the possibility of a God. Anti-religious groups would argue that this is a violation of church and state, much like school prayer and the like. But even according to those arguments, intelligent design does not even come close to violating the establishment clause or any measure of seperation of church and state. As it would be taught as an alternative to, and not a replacement of contemporary science, it would only be furthering the diversification of students and allow them to choose for themselves what they feel is more logical and correct. As things stand now, students are not given the option.
I recently took a Biology course at Queens College, a CUNY school. On the final, the teacher asked when the first living being came into existence according to biology. The choices included 300 billion years ago and 5-6 thousand years ago. Despite my fervent belief, and the belief of those of my religion, that the world began less than six thousand years ago, I was forced to give an answer which I believe to be untrue in order to receive credit. This is unfair and discriminatory against those of religious belief.
While the government should not endorse or establish any religion over any other, or religion itself over aetheism, the opposite should also not be the case. Aetheism and liberalism should not be forced upon the citizens of this country, to the extent that there is religious discrimination - not by one religion over another, or against one religion in specific - but rather by the non-religious over the religious as a whole. Just as it is wrong to force one's religious views upon others, so too is it wrong to force one's non- or anti-religious views upon others. Academia is already full of left-wing views and biases; it is about time that the right be given an equal voice.