data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68812/688121c72be4f312ccbcb78de1a5bc00b5381321" alt=""
The Austin Statesman noted in its posting (here) on the Board of Education's decision that a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Kelly Allen, was among those speaking against including the ID material on the supplemental list. It quotes her as saying, "I don't want my children's public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom. True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science."
Whatever our personal beliefs about evolution, Pastor Allen is correct in saying that evolution is solid science. ID, on the other hand, has failed to establish itself as a viable scientific alternative for the study of biology. It is theology disguised as science, and as such it has no place in courses teaching the science of biology. If allowed in science classrooms, the teaching of ID not only introduces extraneous subject matters, but it also offers teachers of a certain theological persuasion the opportunity to evangelize their students with their religious beliefs. Pastor Allen is also correct in her statement that religion can "handle truth in all its forms." Religious faith at its best is a search for and a commitment to truth. Not only can it "handle" scientific truths, it can embrace them.