Since many of our readers are against mandating that school children be exposed to things contrary to the values of their family in the case of intelligent design, I suppose the same people would take a similar stance on sex surveys for 6-year-olds.

A group of parents from the Palmdale school district in California sued the district over a portion of the survey that was given to their children without consent of the parents.

A consent form had to be signed, but the portion dealing with sex was purposely left off the form. So when parents found out that their first, third and fifth graders were asked wholly inappropriate questions about their sexual activity.

Not surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school district. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt said “no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation’s history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty” that gives the parent any control of this.

One can only assume that Judge Reinhart is ignorant of the entire history of the United States up until the 1900’s, since from the founding of the nation parents have been the ones charged with the education of their children. Only recently has the government coopted that authority. And only more recently have the government schools taught principles contrary to the accepted beliefs of the vast majority of families.

After this post, Sam, one of the biggest critics of the ID theory, said, “I don’t want my daughter being taught Christianity. I don’t want her being taught to hate gays – if you want to teach your children that, do so at home. But I’d prefer that she learn the prevailing scientific thought of the day, not the version that you’d prefer.”

I can only assume that Sam and others against the teaching of Intelligent design would be appalled at the ignoring of parental rights displayed by the Ninth Circuit in this case and in compulsory sex education classes.

If a theory of science that differs from the “prevailing scientific thought” cannot be discussed, in part, because of the rights of parents (and children) to not be forced to listen to views that are contradictory to their own; one would think that it would also be wrong to force parents to surrender their rights to instill moral values concerning sex to a school system that seeks to teach things contrary to the parents.

Intelligent design is merely a way of bringing up questions that evolutionary science has, to date, be unable to answer and then supposing that the reason behind that is irreducible complexity brought about by an intelligent being outside the evolutionary picture. That has little chance of inspiring a child to rebel against their parents’ beliefs, especially when it is taught along side evolution. Most children, I would think, would wish to ignore both theories as they provide little excitement.

Sex, on the otherhand, is an intrinsically exciting subject, one where many children disobey and rebel against their parents. Forcing sexual thoughts about “touching yourself” and “touching others” on to a first grader, seems to be a little more serious than giving a contrary view of the development of life on earth.

Can we wage some type of common ground and alliance? I will no longer argue for the teaching of intelligent design, if we can also remove sex-saturated education from the public schools. Seems reasonable to me.