Acknowledging the replies of the persons before me with respect, and the opinions of the general public who may read this over time, this is far from science and Mars, but a subject well deserving public discussion and concern by all.
The content is for us as individuals is as powerful as the geology upon which we ride as a thin, frail, raft of life.
Several concepts and several problems mix in the stewpot on the general subject. The comment I just made seems irreverent and foolish to 'committed' persons, and mildly spoken to those committed to placing the argument on a back burner in the social/political 'stewpot' we ride around in. While we may see ourselves as masters of intellect and determination these days in this country (the US), we are riding a wave of opinion and economics which is stable and favorable to us here (we ride the wave as successful surfers).. Without much change in structure and content we can be easily drug feet first through a dismal or simply challenging period of time which would turn favor to the argument that 'doctrine' holds value and 'truths' become permanent stablizing content fed to ourselves and our children to prevent an unsteady economic or social/political circulation pattern from dragging the population into lessor steady economics or social/political patterns. I believe the dangers of the preimminence of 'doctrine' over the free scientific functioning of rapidly changing information basics can hurt both the worlds economic base and the peoples information transformation of the industry base.
To start the argument, the education base is the power of long term economic dominion of the population. Fast or slow in content adjustment, it follows that the population will function as followers of the style of information, either fast or slow respectively.
Independent thought on the subject in very general terms is mixed, based upon information obtained from science, and also upon information obtained from 'doctrine'.
The teaching of science conceptually based upon programmed material which is not sourced from official science channels is split into a hundred methodology groups who hold distinctly alternative views of the bulk of the content details of that 'doctrine' upon which each group seperately relies for the slow, long term stability of the effect the 'doctrine' has upon each individual. Each content group is different in evolving lineage and final explaination of the cause and effect of the 'doctrine' details. Only a very few of them have any intermediary, nor any origin-to-concurrent cause and effect content based upon science argument. Most all rely upon varieties of extensions beyond science, such as 'magic' and 'absolute adjustments' in the points of 'doctrine' where science has shown disagreeable content with the various alternative groups explaining ontology and making historical referencing.
Wariness at the reliance upon a faulty content, based upon unvarying(unwavering) bad science 'doctrine' should be seriously considered in the decision as to whether these groups should be allowed to use the public money to press an argument filled to the brim with discordances and disfunctional science in the teaching of natural history, such as the process of 'historical physical adaptation'.
Not one of the groups has as yet shown a taste for integrating science and the doctrines advocated. Not one has closed the gaps in information which they advocate be used as 'scientific explaination' in teaching the science of cause and effect.
Doctrine is doctrine, not required to be science but simply argument.
Science is science, required to be detailed and sought as a detailing exercise in providing repetitious testing and reliability in cause and effect.
The two are different.
The content is very different.
The effect upon using each in teaching content in science subjects will result in an economic pattern which is predictable.
There is currently a two channel process of teaching which allowing persons to seek either the reliance upon 'doctrine' from a 'hundred' sources, or the more routine process of science reliant training which preserves cause-and-effect in long term historical appearances.
The two channel process has not as yet shown any favor to the 'doctrine' method of teaching 'absolutism' in making adjustments in thinking about natural history .
If the groups involved can show cause and effect detailing better, or if the persons trained in such methods are shown to be more socially accurate in caretaking the population and it's scientific endeavors, we should give at that time the seperate channel a full integration in the public money, but only in the subjects they pertain to.
I admit to you who hold a devotion to the doctrines of religious groups, I studied Biblical Archeology magazine issues when it was published, and found amazingly accuracy and detailed content between the predictble sites and subjects. This was based mostly upon middle eastern locations. There are many religions. There are many additional doctrines not religious. They all would seek a 'piece of the pie' in a presence in the public schools.
Which religion would be taught to all?
There is also the argument of law(in the US), which prevents the mixing of religion and social public training of children. Private training is not under discussion here.
Long term science cause and effect is the subject under discussion here. That subject is not discussed within the doctrines of most all the individual religious and doctrinal groups suggested as interested in the subject. If they show little content and no interest in the subject, why would they be allowed to corner the teaching process in the subject?
Teaching the process of 'natural intelligence' as inherent in science and biology is a challenge as science is a young subject(less than a thousand years) for humans who are much the animal and a little human as well. Unfortunately.
Teaching that there is probable functioning life on Mars is currently a near scandal even in this group, Mars Rover Blog, based upon a resistance to accurate observance of photographic details. How can we survive a pit stop to a time when these doctrines were brewed into existance by men.
Do you notice that NO doctrine has been presented by any other beings but MEN?
Why do you believe that is the case?
Is this just an economic program?