Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) put the answer to that question this way: “Objectivity opens rather than closes the minds of students. It encourages critical thinking about answers to ultimate questions that may profoundly affect the way they choose to lead their lives. Objectivity and neutrality will also enhance science education by encouraging critical and independent thinking and analysis.”
One of the most profound questions ever asked was posited over two millennia ago by Pontius Pilate when he was interrogating Jesus of Nazareth before sentencing Him to death. Jesus had said that His followers were on the side of truth and in response to that Pilate asked, “What is truth.” One of the explanations for the Closing of the American Mind, elucidated by Dr Allan Bloom, in his book bearing that title, was the lack of objectivity and verity in the American school systems. Bloom said that “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of; almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” What if those same students chose “to lead their lives” according to that principle? Is the law of falling objects relative? Is the outcome of lighting a match in a natural gas filled room relative?
We are not affording students in the science classes of public educational facilities the opportunity to analyze and critically debate the question of origins. No independent thinking on that subject is allowed. No enhancement of their science education is permitted if it has to do with showing their fellow classmates countless numbers of objective scientific observations that tell us about the complex order and design (as opposed to randomness) found in the fossil record and in the anatomy and physiology of living creatures. Subjectivity is not tolerated in the discipline of mathematics and how a student feels about the answer to a problem in differential calculus is not taken into consideration when the teacher grades his examination.
It is nearly axiomatic when it comes to origins that people are going to line up on one of two sides of that issue, evolutionists standing opposite to creationists, impersonal chance competing against intelligent design. Those ideological differences are based upon the differing world views innate in the two groups. Professor Thomas Sowell, writing in Conflict of Visions said, “Visions are the foundations on which theories are built’…and… “Logic is an essential ingredient in the process of turning a vision into a theory, just as empirical evidence is then essential for determining the validity of that theory.” Given the opportunity of debate, the proponent of creation by intention and intellect will win over the advocate of random, biological macro evolution every time, based upon “critical and independent thinking” having objectively viewed the massive amount of empirical evidence alone.