Regarding Judge Jones' decision in the Dover, Pa. intelligent design case (Register, Dec. 21), I would like to pose a question: What's wrong with making students aware of differing interpretations of the distant past, along with their attendant difficulties and problems? The answer is: absolutely nothing.

Actually, it is simply a normal part of a well-rounded education to be informed in a neutral setting of the various viewpoints current in any particular discipline. That is how students learn how to think (if indeed that is our goal), rather than what to think. To fail to expose students to the real discussions and controversies going on in society is to practice indoctrination rather than education.

It is not the role of government in a free society to advocate particular beliefs or to impose them on the citizenry through the government education systems, as is being done today with evolution. In a free society, free people make personal decisions as to what they will believe based on their upbringing, their assessment of the evidence, and their overall worldview. This all presupposes honest, objective discussion and interaction, recognizing that we all have our preferences and biases. That's part of being free -- you get to decide for yourself. In a tyranny of whatever form, however, government decides what beliefs are acceptable and permitted, and excludes all others.

It's worth remembering that freedom of religion was one of the major motivations behind the formation of this nation. What freedom of religion has meant in America is that government is not free to advocate beliefs, not free to indoctrinate, not free to control or try to control thought. That's what we mean by "America."

Frankly, I can't think of any reason why government in America should insist that evolution is the only acceptable understanding of origins. That is taking sides in what amounts to a religious dispute about the proper interpretation of evidence of the past. In such a matter, why should government advocate the views of one party of Americans against the views of another party of Americans? In a free society, why should government be in the origins business at all? It's an unavoidably religious topic.

Unfortunately, Judge Jones apparently doesn't understand the foregoing, and he decided that even a brief mention of intelligent design violates "the constitutional separation of church and state." But does it, really? It's a good question, because there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution (let me know if you find it), so I guess it's one of those doctrines that can mean whatever the judges want at the moment. But if as your basis for a Constitutional decision you appeal to something that's not in the Constitution, the decision is fundamentally flawed from the outset. It should make us suspicious. What is in the first Amendment, though, is the requirement that the government do nothing to "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. This is in the Constitution because the American people value religion and value freedom of religion and don't want government telling them what they are supposed to believe. In a free society, government has other jobs.

The judge reveals his personal bias when he says that design "violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." That's the philosophy of materialism, the belief system behind evolution; everything must have a natural cause. In other words, design is not permitted even if it is a good explanation; it is ruled out before looking at the evidence. But real science investigates reality without deciding the results ahead of time. So the judge's decision imposes his philosophy rather than the law. The real reason for the ruling is that design violates the philosophy of materialism, but there is no law against it.

Personally, I believe that getting life out of a mud puddle spontaneously purely by chance is plain impossible; it never happened. That's why there is no evidence. But since there is no evidence for this foundational evolutionary belief, it's not science, it's just a belief. If someone wants to choose that belief freely, fine, it's a free country. But government should not be advocating a particular belief at taxpayer expense to the exclusion of others.

So what's the solution? Simply teach the known facts, but in government institutions don't insist on or advocate a particular interpretation of the past, whether evolution or creation. Leave the students and the citizenry to make up their own minds.

(Protz lives in Napa.)