Unintelligent Design
April 23,2006

"Know thine enemy"

- Origins Unknown

I recently unwittingly participated in a case study as to why there is a disconnect between political elites and Middle America. This disconnect is not “red” versus “blue,” but rather “black and white,” versus “shades of grey.”

The entire text of the case study on which I comment is here.

Ed Brayton is a political consultant and freelance writer – basically he debates for a living. Ed made a well-reasoned argument for just compensation when supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) lose an effort to include ID in school curriculum.

I commented that while his argument appears accurate, in the end, no matter which heavily funded consortium of big-city lawyers gets money from the other, equally well-off firm, we all lose. No matter who wins, millions of dollars are stripped from local school districts to fight battles that are largely inconsequential. I equated ID to 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments on school property. This is where the fun begins.

If Ed saw this site, he’d have known I was baiting him. Glad he didn’t because I got an insight into what most Purple America never sees.

Follow-up Comment: The word "Baiting" here is incorrect. I did not enter the conversation intending to be dishonest. I stated genuine beliefs, but continued the conversation beyond its usefulness out of curiosity.

The debate digressed into a debate on the merits of ID in the classroom – a battle I was woefully ill-equipped to wage. Since I don’t even believe in ID as science (a fact I fully disclosed) I saw early-on I couldn’t win. I continued anyway. Why? Those who know me know I’m intellectually curious. Why is it so important to some that nothing remotely religious ever make its way into a classroom?

Before I knew this was going to get out-of-control, I tipped my hand and commented that just because a legal battle has merit, that does not mean it should be fought. Ed agreed, but I don’t think he really gets it.

On its face, ID (if presented as science and not a religious case-study) cannot constitutionally be taught in schools. Period. If ever I had doubts on this, they’re gone after sparring with Ed. Sites such as The Panda's Thumb, Dispatches From The Culture Wars, and others win this argument hands-down. Question is, is their adversary truly who they think it is?

Ed and most media specifically target the religious extremists (their existence I don’t deny) that do believe ID merits the status of scientific fact. If you look for them, you’ll find them. However, just like it isn’t sexy for CNN to find a moderate Arab Muslim and discuss the merits of Mid-East democracy, it’s no fun to acknowledge that most of those accepting of ID aren’t unreasonable zealots.

Most middle-Americans will readily acknowledge ID doesn’t pass constitutional muster. For Ed and others, game over. Not so for most of us. For those of us who actually have children in public schools and deal with reality outside of the political thinktank, it ain’t so easy. Just like moderate Muslims who stand-by and acquiesce to the violence in the Middle East, moderate Christians stand-by and let the debate rage. Why? It’s arrogant and condescending to see the ACLU come into town, rape a community of millions of dollars, and then leave. Accomplishing what exactly? In a typical case, the all-but-forgotten 70-year-old fading plaque displaying the Ten Commandments is now gone. The only net result is the school district is poorer. The ACLU doesn’t stick around to see if removing the oppressive symbol of Christendom increased test-scores, broadened minds, or changed anything other than cancelling art and music classes because now the district can’t afford it.

Now enter ID. I’ll admit it’s different because proponents ask that ID be presented alongside evolution as actual subject-matter. Not defensible. The argument is that by allowing ID to be taught as science, we open a slippery-slope of pseudo-science to corrupt curricula nationwide. Will we open the door to teaching anti-semitism? Hindu cosmology? Only someone looking at this issue in legal vaccuum would be fearful of this. The only chance this ridiculous assertion could ever be true is because someone decided to sue and set legal precedent. Well, then of course you have to decide against ID, because, yes, you then open the door. Thanks.

We can argue the slippery-slope theory if you want. The black and white world of constitutional relevency is good fun, but has little application to Mr. and Mrs. America. Point is, most of America finds the whole debate irrelevant to their everyday life. Should they care? Ed will say yes, and will undoubtedly have plenty of evidence to support that point of view.

Dear Middle America: If a hypothetical situation falls in the forest and nobody hears it ...

We have over a century of quietly displaying religious plaques and other symbols with no adverse affects to liberty, intellectual rigor, or anything else. ID, while proposed by the vocal minority of genuine zealots, is accepted by moderates because nobody sees the big-deal but thinktankers who have no concept of the reality taking place in classrooms. There is no risk to academic honesty, the integrity of science, or anything else. Give classroom teachers some credit here.

There was never any doubt you’d win, Ed. You’ll win the battle across America too.
The natural course of cultural evolution will over-time remove all these elements and even common-folk Christians know this. They just resent your arrogance. Call them ignorant, call them silly, insult their mothers (or your own), it doesn’t matter.

In the end, ID cannot be accepted in our classrooms. And, I must side with Ed that ID must be removed if challenged. I just question the value of the challenge itself. No matter which side of this debate you take, it’s a fun case study in why we have the debate at all.

|

 

 

Home|epinion|Purple People Eater

Feedback@PurpleThink.com

©2006 PurpleThink.com