ID’s political problem
With polls showing that over 50% of Americans believe that “God created humans in present form,” many of the participants in the Intelligent Design (ID) debate, both critics and proponents, conclude that ID advocates can count on a broad base of popular support when controversies erupt. The occasional election of ID-friendly school boards would seem to confirm that. But I disagree. When “ID in the schools” cases come up, most citizens lose patience with the ID activists.
First, it is important to note that the teaching of evolution in public school science classes has been the national standard for decades. (I am not arguing here that domination of the status quo wins the debate for evolution.) Across the country, the National Academy of Sciences, state and local standards, accredited textbooks, and science faculty support the teaching of evolution overwhelmingly. If ID is to gain official recognition in a community, somebody has to embark on an activist crusade to push for that. Somebody who cares deeply about ID and, not coincidentally, about religion.
This leads to a couple problems. One, activists, or “strongly committed” people tend to act in ways and make statements that reflect their strong commitment. Thus when Dover board member Buckingham said, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” and similar things, that should not have surprised anyone. People with such views inevitably will be the ones pushing ID. Two, the activists then have to conceal such views. Officially, they must pretend that they are promoting ID for purely secular reasons. This necessarily lead to dissembling on their part, as they try to conceal or deny religious motivation. In Kansas, which recently adopted ID-friendly science standards, Steve Abrams, one of the pro-ID board members recently said, “The heart of science should be looking at the gaps in theory and trying to figure out what that’s about. The [Dover] decision will perhaps have an effect on other states, but we don’t talk about intelligent design.” wink … wink
As we saw in Dover and have seen in other communities, when Creationists try to sneak their religion into public school science classes, advocates of good science try to stop them in the courts. Highly public battles ensue. Indeed, these highly public battles do not start with the anti-ID lawsuits, they start when the ID activists propose to change the academic standards. The ID activists have ample opportunity to display their religiosity and make extreme comments. As the dispute grows, the media comes to town. The Kleig lights go on, and now the community is on center stage. “So, Mrs. Chumwasser, are you all a bunch of backward, anti-education Bible thumpers here in Drownsville?”
Now Mrs. Chumwasser may or may not have given thirty seconds of concentrated thought to evolution vs. creation before the local dispute. If you had asked her, she probably would have said, “Creation? Evolution? I know the Earth is really old and dinosaurs existed, but isn’t evolution just a theory? … I don’t know.” And she may well have answered one of those polls in a way that suggest “Sure, I suppose God was responsible.” All of that idle, abstract thought is fine. But now she is being asked a very different question, implicitly perhaps. That is, what does she think of these Creationist advocates (who by now have almost certainly said and done noteworthy things) who have started a firestorm in her town, about this really obscure issue, that, as far as she knows, the local science teachers were handling reasonably well.
This political dynamic has already played out in Dover; the IDiot school board was voted out, even before Judge Jones’ decision. Meanwhile, in Kansas, the IDiot school board members elected in 2002 (some ran unopposed) have already stimulated opponents to step up, including Republican primary challengers. If my view here is correct, the “good people” of Kansas will vote out the Creationist school board members in 2006.
Every time a “highly motivated” Creationist/ID activist conceals or denies his/her motive publicly, it causes the public to lose trust in Creationists, and lend them less and less credibility, as they appear more interested in forcing their agenda, than in being sincerely honest. It’s an embarrassment even to those who happen to believe similarly, even people like Rush Limbaugh.
At the end of the day, while many voters may be ill-informed on the scientific issues, most of them become very well-informed about the inevitably contradictory and embarrassing actions of religious activists who try to foist ID onto their community in a secular wrapper. And those voters respond accordingly.
For those who haven’t read it yet, Judge Jones ruling on the Dover case makes fascinating reading (especially this slightly abridged, printer-friendly version). The specifics of the Dover case obviously prompted me to generalize here in this post.
A little “politics” isn’t so bad
Will SCOTUS Rule on Gerrymandering?
Marines may face a court martial …
Good question
Shuttle Launch Delayed