vinemaple

I'm a little reluctant to wade into the debate over teaching Evolution in American schools, not because I don't have any opinion on the matter, but because I don't think there's much point in getting worked up about it. As far as serious science is concerned, the debate over the validity of the basic principles is over. In political terms, the issue is also a closed book: teaching evolution in American schools is legal, and that's never going to change.

The people driving this "debate" are the same ones who feel the need to ban various books, and to prohibit dancing or representational painting, and to excommunicate astronomers, and to build great pyres to dispose of rock and roll records or pornographic magazines or witches or widows. Such people have been around, and possessed of some modicum of power, for the entirety of recorded human history, and it ought to be clear to all at this late date that getting all worked up and blatting on about it in one's internet diary isn't going to make a damned bit of difference.

With that said, I turn your attention to an article in The New York Times. Don't bother wading through it now if you're in the habit of following the news— most of it is the sort of boilerplate that any media junkie has seen countless times; Americans surveyed, alarmingly large numbers found to believe in creationism, distressingly paltry numbers to believe in evolution, quotes from concerned parties, handwringing over The Children. The twist in this piece is the finding that lots of public school Science teachers are dropping education from their curricula, not because teaching Evolution is illegal, or because they think it's bad science, but because they're a bunch of chickens.

Yes, I'm talking to you, American Public School Science Teachers. You're chicken.

I understand there are communities out there with an alarming number of would-be William Jennings Bryans champing at the bit to howl and spit about teachers who teach what's on the syllabus, but you know what? Those screeching parents aren't allowed to use pitchforks and torches to make their cases anymore. So stop pissing yourself every time you imagine a conversation in which you feel compelled to explain your job to your students' parents.

I also realize that Clarence Darrow's brand of agnostic zealotry isn't for everyone, but you don't have to choose between zealotry and cowardice, here, Science Teachers. You just need to have the courage of your convictions. In fact, it's not just Science Teachers who believe in evolution, but are afraid to teach it, who need to understand this. This also goes for those who don't teach evolution because they don't believe in it, and it goes for teachers and administrators who believe in evolution, and want to bar creationism from the classroom. Time for a reality check:

Is there anyone reading this who didn't learn about Creationism in school? Hmm?

I know I did. I was taught Creationism over and over again, in fact, in lots of different classes. I'm not done with my references to the Scopes trial yet, but if you've understood those allusions so far, then odds are you learned about Creationism in school, too, most likely in one (or more) of your History courses. You might not have been taught it in a Science class, but I know I was. Many times over. Maybe you had some sort of marvelously modern education where the History of Science wasn't discussed in your Science classes, and where old theories weren't presented as contrast and background to the new ones in your Science textbooks, but I find that hard to imagine. My Biology and Geology and General Science and Physics textbooks all had Creationism in them. And this was in plain old public schools, not Catholic schools or madrassas.

Now, whatever your beliefs may be, you really shouldn't have anything to fear from the teaching of other, opposing ideas in schools, provided you have the courage of your convictions. For teachers, this applies regardless of personal beliefs. If you're secure in those beliefs, then you can teach opposing views to your students alongside your own view, and trust your students to come to their own conclusions. This goes for science teachers with either creationist or evolutionist leanings, and even for those who aren't entirely secure in their own beliefs, for that matter.

There is one belief, however, that I feel we do have to hold teachers to, and that is a belief in teaching. Teachers who are so scared of parents that they choose to teach nothing, that is, to not teach, in place of teaching a potentially difficult topic, deserve only pity. They don't deserve to have bleating nobodies berating them on the internet, I suppose, but they certainly don't deserve anyone's respect, either.

You may gather from all this that I favor the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools, and you'd be right. I'd favor teaching it in Philosophy classes over Science classes, but it wasn't long ago that the sciences generally and Biology in particular were referred to as "Natural Philosophy," and, on a more practical note, there aren't many grade schools or even High Schools in America with Philosophy departments. So sure, let's teach Intelligent Design in Science classes.

Wait. I'm not done yet.

The people promoting Intelligent Design, from what I gather, are not really upset that Creationism isn't being taught in schools, because Creationism most certainly is being taught in schools. What upsets the Intelligent Design promoters is that Creationism is not being taught as a modern or scientific idea. It's being taught as a historical relic. That's why they need "Intelligent Design," of course, but I believe they're opening up a door to a lot more fun than they suppose, with this newer, more science-like terminology.

If I were teaching a High School Biology class, I would devote one day to "alternate theories to evolution." They would include:

• Christian Creationism: 6 remarkably productive days about 10,000 years ago, and all that.


• Non-Christian Creationism: There are other religions in the world, and what's more, many people actually believe in them! Some of these heathen mud-people have their own crazy ideas about how man and beast and dinosaur bones came to be.


• Intelligent Design: Someone or something intelligent created the universe. Apart from historical baggage, is this the same thing as Christian Creationism, or is Christian Creationism only one version of this idea? Could an Intelligent Designer have designed the processes we call "Evolution?"


• Random Design: Stuff just kind of crashed around willy-nilly until it accidentally became mankind. Is this what the theory of Evolution proposes?


• No Design: The materials and mechanisms of the universe arose from natural processes, without any initial design or designer, and these processes eventually produced mankind. Is this the same as "random design?" Is this the same as Evolution? Could Evolution be part of a "no design" theory?


• Stupid Design: The universe, man, and the lower animals were created by a very powerful but utterly incompetent entity, who screwed everything up. Problem of Evil solved.


• Preliminary Design: The world we live in, the beasts of the field, and all of mankind are just a prototype. Don't get too worked up about things, The Creator might pull the plug any minute now. Could Evolution be a component of a "Preliminary Design" theory, even though it posits a Creator?


• Infernal Design: Also known as "Satanism" (useful more as something with which to bludgeon school boards considering "Intelligent Design" proposals than as a pedagogical tool)


• Accidental Design: The Universe has a creator, but he or she or it made the thing by mistake. The Creator may or may not have noticed The Universe yet, let alone decided to do anything in particular about it. Could Evolution be a component of an "Accidental Design" theory?


• Exercise:Make up your own explanation for the origins of man and beast. Your theory must either account for fossils and emergence of drug-resistant germs and all that stuff, or provide some reason for ignoring it.

Anyway. This just shows that I'd prefer to play the role of H.L. Menken, given the available cast of characters in the trial, and I suspect I'm no different from every other leftish no-name internet diarist, in that regard.

Incidentally, do you know who John Scopes was, and what he did to get that Monkey Trial going in the first place?

Hint #1: He did, in fact, break a law, but he didn't do anything that isn't legal in all 50 of the United States today.

Hint #2: If you're one of those Science teachers who have been skipping over evolution in your classes, and you don't know or remember how the Scopes trial started, then I hope you'll have the decency to feel ashamed of yourself once you've looked it up and reflected on it.