things kevin hates

You’ve probably heard about the so-called theory of intelligent design. Its advocates suggest that the world (or life, or intelligent life, or whatever) must be the work. Now, as far as the origin of the universe is concerned, it’s pretty hard to prove or disprove this; I actually agree with them, but that’s beside the point here. It’s a philosophical question, and in philosophy, most of the questions which were raised by Plato or Aristotle or any of those other dead Greeks still haven’t been answered with any greater confidence than they were more than two thousand years ago. If the intelligent design advocates limited themselves to philosophy, I really wouldn’t have any problem with them. What I have a problem with is what they have to say about the origin of living things, and of intelligent life. They dismiss all of the evidence in favor of evolution, put forth a few nonsensical theories, and then stir up all the controversy they can in an attempt to discredit evolution. What they are doing is taking a philosophical/religious concept and insisting that it is a scientific concept, when, in reality, it is about as far from science as possible, regardless of any validity it has in a philosophical context.

Even if intelligent design could be considered science, it would clearly be bad science. The ID advocates have argued that blood clotting, the eye, a bacterium’s flagellum, and countless other structures and processes are “irreducibly complex”; in other words, there was no way they could have evolved because taking any of their parts out would lead to a useless, nonfunctioning structure. Every time they have tried to raise these objections they have been shown to be untrue.

And the ID advocates really aren’t all that concerned with science, anyway; they’re much more interested in PR. The leading body behind the ID movement is called the Discovery Institute, a think tank made up mostly of far-right evangelical Protestants who don’t have degrees in biology or anything similar. An internal memo, the “Wedge Document,” was leaked to the public in 1999. It listed some of the “Governing Goals” of the institute: “to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” To bring this about, they launched a massive campaign directed at the public. Whenever they got exposure in the media, the scientific establishment had two choices: they could either stay silent and see the public, given only one side of the story, be swayed toward intelligent design; or they could debate the intelligent design proponents and give them the appearance of being credible scientists, making intelligent design look like a plausible position whose scientific truth had not yet been determined. The media loves conflict–the ratings are much better that way–and they love to set themselves up as impartial presenters.*

Much of the ID movement’s focus was on getting their neo-creationist viewpoint into public schools, under the guise of a “teach the controversy” campaign. They fought for control of school boards throughout the country, trying to get disclaimers into textbooks or force teachers to make statements of neutrality before teaching their classes about evolution.

When the ID advocates have been taken to court, they have almost always failed miserably. One of the most notable cases was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which unhappy parents challenged Dover’s policy of requiring that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution. The judge in that case determined that ID was not science and that it was a “mere re-labeling of creationism.” Teaching creationism in public school science classes had already been outlawed by the US Supreme Court in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. But that wouldn’t stop the creationists; they just sloppily revised and renamed their textbooks. Consider this chart, which was presented in the Kitzmiller case during the testimony of Barbara Forrest, one of the leading experts on the history of the creationist and ID movements. The chart is about an ID textbook called Of Pandas and People, which was actually a reworking of earlier creationist textbooks.

After the Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of creationism, its supporters scrambled to rename it.

Searching for “creationis” in a text file of the book produced hits for words such as “creationism,” “creationist,” and “creationists.” Note the dramatic change between the 1st and 2nd draft versions of Of Pandas and People. And furthermore, note the year: 1987. That’s the year the Supreme Court outlawed creationism in public schools. Reports like this make it obvious that they were trying to rework creationism in a stealthier guise. The intelligent design movement is basically the F-117 of creationism.

While scientists and judges have categorically rejected this neo-creationism, the public and politicians have been fooled far too often. Polls have consistently shown that shockingly low numbers of Americans “believe”** in evolution.*** The Santorum amendment to 2001′s No Child Left Behind Act, which essentially parroted the ID movement’s “teach the controversy” talking point, passed the Senate 91-8, though it eventually died in a conference committee.

Also, the insidiously named Louisiana Academic Freedom Act (later renamed the Louisiana Science Education Act) was signed into law in June 2008 after passing overwhelmingly in both houses. It claims to be about promoting “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories,” but it’s really about giving the neo-creationists entry into the classroom. In response many scientific societies have canceled plans to have conferences in New Orleans. The last thing this city and state needs is to scare away tourist dollars. I’ve been a fan of Bobby Jindal even before his failed 2003 gubernatorial campaign, but for him to sign such a bill was inexcusable. Far too much of his governorship has consisted of kowtowing to the far-right fringe of the Republican party, from signing this act to his taxpayer-funded helicopter tours to numerous Protestant churches in North Louisiana, to turning down hundreds of millions of dollars in stimulus money to be used for high-speed rail projects. All of this smacks of building his street cred with the extremists voters when it comes time for the 2016 (or maybe even 2012) presidential primaries, rather than governing in the best interests of the state of Louisiana.

His support for the ID movement troubles me even more than it otherwise would because Bobby Jindal, like me, is a Catholic. Pope John Paul II’s comments on evolution made it clear that the church accepted the evidence scientists had been able to marshal in favor of evolution, and also made it clear that there was no conflict between believing in evolution and being a good Catholic. For Catholic politician Bobby Jindal to support the ID movement speaks to willful ignorance of science (even though he majored in biology at Brown), ignorance of Church teaching (a bit odd from a well-read convert who has been a steadfast defender of church policy on subjects such as abortion), or just plain sucking up to the religious right.

* Take Fox News’s slogan: “We Report, You Decide.” Regardless of your opinions on Fox News, it’s clear that they want to portray themselves as impartial, as simply presenting two or more sides on an issue without taking a stand.

** I wonder what percentage of Americans believe in gravity.

*** Sometimes, though, I wonder how much of it is due to sloppy wording in polls. Often I feel as though they try to phrase evolution in a way that is greatly dismissive of any compatibility between theism and evolution. But this Gallup poll seems pretty fairly worded, and yet only 39% said they believe in evolution.