There exists this school of thought referred to as intelligent design. This view of the world, the universe, and "how we got here" claims that the complexity and beauty inherent in life is so amazing that it could only have been put into motion by an aforementioned intelligent designer. I personally cannot stand this "theory" in its current American incarnation and think it quite absurd, as I have chronicled on this page before ("Teach Your Children Well," Jan. 21, 2005).
Suffice it to say, I was surprised when I recently had a gut instinct to support intelligent design proponents. I came across an article in The Guardian Unlimited concerning a recent decision to scrap intelligent design from a Fresno, Calif. school's curriculum. Upon first glance, my chest swelled not unlike a chimpanzee who has seen the violent defeat of his most loathed enemy -- along with this and the recent Pennsylvania court decision, intelligent design would soon be vacant from public schools and I could again sleep soundly at night.
But, as life has reminded me on so many occasions, the devil is in the details. This disagreement was not over a sticker in a biology textbook but about an elective philosophy course entitled "Philosophy of Design." This is about as far as I considered the topic at first and concluded that this was some sort of modern day witch-hunt the likes of which I often imagine the ACLU perpetrating against all types of conservative miscreants. I even went so far as to begin writing this op-ed, because as far as I was concerned, the topic was settled: intelligent design, though I disagree with it and believe it to be bunk, is in fact fair game for a philosophy course. A quick review of my previous op-ed on the subject will reveal that I have a bitter enmity for the idea of inserting intelligent design into a science curriculum; and yet, even I admit that rational human beings may disagree with me and banning ID from schools outright is almost as bad a solution as teaching it alongside or in place of evolution.
And then life taught me another lesson: to read the news articles that inspire me in their entirety. The course is taught by a minister's wife, uses questionably subjective videos, and Ms. Lemburg wrote, "I believe that this is the class the Lord wanted me to teach."
None of these things are enough to change my mind, just enough to raise red flags. Red flags, much the same as the ones raised when President Bush invokes God. I am bitterly anti-religious -- but I cannot simply invent a legal justification or an extralegal moral justification for forcing either Bush or Lemburg to act secular when they are entitled to their religious beliefs that, understandably, shape their view of the world (for which they do have a firm legal and moral justification, both eloquently, necessarily, and thankfully stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).
For those who would cite the American tradition of separation of church and state as justification, I would contend that this idea is perhaps a bit overblown. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution does not prevent a public official from holding or even espousing religious beliefs. It may be in poor taste, but it is not unconstitutional or illegal. If that rhetoric blossoms into congressional laws respecting establishment of religion(s), I'll be ready for the front lines. Teaching intelligent design as science is such an establishment, but acknowledging that it exists and exploring it academically is not.
Do I know whether the school district was correct in stopping Lemburg's class? No. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the case. I am reminded of something said this past summer while I was taking Govy 66 with Professor Young '90 concerning religious displays in court houses. Sandra Day O'Connor (now universally respected thanks to her nearly sacred designation as a moderate), he explained, refused to set a hard and fast rule that religious displays were either all unconstitutional or all kosher. Instead, she took every case as a standalone and consequently approved some displays and disapproved others. For example (in my words, not Justice O'Connor's), Moses with the Ten Commandments is okay on the Supreme Court building because it is also adorned with Mohammed sporting the Qur'an, whereas the Alabama monument -- imposing, in English and a bit preachy -- is not. The devil is always in the details.
I have a special hatred reserved for religion and those who would inject it into the government, but blind rules get us nowhere. Saying intelligent design has no place in academia is the equivalent of saying Dartmouth is endorsing Judaism by offering an introductory course on it. We have more to learn from Justice O'Connor than the biggest Bush-haters and O'Connor-admirers can begin to fathom.
