Creationism and Descent

Once again Intelligent Design has raised its gorgonic, lipstick-smeared head.  Fundamentalists candidates and the Discovery Institute, a self-proclaimed policy think tank that has elevated the outrageous sham of ID to a stratospheric heights (and middle-earth respectability),  would have us believe that prejudice against creationism, yes even social oppression of its adherents, is best evidenced by the “one-sided” debate of public school curriculum and discriminatory Labyrinth of academic tenure.  Top marks for an impressive twist of public relation acrobatics; now ID isn’t the aggressor, but the victim.

The most distressing message of their published jetsam is that rived spirituality and scientific discovery (note even the sneakiness of their name, which hides behind the original “big tent” curiosity driven research) are locked in mortal combat, with only one winner possible.  Known for obfuscation and a gentle, patronizing brand of religious sanctimony, the Discovery Institute throws its full weight behind superstition and tautology, and deliberately mangles the meaning of “debate” and “theory” to suit an overt, and fundamentally wrong, ideological mission.

There simply is no “appearance of design in the universe” by any accepted scientific standard, and to demand explanation, never mind one that “each finds most satisfying” is a crude and vulgar violation of the scientific method.  It presumes a common understanding that there is a deliberate design, and casts mutation and evolution into middens of the unsaved.  The dire implications of a godless planet and natural selection are devastating only to those who have somehow chained their moral identity to a monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic creed.

In America, happily, people are still free to do so.  But they are not free to impose their faith on others, and they will encounter harsh words (never mind career changing decisions, like tenure denied) if they try to erect an artificial edifice whose hollow claims to unbending science are polluted by faith and ideology.

Draping the technique that has brought civilization life-saving antibiotics and life-enhancing telecommunications - just to name two proliferated amenities of modern life, and two things I don’t want to give back - in the unflattering language of “rhetoric”, “controversy”, and “mindlessness” is a turgid parlor trick.  That kind of thinking leads directly to literal interpretation of the bible, all of it, including the less savory parts about slavery, misogyny, and righteous murder.

Scientific knowledge - reproducible knowledge about physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and astronomy: the grand magisteria of all we can truly test and learn - is not an accidental component of our public policy.  It is the essential ingredient of our understanding: of ourselves, our neighbors, and our planet.

We know beyond any doubt or debate, for example, that the earth is billions of years old, that it rotates and revolves around the sun, and that its resources are large but finite.  But not that long ago, the second most prevalent and infallible faith tortured anyone who dared challenge the orthodoxy of flat earth geocentism.  People killed other people with official sanction for hapless indiscretions, like believing in Copernican orbits.  Many superstitions from the Middle Ages, and many from the millennia that preceded it, can still provoke violence and sectarian hatred.

Every instant we waste on propagating this meaningless debate is lost to true discovery of cures, sustainability, and the deeply spiritual questions of meaning and purpose.  Every dollar misappropriated to the Discovery Institute, or the Templeton Foundation, or a self-serving televangelist can be better spent, and our minds can be better applied, to stem cell research, renewable energy, and peacemaking.