Welcome Home, Dorothy

Finally, there’s once again evidence of intelligent design in Kansas, or at least enough evidence to support a theory of intelligent design in Kansas. Dorothy can come back home now, having spent enough time wandering through the poppy fields in Ozzie land.

Kansas voters reversed their devolutionary slide into the backwoods of education by effectively electing a majority of pro-evolution members to their state board of education. The final makeup of the board won’t be decided until November, but the results of this week’s Reb primary ensure a new majority that can speak the name Darwin without being sent down the hall to have their mouths washed out with soap.

Last year, Kansas made international news when its state board rewrote the definition of science so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. A 6 – 4 majority on that board favored classroom standards that muffled the big-bang theory, significantly devalued Darwinian concepts, and required the teaching of intelligent design in all science classes. A primordial groan was heard round the world as Kansas adopted a flying monkey as its state mascot.

I have no problem with the belief that there’s evidence of ID in the universe. I have no problem with the belief that the world exists at the hand of a creative power, aka God. At this point in my evolution, I have no problem believing in both. However, these ideas are neither scientific facts nor scientific theories. They’re matters of religious faith and personal philosophy.

Evolution, on the other hand, belongs in a science class. I don’t care whether we call it a scientific fact or a scientific theory. What matters to me is that it’s either, with “scientific” being the common element. At this point in my evolution, I have no problem accepting evolution as a scientific fact. If others want to keep it in the theoretical bucket, as part of scientific debate, that’s fine.

As for creationism, which adheres to the biblical notion that the world was actually created in six days only six thousand years ago, there’s no way that notion belongs in a science class. It barely belongs in a religion class and it doesn’t have enough credibility to make the cut in a philosophy class. It’s poppycock. Although, I must admit that if we could add one more six to the creation equation, maybe by believing that God wrapped up creation at 6PM on the 6th day of the last week in the 6th thousandth year, thereby making it a catchy 6-6-6 theory, then we’d have a devil of a time resisting what would clearly become one hell of an idea.

There are people who see ID as a Trojan horse for creationism, fearing that any teaching of ID will eventually remove its smirking mask and reveal the underlying six day / six thousand year idea. I can make enough distinction between ID and creationism to not dismiss the former for the sins of the latter. More importantly, I see no reason why ID and evolution can’t peacefully coexist. The proposition that evolution is evidence of intelligent design sits okay with me. Adaptability seems intelligent; natural selection seems intelligent. The idea that a creature would crawl out of a swamp so it can learn to walk, cover up its genitals, cook meat over a fire, use a wheel, learn to read, print money and then earn enough of it to buy a couple of iPods – all seems intelligent to me.

But peaceful coexistence still doesn’t mean teaching both subjects in a science class. Any teaching of ID in public school belongs in a social studies, philosophy or history of religion class; it does not belong in a biology, chemistry or physics class.

But, there’s another approach that appeals to me – teach evolution in the science classroom and then teach intelligent design in the Sunday school classroom and in the No. 1classroom otherwise known as home. It’s interesting to me that the supporters of teaching ID in public schools seem to believe that they can’t adequately balance the things their kids learn at school by what they teach their kids in church and, much more importantly, by what they teach them at home. There’s a long list of subjects that kids are taught at church and home that no one would seriously consider adding to the public school curriculum. How did pastors and parents suddenly become incapable or inadequate in teaching ID or creationism or a story about flying monkeys to the children in their charge?

Frankly, pastors and parents are neither incapable nor inadequate. This has simply become another issue intended to fan the flame of our ongoing cultural war between liberals and conservatives; between believers and non-believers; between Dims and Rebs; between secularists and sectarians – between the right and the wrong and the good and the bad. But, in the Kansas primary it took on a newly honed divisive edge. There, this issue was used to define the difference between a moderate and a conservative Republican. Next, we’ll see issues of this ilk used to define the difference between true conservatives and neoconservatives; then between the religions right and the religious far right; then between ….

The Bible says that a house divided will not stand. We’re in the process of falling over in this country because we’ve become addicted to division and to the overwhelming need to be right. That’s what happens when you wander around in a land filled with poppy fields. Even the innocent Dorothy couldn’t keep from falling asleep on that path. Maybe the Sunflower State can show us a better way.