A Few Thoughts on ID - Part III. Religion In The Classroom

The final area in this debate about which I want to comment is the separation of church and state. The IDers insist that scientists are trying to remove religion as a subject of discussion in schools. Their implicit argument is that science and scientists are atheists. This argument is flawed on both accounts. First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, a topic I examined in “Get Your Politics Out of My Science.” Second, the scientific community is not opposed to religion or its teaching. In point of fact, the establishment clause does not prohibit the teaching of religion in school. The clause merely prohibits teaching of religion in a manner that could be construed to be endorsing one belief system over another.

I have read many articles by members of the scientific community who have suggested that religious objections to evolution or even religious beliefs in creation stories have a place in the public schools. That place is in philosophy, comparative religion, history, or even literature classes. Teaching about religions and their beliefs in this manner would not violate the establishment clause and it would expose the students to the very ideas that the IDers and creationists want them to hear. I can see no reason why the IDers and creationists refuse to accept this alternative.

Of particular note is the IDers’ and creationists’ failure to respond to the question of which ID or creation theory to teach. As has been noted by numerous proponents of evolution (and in a most hilariously satirical way in the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), there are as many creation myths as there are religions. To teach one as “science” to the exclusion of all others would mean that the proponents were in favor of teaching a “theory” about which there was significant disagreement among “experts.” Thus, they would fall victim to their own argument regarding not teaching evolution.

This contradiction forces the IDers to adopt their latest tactic, which is to “teach the controversy.” This too, however, fails, as the “theory” of ID is disputed by countless “experts” of other creation myths. Presumably the creationists have less of a problem with this as they actively want to force an evangelical belief system into the public schools. Curiously though, I have never heard of a creationist who objected to English classes teaching “The Book of 1000 Nights and A Night,” despite the frequent references to “the one, true faith” and the fact that Burton rarely translates “Allahu Akbar.”

Thus, the only “controversy” in evolution is an artificial one introduced by the opponents for reasons which cannot be defended, even by their own arguments. American students are continuing to show performance gaps in math and science when compared to other industrialized nations. Our schools have suffered enough at the hands of the IDers and the Montessori crowd. It is high time to demand quality, rigorous teaching at all levels using material appropriate to the subject. That means teaching science in science class and religion elsewhere.