Forbidden by the US Constitution from promoting any one religion (or, arguably, religion in general), publicly-funded schools in the US have been increasingly exposing students to the theory of evolution over the last few decades, but not to the concept of creationism. This has never sat well with the more religious elements of US society; witness the Scopes Monkey Trial, which was the basis for the excellent play/movie Inherit the Wind.
Historically, religious conservatives have responded to this trend in one of two ways: (a) attacking science as somehow being inferior or detrimental to religion; or (b) insisting that religion is a fundamental part of the country's heritage and foundation, and therefore entitled to be included/preserved in our school system.
These arguments have met with little success; largely I believe because they're easily countered with both logic and evidence. Argument (a) is refuted by pointing out that science is incapable of promoting atheism (it's a fundamental tenet of science that you cannot prove the non-existence of something), whereas point (b) can be easily disposed of with documentary evidence thus:
Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution states "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." And in 1796 the US entered into the Treaty of Tripoli, which is notable for a phrase in Clause 11:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any way founded on the Christian Religion" -- Treaty of Tripoli, 1796
This document, and therefore the sentiments expressed therein, was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, President John Adams, and the US Senate, becoming law on 10 June, 1797. It is difficult to imagine a more clear-cut statement of the secular intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Retreating to heavily-funded think tanks for a few years, Christian Conservatives have reemerged with a new and admittedly more clever strategy: do battle with science on science's terms. Recognizing (but not necessarily admitting) that arguments based outright on "religion vs. science" have proved ineffective, they have come up with a concept that is "creationism without religion": they call it "intelligent design".
The argument basically goes like this: "There are things in the universe that are so well-constructed or well-organized that they must have been the result of intelligent decisions rather than random processes such as natural selection."
Emboldened by support from a White House and Congress that owes it a favor for electoral victory, the proponents of "intelligent design" have been assaulting school boards across the nation with a smoke-and-mirrors campaign designed to confuse them into thinking that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory, and therefore ought to be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. This strategy is quite clever: formerly, their attempts at introducing creationism into the classroom were easily shot down due to their religious content - but with religion removed - or more accurately (and significantly, as we will see later) unspecified - it's not as easy to detect and expose.
Witness their success with the Kansas State Board of Education, which stands poised to change the definition of science. Yes, that's right: in October, the conservative majority on the board will permit the redefinition of "science", as taught to children in Kansas. Of course, once you change the definition of science, it isn't science any more.
Science basically says: "Look at the evidence, and form a theory based on what you see. Use the theory until you find evidence that doesn't fit; at that point, adjust your theory and repeat." Note the fundamental difference here between science and religion: changing your position is unthinkable in religion, yet it is required as part of science.
The "intelligent design" argument puts the cart before the horse: it leaps to the conclusion ("the universe was designed by an intelligence"), and then seeks to provide explanations for how the evidence supports this goal. This is not science; under no circumstances will its supporters change the conclusion.
To their credit, the scientific community has refused on principle to even engage in arguments on the matter, wisely realizing that you can't use logic to defeat an argument that doesn't respect logic, and further recognizing that zealots of this kind are immune to any form of persuasion: as long as they don't admit defeat, they believe that they have won - their faith is intact. Such a strategy may be the high road, but it's not going to stop kids in Kansas being taught pseudo-scientific dogma in their science class.
The significant critical flaw in the "intelligent design" proposition is that it doesn't (dare) explain anything about this "intelligence"; mentioning any specific "God or gods" immediately exposes their position's religious motivation. We're therefore left in the curious position of having the "intelligence" being intentionally and necessarily left as an open, unanswered question, in order to avoid the Constitutional prohibition against promotion of any one specific belief system.
By carefully avoiding any promotion of any one specific religion, all religions are neatly placed on a level playing field: an "intelligent design" curriculum must be compatible with any and all religious explanations for the "intelligence" component.
Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Bobby Henderson, a self-described "concerned citizen", declared himself the prophet of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and sent a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, demanding equal time in science class for his explanation of the origin of the universe, namely, that it was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. If "intelligence design" is to be accepted into the school curriculum, then the same arguments can be used to demand equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
The believers in this religion (who call themselves Pastafarians) have "discovered" the truth of human origins: we were all created by this Flying Spaghetti Monster, who deliberately planted evidence of evolution in order to hide the truth about human origins. To quote the gospel: "[Scientists do not] realize that every time we makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this."
Henderson's letter continues on to satirize the idiocy of the anti-science movement, claiming that global warming has been caused by a decline in the number of pirates in the world -- and indeed, a graph of "number of pirates" versus "average global temperature" shows a definite correlation! The fact that there is no causal relationship between pirates and global warming serves as a parody of the pseudo-scientific arguments used to promote intelligent design. For more laughs at the expense of creationists, see Colin Purrington's spoof of the warning labels required on science textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia!
The next year or so should prove interesting, if not decisive. As well as the Kansas affair, the US Supreme Court will address the question of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. The court weaselled out of having to rule on its constitutionality a few months ago by ruling 8-0 to reject the case on a technicality. Attorneys general from all 50 states have urged the court to reconsider the case; the technicality has been resolved and the case is headed back up the hill. Unfortunately, by that time Bush will have made his second Supreme Court appointment, no doubt tilting the bench heavily in favor of the religious conservatives.
I find it ironic that the pledge, as originally written in 1892 by a Baptist minister does not include the phrase "under God":
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The "under God" phrase was added during the 1950s, as a knee-jerk McCarthyist attempt to flush those godless communists out of the woodwork. For the record, I also have a problem with the words "In God We Trust" appearing on US currency.
I'm amused by the hypocrisy of those who on the one hand demand the preservation of the county's (non-existent) religious heritage, but on the other insist upon a revisionist version of the pledge. I doubt they see it this way, but that's the beauty/curse of hypocrisy.
