Pure nod and wink

Intelligent Design is dead. Long live Creationism. The June 1 issue of The Washington Spectator has an article by Lauri Lebo. She is the Dover, PA journalist who covered the ID trial there and has been keeping track of the Creationist crowd. Much of the push for Creationism is from the Discovery Institute, dedicated to defeating "scientific materialism" (huh?) and promoting "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

In the same book that criticized the Dover ruling that banned Intelligent Design the Discovery Institute documents their next tactic. That is a push for "academic freedom" using a two pronged approach. The first was the theatrical movie Expelled, through which DI "tried to sway public opinion" (the article doesn't say how well they succeeded -- one could research box office take, I suppose -- but apparently not much). The second prong is to lobby state legislatures to pass bills on academic freedom that would "protect public-school educators who offer 'critical analysis' of evolution or teach alternative 'scientific views of biological or chemical evolution'" Chemical? Bills have been introduced in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan (!), and soon in Texas.

This attempt fits the pattern. With every constitutional defeat the creationism language gets watered down, the assertions become more vague and misleading. Creationism is now reduced to "pure nod and wink." Nowhere do the sample bills supplied by DI use the word "creationism," though that doesn't stop individual state lawmakers from blowing the cover.

The stated goal of the movement is to teach all of evolution, its strengths and weaknesses under the banner of fairness and democratic principles. The implied goals are sinister: promoting the public's right to remain ignorant of science, using fear to attack curiosity and wonderment. A radio interview on a Christian network, the Expelled star Ben Stein made the bizarre link between the Holocaust and science, claiming "Science leads you to killing people." Yet, back in 1987 the US Supreme Court didn't buy the academic freedom argument.

The question for the rest of us is whether to challenge these new laws immediately (none have gotten into law -- yet) and risk a court validating them, or waiting until a teacher takes advantage of their vagueness to promote creationism, allowing a stronger case to be built. You could try to head them off with visits to your state senators and representatives.

Alas, only paid subscribers can read the full article online.