dear editor...

so, i sent a response to the opinion article in friday's _mississippi press_ (pascagoula's newspaper), also mentioned here. it's way too long to be printed in full, but we'll see what happens:

There does seem to be one thing on which Gaylon Parker and I agree – the debate over intelligent design clearly is not intelligent.

There is so much at stake in the current debate between intelligent design (ID) and evolution. Most significantly, perhaps, and offering most support of a purported link between ID and religion, is just how heated the public opinion has become regarding this matter. Proponents of ID hypothesize that the "intelligent" designer could be a time-travelling biologist or a space alien, but the most resonant suggestion for a largely Christian nation such as ours is that "designer" is euphemism for a divine creator. I have yet to see a portrayal of intelligent design that convincingly removes God from the realm of speculation. And for a country comprised mostly of theists, the notion that God is responsible for life as we know it is not one that will be easily overlooked.

With respect to the "theory" of evolution, we're dealing with a theory that is supported by a wealth of evidence; a theory about which hypotheses can be and have been formed and tested. The theory of evolution has earned its place as a scientific tenet. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has none of these hallmarks. ID, itself an untestable and unproveable theory, begins where it ends – at a question of faith in a creator. As a matter of science, ID doesn't pass muster. Additionally, nowhere do the scientific community and science teacher associations proclaim that evolution is proven fact. What they are saying is that evolution is "a major unifying concept in science" and is necessary for students to obtain a "level of
scientific literacy" (from the National Science Teachers of America website).

The First Amendment very clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" This has been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as a prohibition against any government entanglement with or endorsement of religion. The danger of teaching intelligent design in public schools is that for many, ID is a thinly veiled repackaging of creationism. By suggesting that intelligent design belongs within the popular definition of "science", the separation of church and state that the Constitution promises Americans becomes seriously endangered.

Public schools, as state actors, have no business introducing "theories" to students which force them to choose or even consider their religious beliefs. Even if there were a way to comprehensively accommodate all potential student faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, what-have-you), are public schools really an appropriate context for that discussion? Moreover, is a biology classroom the proper venue? One of the great things about this country is that its government allows religion or non-religion to be a personal choice, one informed by family, community, and individual experience. Government provides this freedom by staying out of questions of religion. We do ourselves a great disservice if we forget that this country was founded because of a need for religious freedom. The day that government starts informing our choices in matters of faith is the day that we abandon the revolutionary and patriotic principles embodied in our Constitution and our history.

And finally, let's slow down in our rush to attack the ACLU. True, the ACLU has taken on some controversial cases, but it has been incredibly pivotal in this nation's history. The ACLU has been involved in everything from protesting the Japanese internment camps during WWII to advocating for labor rights to protecting civil rights and fighting racial and gender discrimination. The ACLU is a staunch defender of constitutional rights and the principles upon which this country was founded. I shudder to think where we would be without such an organization.

(thanks to grant for being my draft-reader/editor/preventer of emily saying stupid things.)