All Intensive Purposes

Discussing the recent decision by a federal district court in Pennsylvania holding that the teaching of intelligent design in public schools violates the Establishment Clause, William Saletan suggests that such judicial rulings will not make ID go away:

As Jones makes clear, the Dover case is lousy with evidence of explicit religious motivation on the part of local ID proponents. But is ID, by virtue of being unscientific, wholly and inherently religious—or is there, contrary to the judge's dualism, a third category? The answer is inadvertently sprinkled throughout his opinion. Statements by ID leaders "reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content," he writes. A strategy document developed by the "Center for Renewal of Science and Culture" is full of "cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones." Proponents of ID fear "evolution's threat to culture and society," and the Dover board's collaborators have "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions." Cultural, cultural, cultural. Not scientific, not necessarily religious, but cultural.

Is the pseudo-science of creationism ultimately being driven by religion? Or is this brand of religion, in turn, being driven by cultural anxieties? Is it possible to open a conversation with these folks and their kids, not in biology class but in, say, social studies?

ID doubtless is a symptom of very interesting and important cultural forces, and it would be terrific to have conversations about them in high school social studies classes. Hell, [Heck, -- ed.] I could learn something from that conversation, and am keeping my eyes open for the book or magazine that can explain to me a little better where these people are coming from.

But I don't think they'd stand for it. Talking about ID -- analyzing it as cultural content -- kills it. These folks don't want their beliefs discussed, they want their gospel preached.