The Evolution Debate is not about Science

As mainstream publications begin weighing the pros and cons of teaching Intelligent Design, its important to remember one thing: any time the media or apologists for "the scientific community" tell us this is a debate between science and religion, they are lying.

This is a debate about power. Specifically, should the public school system in America tell kids how to view reality: ethics, psychology, religion, human identity and value, sexual behavior, meaning, and on and on?

Isn't that a jump? No, because if one accepts the Neo-Darwinian thesis, conclusions on these and other matters follow almost necessarily. Darwinism is an opinionated fellow, and he cannot help affirming materialist conclusions everywhere he goes. In fact, to not do so is to not understand what he is saying. Darwinism is a theory about life arising without help. It is a statement about the creation of humanity and their purposeless beginnings. That is not a trivial proclamation. It is a statement which, if true, colors everything.

That is why this is not a debate about science. It is a debate about how things are. It is a debate about reality at its most Raw. The use of language in this debate--suggesting that one side is scientific and the other is religion--is ridiculous. This debate is actually about power. It is about whether or not public schools should prescribe ideologies: religious or non-religious. It's about who has the authority to tell our kids what is real. Neo-Darwinism is not so much a fact to be reckoned with. It is much more, a set of glasses through which to see all of reality.

Now on the other hand, neglecting to teach Neo-Darwinism to our youth would be a tragedy. It is very important for this ideology to be understood by young people. But that is just it; it needs to be understood as an ideology. It is a worldview. It needs to be placed in the same realm as all ideologies taught in schools because it is a systematic statement about what reality is like at its most fundamental levels, and as such it is a religiously weighted viewpoint. (Suggesting that Neo-Darwinism makes no religious claims is absurd.)

And this is the crux. Neo-Darwinism is a worthwhile theory about reality, and may in fact be true. But how will we know it is "true"? Well not by crushing all dissenting opinion (as one editorial this morning in the USA Today suggests). How often has indoctrination advanced human thought? It would seem that truth shines brightest when paired against competing alternatives (as the other editorial in USA Today states).

What is the solution? One writer suggests that, "Students should learn the scientific arguments for, and against, contemporary evolutionary theory ... Teaching scientific controversies and arguments helps students understand the nature of science. Contrary to the "men in white coats" stereotype, with scientists as data-collecting automatons, scientists argue about how best to interpret evidence."

Write it on your hand. Tattoo it on your forehead: There are no neutral facts, only interpretations. Forcing kids to bow in school to any ideology is immoral, and runs counter to our separation of church and state. The priests of materialism should stand down.