Is teaching Intelligent Design a reasonable compromise?

President Bush thinks that an education should expose you to all kinds of ideas, so Intelligent Design (the sanitized form of Creation Science designed to get past the federal courts restriction on religion in the schools) should be taught in grammar schools alongside evolution.

Is he crazy?

No, he is simply reflecting the ideas of "fundamentalist religion" as presented by other fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Ralph Reed. Fundamentalist religion is the religious expression of a rejection of modern society.

There are more extreme rejections of modernism Much more extreme are the movements of Reconstructionism and Christian Identity. They go well beyond and reject even the relatively moderate fundamentalisms of Falwell, et cetera. Timothy McVeigh blew up the McMurrah Building in Oklahoma City and Eric Rudolph set his bombs under the influence to the ideas taught by Christian Identity. Then there are the non Christian fundamentalisms.

Osama bin Laden also rejects modernism through fundamentalist religion. The difference is that Osama's ideas are based on the use of the Quran to find the fundamentals of Islam. A Muslim scholar named Sayyid Qutb worked out those ideas for Islam in the early and mid twentieth century, about half a century after the American Christian fundamentalists worked them out here. Fundamentalism is as modern an approach to the interpretation of religion as is the very science and social modernism the fundamentalists are rejecting.

Karen Armstrong in her book "The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism" describes the history of fundamentalism and why it has taken the forms it has. (See the link to the book on the right hand side.) Much of the following comes from her excellent book.

The Threats Religious conservatives are responding to.

In the 19th century the American Middle Class found themselves prosperous and comfortable as a result of the Industrial Revolution. One reaction to this was an optimistic form of liberal Christianity, the ones we today call the "mainline denominations", that embraced the discoveries of science. It wasn't long before the new methods of more precise historical study of documents were applied to the Bible. This search for greater insight into the Bible was called "the Higher Criticism." (Armstrong, p. 143)

For the conservatives, the Industrial Revolution was already sweeping away the old certainties. The American and French Revolutions had already taken away the old certainties that there were clear classes of people with different abilities and privileges. The threats of Catholic immigrants or " the Yellow Peril" coming to the U.S. were also very big threats to the white anglo-saxon Protestant culture of American conservatives.

More recently the Civil Rights Movement, cultural diversity (including acceptance of Gays) and Feminism, together with freedom of expression in books, art and Hollywood simply added to the threats the conservative culture faces. If you have to change some of the values you grew up with, which ones can you trust to remain and guide you? Abandon one rule and they are all under question after that.

The last bastion of clear certainty was in the teachings of the Bible, and the Higher Criticism threatened even that. It proved that the Pentateuch was (most likely) written by four different authors, probably none named Moses. The Virgin Birth was just a figure of speech frequently used by a variety of religions 2000 years ago, and the Psalms were not written by King David. (Like modern political leaders, David apparently used ghost writers and simply had his name put on the results.)

Under the new scientific ways of understanding, anything that was not rational and logical could not be true. This left no basis for finding "Truth" in myth, unless, like Troy, the myth could be shown to have a rational basis.

If there is no Truth to be found in unsupported myth and evidence to support the many of the assertions of the Bible cannot be found, then the Bible cannot rationally be considered the source of absolute Truth. Without an infallible and perfect standard, it appears to someone demanding certainty that there is no standard at all. How can a standard that conflicts with logic and scientific rationality be perfect and infallible? Seems like a rational and logical conclusion, doesn't it?

So how does a conservative deeply imbued with Christian religion based on the older ways of interpretation find a new source of religious certainty that will permit him to rationally remain a Christian?

The Conservative reaction.

The rational solution is to assume that the Bible is the literal word of God and make this assumption, like the very existence of God, a matter of Faith that cannot be questioned. The Bible then is given the pedigree that allows it to become accepted as precise in every way, historically and scientifically.

This perfect Bible then can be used as the source of evidence to rationally explain the world around you. You have gone back to the very fundamental evidence of what God teaches about his religion, and you can hold that fundamental evidence in your hand. How much more certainty can you find?

This is very different from the more traditional mystical and allegorical reading of the Bible to find the spirituality in it. But it offers a certainty that the older forms of Christianity or any other religion did not.

The result of fundamental interpretation of the Bible.

This fundamental interpretation of the Bible sets up a problem when there is scientific evidence that contradicts what the Bible literally says. If the Bible must be accepted as the literal word of God to maintain your Faith, and science clearly demonstrates (1) that the world is Billions of years old and (2) that modern species are the result of evolution, then you are left with two choices. You must either reject your religion or you must reject the teachings of science.

Contradictory science has become an inherent threat to fundamentalist religion. If you badly need your religion to explain your position in the Universe and society, and this explanation is more important to you than the teachings of science, then you will reject science. No matter how often science is accurate and useful, it cannot compete with the need to know your place in the uncertain universe.

Rejecting science is easier if everyone you associate already seem to have made the same decision, and your religious leaders tell you repeatedly that those who place science 'above' religion are your mortal enemies. In that case you are going to demand that the public schools teach creationism as described in the Bible rather than that Godless, scientific Evolution. Otherwise your children are in danger of losing their souls and going to Hell.

If you reject religion because the evidence science provides is more convincing than fundamentalist orthodoxy and if you demand logical consistency in your beliefs, then you become an Atheist. So fundamentalist logic creates both Christians and Atheists.

There is a third choice. A person can simply not demand certainty and not bother to make their beliefs consistent. You don't have to choose between the two alternatives the fundamentalists offer. Nor is it necessary to accept that the Bible is the literal and perfect word of God. It is, after all, a book written by humans in imperfect language (See Language in Thought and Action listed on the right), translated more or less accurately on numerous occasions, that was written and preserved for reasons that had little to do with science or history. You may simply accept that you don't know enough to make the decision and you don't need to. There are other ways to interpret both religion and the Bible - or the Quran or the Hebrew religious books.

Further explanations of fundamentalist behavior

Fundamentalism is a social movement that rejects modernism. Fundamentalism is itself an extreme belief system, but there are extremists even among fundamentalists. Fundamentalist extremists in every religion have carried the rejection of modernism to the extent of violence. The destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the bombs set off by Eric Rudolph to kill Gays and abortionists are logical extensions of the rejection of modernity. So is the terrorism conducted under the leadership of Osama bin Laden.

In most cases the violence is a reaction to the repression of the fundamentalists by an otherwise rather weak government. A weak government is one that does not practice the rule of law very well, so they tend to repress through violence. Peopel being repressed become used to violence and learn its use. The response is sometimes extremist violence to attack and overthrow the government that is repressing them or their brothers.

In America all violence is effectively repressed to a large extent , even much government violence, so the extremists tend not to be trained to use violence to change society. Remember, though that both Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph are ex-military and trained to violence. Both overrated its social power to change things.

Dominionism is a slightly different political expression of the effort to stand up in the face of growing modernism and try to say "Stop!" It is an effort to use the political system and take control of the government rather than destroy the government. Once the Dominionists are in control they will change government and use it to support their fundamentalist religion rather than letting it support modernism, diversity, and economic change.

William Buckley was the first American political conservative to describe his actions as standing athwart the path of history and yelling "Stop!" He did it with his book "Man and God at Yale", and then with his creation of the magazine "National Review." The "laissez faire" economic Republicans and Libertarians simply shift the control of society from a perfect, all-knowing God to the perfect, all-knowing "Invisible hand" of Adam Smith. The association of Christian Fundamentalists and Republican Fiscal Conservatives is more than just political expediency. It represents a common way of thinking and making decisions which they share.

So religion will ultimately die away in the future, right?

Probably not. (Uh 0h. There is that disgusting uncertainty. How does anyone live in a world like that?)

Religion provides us with an understanding of how we fit into society and the universe. But that understanding is expressed in myth and ritual, not scientific rationality. Joseph Campbell showed this with his study of mythology and its importance to people. Basing life decisions on myth and symbolism requires personal judgment to determine what it means. The alternative is to join a cult in which you are told what it means.

Fundamentalism isn't going away. There are some people who must have certainty in their lives and find perpetual rapid change very difficult to deal with. Making decisions in the face of uncertainty and risk is a characteristic of future-oriented modernism. (I strongly recommend reading the book Against the Gods: The remarkable Story of Risk to which you can link on the right side of this Web Magazine.)

Those who can't comfortably deal with a future-oriented world that offers less certainty it will remain conservative and fundamentalist. The problem is to make them stop trying to convert our children change our non-fundamentalist society and government. Fundamentalists are and will remain a minority of the population.

To respond to the original question of whether teaching Intelligent Design (i.e. Fundamentalist Creationism) in the public schools is an acceptable compromise, the answer is no.

It will damage our already weak educational system and will not satisfy the fundamentalists. They are extremists who cannot accept compromise as anything more than one more step towards their total domination of American society. They can teach Creationism in their churches. They don't need to infect the children and grandchildren of those of us who live in the culture of modernism.