As reported in the NY Times today, the battle continues over evolution in America’s public schools. In particular, a district in PA is moving forward with a creationist boondoggle known as "intelligent design," which is founded on the notion that a world as complex as our own could not have been created through evolution. An intelligent being (aka God) would have to be behind it.

Forget the world, have you seen the universe? You know that thing you glimpse when you look up on a clear night (um… you have to be outside, too).

Of course, the fundamental flaw (excuse the pun) is to believe that this particular complexity, this particular biosphere, was intended/planned. Obviously that would require a creator who would be the source of the intention/plan. However, complexity can emerge from rather simple systems. This seems quite obvious and happens on a smaller scale all the time. Weather, for example, is very difficult to predict on a local level. The difference of course is that with evolution one would have to say that it was highly unlikely that humans would come into being or even that life would emerge at all.

I see two related issues here: one is abstract and philosophical; the other is cultural. In the case of the former, this conflict is a instantiation of the problem of the origin, and its related concept, intentionality. The belief in original intent and "intelligent design" leads quickly to a belief in a destination and "God’s plan." This plan generally goes something like "join us or be destroyed." Fundamentalism has all the philosophical attributes of fascism.

That leads into the cultural issue as America continues its Crusade against the Muslim infidel. It may be the case that this is McWorld vs. Jihad, transnational capitalism vs. fundamentalist Islam, but if it is, it is built heavily on a fundamentalist Christian ideology. Christian fundamentalism and capitalism are not necessarily at odds. Indeed the original Crusades were good for trade and helped lay the ground work for the modern banking system.

So where is this going? A NY Times Op Ed piece compared "intelligent design" to "scientific Communism," suggesting both were attempts to cloak ideology as science. The result of the latter, as we know, was ineffective science. No doubt "intelligent design" will lead to equally bad science (well, actually it will lead to no science b/c no one who believes in it will ever become a scientist; they’ll just keep shoveling the products of science down their mouths). Of course, it is interesting that was is implicit here is that somehow "real science" manages to not be affected by ideology….yeah right.

Perhaps the US is entering into a kind of Dark Ages. I would speculate that it is a fascistic, paranoid, xenophobic response to globalization and technoscientific advancement. Without being too snobby or elitist about it, most folks aren’t that bright. They want to be told what is right and what is wrong; they want to believe that some benevolent being has a plan for them; they want the world to be simple enough for them to understand; and they want the world to conform to their expectations.

The other week, there was a Time magazine piece suggesting religious people were happier than others. I would also speculate that people are morphine feel less pain than others. Ignorance is bliss, as we know. Give up your human right, if not obligation, to figure life out for yourself, to recognize and wrestle with ethical dilemmas, and to face the consequences. Better to just leave all that to some institution.