Those who would have “Intelligent Design” taught in schools will have their day in court soon. Their detractors have had their say all over the Net as well, and it looks like the debate will rage on for some time. I seriously doubt it will end with this case.
I have no problem with faith. I am a person of faith myself, and hold my own beliefs quite strongly. But I think both sides of this argument are hurting their own causes going at this debate the way that they are.
First, let’s look at the Intelligent Design community. Why are they pushing at this? Can’t they teach their kids well enough at home to be able to handle alternate ideas that conflict with their faith? Is it really necessary to try to get a legal mandate to have their ideas taught in a public school? I don’t believe anyone has the right to do this. What’s more, it’s just a bad idea. Can you convince someone of anything by legally forcing them to listen to it? I hate to be the one to say it, but it is their own fault that their concepts are not already the defacto accepted view of things – for generations, Christian communities have been lazy, and have not been making any strong effort to have a positive effect on the world they live in. Now that the horses have bolted, they are going to try to secure the barn? What exactly is the point of that? This particular battle was lost a long time ago. I hear it as a rallying cry all over Christendom -“we have to take back our country!” Well, how exactly did they lose it in the first place? If they had a vital, non-hypocritical message in the first place, they wouldn’t be forced to try to shove it down the throats of those who don’t agree with them. Ironically, there is a strong, vital, and non-hypocritical message that they have, and it’s a hugely important one, but that’s not the message they are trying to put forward. Instead they are worrying about one tiny little sub-plot in a sweeping, epic story. It’s like beseiging a castle by shooting at the pennants.
OK, what about the other side. Well, I linked the Flying Spaghetti Monster story above, and my first response is, “how childish.” Is that the best they can do? Instead of thoughtfully respecting people’s cherished beliefs, and trying to find a common ground, they can only mock them? That’s no way to convince anyone of anything either. It strikes me that the logic used in the FSM camp is actually the same logic both sides are using. It’s the premise that’s flawed, not the logic … in other words, sophistry. If they want to attack the premise of Intelligent Design, they are going to have to do better than make up something completely silly, and say it is the same as religious beliefs that millions (perhaps billions) of people have accepted for millenia.
This is what I say about defending one’s faith, no matter what side of the argument you fall on: don’t. The very expression (contend is the word used, but the concept is the same) comes from a mandate in the Bible against allowing heresy to take hold inside the church (Jude 1:3,4). It wasn’t meant to be applied to those outside the faith. If your faith needs to be defended, you need to re-evaluate how well you are living it; if you are living by faith, it will defend itself. If your ideas have merit, state them and leave it at that … let them stand on their merits, or fall on the lack of them. Let’s leave the courts out of this. Win your kid’s hearts, and you won’t need to worry about what they are taught in school. Win the hearts of the entire community, and what is taught will agree with what you believe. Taking it the other way around is only going to antagonize and further divide people.