"God vs. Darwin: no contest" says The Boston Globe

The Reasonable have spoken: Nothing more to see here. Move along. Move along. Cathy Young breaks it down for The Boston Globe Once again, only Fools would consider Intelligent Design science. Or see evangelical secularism in the theory of evolution. Everyone else understands how Reasonable evolution is. After all:

Some arguments made by proponents of teaching ''intelligent design" have superficial popular appeal, which may explain why the idea polls well. One such argument is intellectual diversity: Those who believe that only evolution should be taught in science classrooms are supposedly trying to stifle opposing viewpoints. A related claim is that a left-leaning, elitist scientific establishment, backed by aggressively secularist groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, is using taxpayer dollars to promote its own agenda in the classroom and teach children to despise their parents' religious beliefs.

Now, it's quite true that mainstream scientists vehemently reject the idea of allowing evolution and ''intelligent design" to compete freely in the nation's public school classrooms. The reason is that ''intelligent design" is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable -- meaning that, if it is wrong, there should be a way to disprove it. (That's why assertions that there is no conclusive proof of evolution are basically pointless.)

As to whether or not evolution is a "religion" of the secularists, she has this to say:

The notion that the teaching of evolution is some kind of left-wing plot is, to put it plainly, absurd.
----------------------------------------------
In some ways, evolutionary theory is more compatible with conservative ideas than with leftist ones. Indeed, proponents of applying evolutionary theory to human social structures tend to be viewed by the left with suspicion, particularly on biological explanations for sex roles. As several commentators have pointed out, it's conservatives who reject the notion that complex organization requires deliberate central planning -- in economics. Why should biology be different?
-----------------------------------------------
Is evolutionary theory a vehicle for anti-God ideas? One of the more extreme ''theo-conservatives," National Review writer David Klinghoffer, has even argued that evolution should be regarded as a doctrine of the ''religion" of secularism. But this is nonsense; plenty of people who follow traditional religions do accept evolution. Yes, some champions of evolution such as British scientist Richard Dawkins are militant atheists, but there were militant atheists long before Darwin.

Well, I'm certainly glad she's put our minds at ease. She even throws Fools a bone:

If some public school teachers are using evolution as a vehicle for atheist propaganda, that's outrageous, and a proper matter for school boards to deal with.

Granted, she buries the bone at the end of her essay--amidst a ton of qualifiers.

However, like most Reasonable commentors, she once again misses the obvious. For instance, evolution as a scientific theory pales in comparison to its widespread use as a metaphysical ideology. Dawkins' extremism runs common-place in institutions of higher education; its materialism helps bolster the marxist visions of many intellectuals, after all. The teaching of evolution in schools can't be divorced from the context of evolution as an ideology held by the intellectual elite. Her reference to "some" teachers misses the prevelent reality that many teachers have already been subjected to this ideology in their professional discipline. Far too many may have succumbed to it. Thus, teaching the "science" of evolution becomes a trojan horse for introducing the ideology of evolutionism. This puts schools in the position of choosing sides in the culture war and breaching the "separation of Church and State", all at the tax-payer dollar.

If schools want to discuss the merits of the Theory of Evolution, discuss it as a theory. Point out the evidence that supports it and the holes in that evidence. If ID does not meet the standards of scientific scrutiny in terms of basic methodology, fine. However, if it's being discounted simply because scientists have become enamored of evolution for reasons beyond its scientific validity, then ID has been inappropriately sidelined.

Secularism is not a neutral-value ideology. It has no place being promoted in schools as though it were. The teaching of evolution--without separating it from the context of ideology--remains a way that secularists impose their worldview on students at taxpayer expense. Presenting the merits and deficiencies of ID as a scientific model may provide the balance that currently does not exist in science education. Thoughtful people that have not imbibed the Reasonable's Kool-Aid should support it's inclusion in school curriculae.