- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"Teaching the controversy" was a useful way to keep Huckleberry Finn in the English lit curriculum, but using it to negotiate the magic vs. science issue currently before us has its problems.
(IRONY FOLLOWS:)
Imagine a group of (initially) marginalized German academics in 1931 or so putting forth the following economic "theory," which they call Intelligent Monetarism: Inflation is caused by the Jewish control of the international banking system. At first they are derided, but then wealthy Prussian Junkers and rabble-rousing anti-democratic politicians, led by one A. Schickelgruber, subsidize the propagation of Intelligent Monetarism as a faith-based alternative to more conventional theories. Soon, President von Hindenburg is lending his support to the movement, saying that Intelligent Monetarism should be taught alongside more secular, anti-German theories so that the people can decide for themselves.
(IRONY MODE DISENGAGED.)
The point is that extremists can always manipulate the civil institutions of a democratic society to their own ends, which always involve dismantling those selfsame civil institutions. The only protection against this subversion is a well-educated, civically engaged citizenry. I wonder whether we're in better shape in this regard than the Germans of the early 1930s. The recent ruling on the Dover case is cause for cautious optimism, but not for the relaxation of vigilance.
Perhaps one aspect of teaching the controversy would work in the present instance, however: perhaps as part of an ID overview, science teachers could teach students how money is channeled from consumers to large corporations to Scaife et al to the Discovery Institute, thence funding "studies" of ID. A little lesson about our excellent capitalist system in biology class, as lagniappe, is surely a good thing.
