John McCain on Intelligent Design
The Arizona Daily Star reports today that the attitude of U.S. Senator and presidential hopeful John McCain toward teaching “intelligent design” alongside of evolution in public schools can be summed up in the words, “Let the student decide.”
Duane’s response is an incredulous “What?” The Star columnist, C.J. Karamargin, dubiously labeled MCain’s blurb as “well-chosen” “words of wisdom.” Even while noting that “McCain probably wouldn’t champion the same letting-students-decide approach for, say, homework or blowing off algebra,” Karamargin still described McCain’s image as that of “an entirely reasonable and rational father-figure.”
Given only the information in the Star, it’s incredibly tempting just to parody McCain’s dictum, but the would-be parodist needs to know just what McCain means. I didn’t see the interview (I value my time too much to watch MTV), and the Star article doesn’t really unpack McCain’s meaning. Does McCain mean that students should decide what is taught in schools, or that they should decide for themselves whether modern science accurately describes biological processes?
Fortunately, MTV provides a lengthier quotation than the Star:
“Every young American should be exposed to every point of view,” he posited. “I’m not saying [intelligent design] should be taught in science classes. But I’m saying young people should be exposed to it. I also believe that God had a hand in creation. I certainly don’t believe the Earth was created in seven days. But when I stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon and look at that grandeur, I detect the hand of God there in the time before time. I see no reason why students should not be exposed to all theories, recognizing that Darwin’s theory’s certainly one that is generally accepted in most of the scientific community. I think it’s not inappropriate to say there are also people who believe this. Let the student decide.”
In brief, it seems that McCain has adopted the “teach the controversy” approach pushed by the “intelligent design” advocates. It’s worthwhile, however, to take a second glance at McCain’s rhetoric, and then season to taste with a heaping helping of reductio ad absurdum. MTV quotes McCain as saying that “every young American should be exposed to every point of view.” The sheer in(s)anity of these “words of wisdom” (Karamargin’s phrase) can be demonstrated by simply taking them literally. McCain’s approach—expose students to every point of view—would require not only that students be “exposed” to “intelligent design,” but also to every account of speciation from every perspective, secular or religious. This would include not only every religious creation myth from every religion, but also every scientific account of speciation that differs from the basic neo-Darwinian synthesis. Every single one. Not only is this so unwieldy as to virtually be unworkable, but most “intelligent design” advocates would probably object to having their children “exposed” to Asian, African, ancient Near Eastern, and Native American creation myths in science class. What the IDers are asking for, in the guise of “scientific controversy” (which doesn’t exist outside the rhetoric of the political controversy the IDers generate) is special treatment for a particular religious tradition.
Moreover, McCain’s strategy of “omni-exposure” would, I suspect, be unacceptable to him in other parts of the high school curriculum. Does McCain believe that students in government and civics classes should be “taught the controversy” between, let’s say, democracy and communism, and then be left to decide for themselves which is preferable? Should students in history classes be “exposed” to material from Holocaust deniers, and then be left to decide for themselves whether it ever happened? More telling: should students be “taught the controversy” between those who say that torture is unacceptable and those who consider it a legitimate tool for gathering military intelligence, and then be left to decide for themselves which is preferable? Such are the logical consequences of McCain’s dictum, it seems to me.
1 comments Christopher Heard | teaching and learning
I don’t think at all that it is about taking my Uncle’s ambiguous concurrence (with him promoting the idea that McCain stands as a rational and reasonable figure) to provide inference to any such notion that McCain’s comments are to be taken under a mode of one hundred percent literal standing.
Such a catering to figurative reference and ideology can be seen even in our constitution, with our ethical presence having such a nature in relation to even our underpinnings about the equity of man’s creation.
It is to say that we are created equal on a level of opportunity appropriated for us, but not that we are, in all manners, thoroughly and wholly comparable when it comes to our impressed situational and inevitable positioning. Everyone can have the same chance for accomplishment and reach as all others, but are our genetic, economic, or socio-relativistic placements under life truly balanced and “equal”? No, not at all, and not ever would that be the case.
As an interpreter of your fellow man, you can obligate yourself with no other compunction than to respect such usages of metaphoric exposition. Comprehending the aspects of another’s associable accounts takes such respect for communication, and I hope I can bestow this as a principle for you with my comment here, however belated in delivery.