Salon on Dover School District

I think Kevin Drum and Chris Mooney both make good points as per Michelle Goldberg’s excellent Salon article on the ID controversy in Dover. That is; once America gets a good look at the illiterate nutjobs that comprise much of ID’s visible ‘fighting force’, they’ll recoil in horror (Mooney); and, the mainstream media’s bias toward a more educated stance works against the ID crowd (Drum).
But these points also miss on two important levels: first, the policies in question that have allowed this controversy to percolate at this very moment are being forced from a confident Congress and pro-active President. And this confidence comes from some very friendly poll numbers that favor the teaching of not only ID, but of creationism (although Aguillard precludes that from actually happening). But as much as ID is in fact ‘creationsim in a lab coat’, it is also a different creature – molded for the sole intention of passing the First Amendment Lemon Test. To underestimate the work that went into this would be a huge mistake.
Evidence of this can be found in the Goldberg article – the politically savvy Discovery Institute is, wisely enough, against the Dover action because the ‘time isn’t right’ – they’re waiting for a friendlier Supreme Court. (And this may actually be the reality-based-community’s saving grace – a negative outcome in Dover will have a precedential effect that a less friendly Supreme Court will have a difficult time overturning.)
Circumstance has shone brightly on ID: The No Child Left Behind Act, by mandating curriculum reviews in each district, has opened many doors that many ID proponents have since jammed their feet in.
It’s easy to glibly point out whose side the media will fall on, but the media doesn’t set policy. And it’s not as if the media is somehow going to sway enough people to erode opinion polls that state that 65% of Americans favor teaching creationism alongside evolution. If anything, those numbers are going to float the other way over time, as the well-oiled Discovery Institute makes more lobbying headway.
On some Sunday morning in the near future, the ID debate won’t be between Phd. Secular-Scientist vs. Bible-Thumping Hick-Tard, but rather Phd. Secular-Scientist vs. Phd. Pseudo-Scientist – and each will sound as intelligent as the other to the average viewer.