James
van Luik
Publisher
& Editor
Friday
111502
Volume
1, No. 4
3
Articles
Intelligent design
activist
Bill
Berkowitz
America’s public school
classrooms have come a long way since the infamous Scopes Trial
of the 1920s, which pitted creationism supporter William Jennings
Bryant against Clarence Darrow, an advocate for evolution. Or
have they? A recent dust-up in Ohio and controversies in a few
other states revel that the teaching of evolution in the public
schools continues to be challenged. This time around it’s
being repackaged as “Intelligent Design” theory, and
issues like academic freedom are being grafted on to press the
point.
In mid-October, an Ohio State Board
of Education standards committee “approved a set of science
standards that struck a delicate balance between teaching
evolution and allowing for classroom debate of the theory”
reported the Cleveland Plain Dealer. This new set of standards,
which will be formally adopted in December, “leaves it up to
school districts whether to teach the concept of ‘intelligent
design,’” which holds that the universe is guided by a
higher intelligence, according to the Associated Press.
For months the proponents of
intelligent design and advocates of evolution-only classrooms
clashed over the issue at a series of open school board meetings.
According to the Plain dealer, the standards committee added
“a one-sentence requirement to the list of what 10th-graders
should be able to do,” and that sentence reads: “Describe
how scientists today continue to investigate and critically
analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” Some opponents of
intelligent design theory claim that the committee’s action
“implies scientific disagreement over evolution… [and]
has left a back door open for alternative theories, such as
‘intelligent design,’” to be brought into the
classroom.
To the credit of Intelligence Design
advocates, the debate in Ohio expanded beyond a discussion about
the origin of the universe. Intelligent Design (ID) supporters
were able to term it as a fight about academic freedom and
freedom of speech, according to Robert Lattimer, a chemist who
helped found a pro-ID group called Science Excellence for All
Ohioans (SEAO). For months Lattimer and other Ohio supporters of
Intelligent Design had asked the state for “a fair treatment
of Darwinism, by allowing teachers to simply present the evidence
for or against macro-evolution,” reported AgapePress, a
Christian news service.
Earlier on in the debate, Ohio State
Education Board Member Martha W. Wise told the New York Times
that changing the terms was “a shrouded way of bringing
religion into the schools. Personally, I’m a creationist: I
believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth…
(but) I think intelligent design is a theology, and it belongs in
another curriculum.”
The fight in Ohio is by no means an
anomaly. In late September the school board in Cobb County,
Georgia, voted unanimously to give its teachers permission to
introduce students to different theories on the origin of life,
including creationism. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported
that while allowing “teachers to discuss evolution along
with disputed views on the origin of man…the school board
inserted a clarifying sentence that says the purpose is to
encourage critical thinking among students while ensuring ‘neutrality
toward religion.’”
Last year, a People for the American
Way Foundation report titled “Creationism in 2001: A
State-by-State Report” pointed out that the Religious right’s
campaign to deny science teachers “the authority to teach
their classes the most authoritative scientific information about
the origins in life” has been a battleground issue for years
and will likely continue to be into the foreseeable future.
Kansas educational twister
The most publicized battle
over creationism occurred in Kansas in 1999. Like an unexpected
late-summer twister, Kansans awoke one morning to find that the
school board controlled by a majority of Christian right
supporters, had removed the teaching of evolution from the core
science curriculum. Kansas was now a beachhead for creationists.
Better known to the outside world for L. Frank Baum’s “Wizard
of Oz” than for J. A. Wayland and E. Haldeman-Julius’
late nineteenth and early twentieth century popular socialist
newspaper, “The Appeal to Reason,” the state was an
easy and frequent target of late-night television talk show
hosts.
In Kansas, Christian right-backed
school board candidates used stealth tactics to win a majority on
the State Board of Education and then, once in office, promulgate
their creationism agenda. The situation in Kansas demonstrated
that a few highly motivated activists could impress their
political and religious worldviews on an entire states –
before citizens of that state recognized what was happening.
Dave Seaton, writing in the Winfield
[Kansas] Courier, characterized the Right’s campaign as a
well-orchestrated effort that successfully implemented “standards
[that] devalued the theory of evolution at every opportunity,
denied one species could turn into another and left out the big
bang theory that did not conform to the book of Genesis in the
Christian Bible.”
Thanks to the teacher’s unions
and concerned parents, the right’s victory was
short-lived: The public mobilized and in August 2000 voters
rejected two creationism candidates in the Republican primary. A
third member resigned giving the new Board a 7-3 majority in
favor of adopting a revised set of standards that eventually
restored the teaching of evolution to the statewide education
standards.
‘Intelligent design’
theory
The situation in Kansas evolved from
a Christian Right school board victory into a humiliating defeat.
Those challenging Darwinism, however, learned from the Kansas
brouhaha. Instead of slinking off into extinction with their
proverbial (or mythical) tails tucked between their legs, they
set about devising a more creative and politically savvy
strategy, which included the promotion of “intelligent
design theory,” using such hot-button issues as academic
freedom and free speech in the classroom to do so.
In an article posted at
PhysicsToday.org, Adrian Melott points out that William Dembski,
a mathematician and philosopher at Baylor University is one of
Intelligent Design’s chief advocates. In “Intelligent
Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology,” Dembski
writes that “any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out
of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.”
Melott argues that ID “advocates
seek to pry Americans away from ‘naturalistic science’
by forcing them to choose between science and religion… They
portray science as we know it as innately antireligious, thereby
blurring the distinction between science and how science may be
interpreted.”
Surprising to many, supporters of
Intelligent Design includes academics and intellectuals, as well
as biblical creationists who accept the fact that earth is
billions of years old, but do not believe that natural selection
– the essence of Darwin’s theory of evolution –
adequately explains the intricacy of the Earth’s plants and
animals. They argue that this complexity must be the work of an
unnamed intelligent designer. ID supporters are more than willing
to have Darwin’s theory presented in the science classroom
as long as ID theory is offered as another and intellectually
balancing explanation.
Stephen Meyer, director of the
Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a
Seattle-based conservative organization promoting Intelligent
Design believes that the language crafted by the Ohio school
board “is a clear victory for students, parents and
scientists in Ohio who have been calling for a ‘teach the
controversy’ approach to evolution.”
“Darwin’s dike is finally
breaking down,” Meyers said.
The Right’s two pronged
strategy of mainstreaming a less devilish-sounding creationism
called “Intelligent Design” theory and combining it
with a call for greater academic freedom appears to have won out
in Ohio. In December the entire State Board of Education will
vote on the Standards committee’s recommendations. The
outcome of this vote will likely determine how many creationist
yellow-brick-roads will be connected to other states.
2. ‘But why do they hate us?’
Rory McCarthy
Suad Mahmood is trying to study the
great works of American literature in her rundown classroom at
Baghdad University. She used to be fascinated by American
culture, but lately the 23-year-old post-graduate student has had
a change of heart.
Her library stocks a handful of
copies of the Steinbeck texts she needs, but not a single work of
literary theory or criticism. ‘I tried sending letters to
American universities to ask for their help. But I got nothing
back,’ she said. ‘I know they don’t want to help
us, but now they want to attack our country again. I just don’t
understand why they hate us.’
Life for many Iraqis under the
Saddam Hussein regime has been very harsh, but the past 12 years
of sanctions and a decade of nearly weekly American-led
bombing raids have changed attitudes towards the West.
Iraqis are well aware of the
imminent return of UN weapons inspectors – for their first
visit in four years – and the threat of war. Yet many appear
concerned about America’s intentions once the promise of
‘regime change’ has been achieved.
‘We will not submit to American
demands. This is just not fair,’ said Hind Saad, 32, who is
a student of English literature at the university. ‘Our
people want to live in safety. Why do they consider us all
guilty? Why do they want to force themselves on us? George Bush
behaves like a teenager, not the leader of a great country.’
Most believe Iraq’s oil, the
world’s second-largest source, is at the heart of the
problem. ‘Our oil is the most important strategic item in
the world. America and Europe need our oil. It is that simple,’
said Amad Karagouli, a Turkish and Russian business translator.
‘Saudi Arabia is helpless because there are so many American
bases there. This is what they want to do to us.’
Last week Spain’s top diplomat
in Baghdad resigned, saying he felt under increasing pressure to
toe a pro-Washington line. ‘The official position is so
markedly pro-US that, if you don’t support Washington’s
policy, it is as if you are working against your own government,’
Fernando Valderrama, the Spanish chargé d’affaires, told El
Pais newspaper; ‘The way the situation is presented, you are
asked to choose between Bush and Saddam and I don’t side
with either.’
Saddam’s mass media has helped
to fuel Iraqi anger at America. In a rare speech last week,
televised nationwide, Saddam accused Washington of trying to
deceive the Muslim world. ‘The Americans want to conceal
their true thinking from the Arabs. When the Americans show their
ugly face, only then will people realize what they are doing,’
he said.
Many Iraqis are too frightened to
speak their minds for fear of Saddam’s ruthless Mukhabarat
intelligence agency. (The equivalent of the Nazi Homeland
Defense) But there are whispers of dissent. For some it was
ridicule at the referendum which reinstalled Saddam as President
for another seven years. (Somewhat similar to the U.S. Supreme
Court voting George Bush in as President. All 11.5 million
eligible Iraqi voters apparently cast their ballot for Saddam, an
improbable 100 per cent ‘Yes’ vote.
There are also grumbles that the
state is sending money to support Palestinian families (who had
members who died as suicide bombers in Israel) while Iraqis live
on the breadline. And there is anger that an elite has made a
vast fortune from illegal trade throughout the embargo. Illegal
oil sales are put at around $1 billion a year and the fruits of
the trade are obvious.
The shops in Baghdad’s Arasat
Street reek of the opulence of corrupt Third World elites
(probably less equivalent no doubt to corrupt First World
elites). Wide-screen televisions sell for hundreds of pounds
alongside shops that specialize in original chrome parts for
Toyota Land Cruisers. Supermarkets sell foreign cigarettes and
under-the –counter Cuban cigars at $150 dollars a box. Every
other car on the road is a new BMW or Mercedes-Benz. All this in
a country in which UN sanctions have supposedly strictly limited
imports to humanitarian goods alone. (So which countries’
corporations are profiting while outwardly agreeing with the UN
sanctions but simultaneously are contributing to a $1 billion
dollar a year black market?)
When the weapons inspectors return
to Iraq, many Iraqis may privately welcome the promise of
internal change. But the prospect of an American military
presence in Iraq does not appeal. Mahmood is, probably like most
Iraqis, thinking of the war to come. ‘We are not afraid,’
he says. ‘We have grown used to war. We have resources and
we have our minds. But we wish the Americans would leave us to
solve our own problems.’
3. Drain the Swamp
and There Will Be No More Mosquitoes
By
Attacking Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist
attacks
Noam
Chomsky
September
11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better
pay much closer attention to what the US government does in the
world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for
discussion that were not on the agenda before. That’s all to
the good.
It is
also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of
future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our
enemies ‘hate our freedoms,’ as President Bush stated,
but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys
different lessons.
The
president is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?”
In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower
described “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab
world], not by the governments but by the people”. His
National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US
supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing
political or economic progress” because of its interest in
controlling the oil resources of the region.
Post-September
11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold
today compounded with resentment over specific policies.
Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented
sectors in the region.
To cite
just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern
Economic Review, the internationally recognized regional
specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan “there is
growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf’s]
military regime to delay the promise of democracy”.
Today we
do ourselves few favors by choosing to believe that “they
hate us” and “hate our freedoms”. On the contrary,
these are attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much
about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official
policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.
For such
reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden –
for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or
about the US “invasion” of Saudi Arabia – have a
certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him.
From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to
draw support and recruits.
We should
also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a
terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed
actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name
a few, that meet official US definitions of “terrorism”
– that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.
In the
most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel
Huntington wrote in 1999: “While the US regularly denounces
various countries as ‘rogue states,’ in the eyes of
many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower… the
single greatest external threat to their societies.”
Such
perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11,
for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil
to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to
victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond what’s
sometimes called the “retail terror” of the IRA, FLN or
Red Brigades.
The
September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the
world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But
with qualifications.
An
international Gallup poll in late September found little support
for “a military attack” by the US in Afghanistan. In
Latin America, the region with the most experience of US
intervention, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
The
current “campaign of hatred” in the Arab world is, of
course, also fueled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and
Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel’s
harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.
One way
for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to
stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus
that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the
region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian
state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor
and mutual border adjustments).
In Iraq,
a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened
Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis – perhaps more people “than have
been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction
throughout history”, military analysts John and Karl Mueller
wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington’s
present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility
than when President Bush Sr. was welcoming Saddam as an ally and
a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities
– as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas
in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than
he is today.
As for a
US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld can
realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical
Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill
many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits
for terrorist actions.
They
presumably also welcome the “Bush doctrine” that
proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which
are virtually limitless. The president has announced: “There’s
no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the
homeland.” That’s true.
Threats
are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war
poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies
do, for reasons the terrorist organizations understand very well.
Twenty
years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence,
Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that
still holds true. “To offer an honorable solution to the
Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that
is the solution of the problem of terrorism,” he said.
“When the swamp disappears, there will be no more
mosquitoes.”
At the
time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within
the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But
Harkabi’s warning was apt, and the lesson applies more
generally.
Well
before September 11 it was understood that with modern
technology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly
of the means of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on
home soil.
If we
insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes,
with awesome capacity for destruction.
If we
devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots
of the “campaigns of hatred”, we can not only reduce
the threats we face but also live up to the ideals that we
profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them
seriously,.