"Their agenda is to incorporate religious myth as scientific theory within the American classroom, an “alternative option” so students can simply take it or leave it...Seems perfectly reasonable, except it isn’t."
As a progressive secularist, it’s often frustrating to witness center-right moderates, average men and women who are otherwise willing participants of modern society, engage in the dialogue over evolution in public education, and whether or not creation, or “intelligent design”, deserves even the briefest mention in a science classroom setting. However, being the son of a gentle, kind, and reasonable Christian mother, in the same breathe I often roll my eyes at the other side’s Marx-esque condescension of believers. Is somebody else’s faith really that problematic? Where is the discrepancy between those believers who demand “equal representation” in the classroom and believers like my mother? The tropes of faith vs. blind faith seemed problematic, when in fact any faith is blind. Equally problematic was the question of whether or not this dialogue represented believers and belief, or if there was a more accurate, sophisticated model in which to classify the creationist demand for equality. In my efforts to gain a better understanding, I decided to apply my empathy, rather than continue my attempts at reconciling the contradiction.
After a brief survey, I’ve rather superficially come up with three categories of believers that, unless I'm totally missing something, seem to cover the major bases of faith: dogmatics, soft compatiblists, and strong compatiblists (these names are just made-up and are in no relation to their free-will definitions). Dogmatic is in the minority and is pretty straight forward: the bible is literal truth, (per whatever canonized interpretation he/she subscribes to). Soft compatiblism is seemingly the majority, giving way to science and adjusting views accordingly, ex: "I believe God had a hand in evolution, the extent of which is at the mercy of our progressive understanding of evolution through reason and science." Lastly, strong compatiblists, another minority, though significantly more prevalent than dogmatics. This brand of believer will admit the fallibility of holy scripture but will in turn aggressively resort to defensive fallacies, such as the "god of the gaps”, or arguments from incredulity, ex: “OK, you’ve got evidence for evolution, but you can’t explain the origin of life, and thus fail to compete with the theory of creation,” or: “OK, you have this theory of evolution, but do you actually believe life’s complexity could just come-to-be without guidance? What about the problem of consciousness, or the fine tuning of the universe?” The difference between strong and soft compatiblists as I’ve defined them may seem trivial, but in fact, considering the heated political climate of America’s imagined “war on christianity”, these distinctions contain a tremendously stark difference.
Soft compatiblists, who give way to reason and science, are seen by the strong compatiblists as “push-overs”, Christians who are surrendering their “rights” to some kind of secular censorship. This is not the case. Strong compatiblists are fundamentally flawed in their logic, and in this respect they are the enemy of reason. Their agenda is to incorporate religious myth as scientific theory within the American classroom, an “alternative option” so students can simply take it or leave it. And why not? Why exclude them? How does any one individual’s faith affect his atheist peer’s education? Why not humor them and let the children decide? Seems perfectly reasonable, except it isn’t. One of these theories has an overwhelmingly vast well of evidence while the other simply does not. Creation, or the compatiblist-friendly “intelligent design”, has zero evidence whatsoever, and thus, for the integrity of science, has no place in its curriculum. These myths are of great interest to historians, theologians, anthropologists, and sociologists alike, amongst others, but they lack the necessary evidence to be presented as viable, equal alternatives to the ubiquitously supported theory of evolution. Thus, “faith”, as broadly defined by the strong compatiblists, is in fact not harmless.
However arbitrary these distinctions may seem, it’s important to identify the kind of personality that propagates the “war on christianity” in order to counter its intellectually dangerous implications. The problem over creationism in education is less over religion and more over the weird, creepy politics concerning an unreasonable, self-victimizing demographic of believers. There is no “war on religion”, but there has been a gradual challenge and critique on reason and science. Unlike their “push-over” counterparts, it isn’t enough for the strong compatiblists to have their faith or even include it in a curriculum, what they demand is an equal respect in both the scientific community and the classroom, and it’s something they’ve already won enough of. Contrary to the “P.C. police” cliche, the only eggshells that teachers have been forced to walk on is to not offend the christian student that, as we’ve all witnessed in media, may cost them their reputation and professional career. In a debate over the quality of education we provide to our children, being “offended” should entitle you to absolutely nothing. In a science classroom, despite our obsession with having a right to our opinions, not all opinions are created equal. Save those for philosophy class.