The debate over the teaching of evolution in public school, and more fundamentally over the place of religion in American society, has raged for more than a century. Backed by science and the Enlightenment values enshrined in the Constitution, proponents of the separation of religion and government have succeeded in gradually replacing faith with secularism in the public square; religious indoctrination and prayer have, for instance, been legally banished from public schools. Yet beneath the seeming victory of secular values, a fundamental tension lay simmering. The United States has remained a strongly religious nation, unique among its Western peers, and this faith has had great influence in shaping American society and government. From the religious right to the moderate center, organized religion has retained a position of importance in the processes of political socialization; many Americans base their political beliefs either directly or indirectly on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The power of religion manifests itself several ways. Perhaps most significantly, traditional religion comprises the basis of the moral systems adhered to by a great many Americans. The Washington Times, for example, reports that many whistleblowers cite religious values as being of utmost importance in their decisions to go public. Religion is a mainstay of American culture. In the public sphere, however, religion has been curiously absent. Indeed, were it left solely to the electorate, religion would be perhaps the driving force of politics. Yet the government is bound by laws and traditions, one of which is a very strong opprobrium against mixing religion and government. As the founders wisely forsaw, the two institutions do not mix well; religion has a corrosive effect on good and moral governance, while government has a corrupting effect on religion. This legal tradition of separating church and state, combined with another strong tradition of respect for minority rights, has been the primary bulwark against religion in public policy.

In any pluralistic democracy, of course, there are always tensions surrounding every conceivable issue. Some groups pressure for one outcome, others for another outcome, and yet others for further outcomes. It is this healthy competition that keeps government in good stead and vibrant. It also prevents a monopolization of political power by any one group. In the case of the debate over the role of religion in public affairs, such tensions are clearly visible. There are evangelicals who promote an agenda based on religious values. There are scientists and secularists who promote an agenda based on rational empiricism. There are liberals who promote replacing religion with secular values. There are conservatives who promote a return to America’s traditional religious values. And so on.

Religion has played and continues to play an essential role in the lives of Americans. It is an important social institution that had done great good for countless individuals. Those who seek to dismiss religion as a useless anachranism fail to understand its critical psychological and sociological value.

Those, however, who seek to extend its reach into public policy fail to understand the basics of governance. Religion is not properly suited for extension into the realm of government; governance is a secular enterprise that ought to be grounded in the realm of empiricism and reason. Religion corrodes the morality and efficacy of government institutions, impinging on justice, liberty, and the ability of the government to effectively accomplish things.

In any case, the forces of religion have been growing stronger. As recent polls and elections have shown, religious politics has taken a central role once again. When President Bush made a comment a short while ago seeming to imply a cautious defense of intelligent design, the media latched onto the issue and dragged it firmly into the public square. This, more than a reaction to Bush, was an expression of just how salient religion has become as a policy issue. A flurry of coverage and analysis followed, which came to focus on the debate between proponents of evolution and proponents of intelligent design.

Proponents of evolution endorse the theory, originally laid out by Charles Darwin, that species change in response to external conditions and evolve into new forms. They believe that this is a random process of nature. Hundreds of thousands of studies, journal articles, analyses, and reports have provided incredibly solid evidence to back them up. Modern biology as a field is built around evolution, and the vast majority of the scientific community endorses the theory. Opposition to evolution first centered around creationism, a theory suggesting that the events of the Bible are literally true. Creationists acknowledge that microevolution (changes within a species) take place, but believe that species cannot evolve into new species. They believe that a diety created all of the currently existing species of organisms during the creation of the universe. This theory has been shown to be almost certainly false, and has lost most of its credibility. A new theory, however, has been developed in recent years as a more intellectually sophisticated successor to creationism. Dubbed intelligent design, proponents of this theory assert that evolution is indeed a real biological process, but that it is guided by divine intervention. Advocates of ID are more scientifically oriented, and have published several peer reviewed articles in support of their theory. Nevertheless, modern science has shown the theory to be essentially wrong; at least in its current form, ID is not a legitimate alternative to evolution. It is an area that warrants some legitimate research and discussion, but cannot be accepted yet (or ever, I think) scientifically.

Evolution is the only currently existing theory that is scientifically sound and justified. Creationism is worthless, and ID is unfit for consideration at this time. There shouldn’t even really be an issue over what to teach in high school biology; evolution is the only viable scientific explanation. Students in a secondary level biology class are not there to debate the finer points of science philosophy, nor are they there to study advanced evolutionary theory. They are there to learn the fundamentals of biology, and evolution is exactly that. If they choose to continue their studies of evolution at the college level, exploring ID is a legitimate goal. At that time they’ll be prepared to fully understand the context of the debate. The high school classroom is not the appropriate forum to introduce it, though, and valuable classtime ought not be squandered.

Even the fact that such a debate is seriously going on portends poorly for America. Asia and Europe are forging ahead with advanced biotechnological research and have long implemented science based educational curriculums while the United States falls behind. With the 21st century widely projected to be the century of biology (just as the 20th was the century of physics), the United States is only stifling itself. Vibrant debate is one thing, but a broad-based assault on evolution is another; with America’s future supremacy far from assured, it can ill-afford to be held hostage to an irrational impulse in public policy.