Nefarious Design

Like most sound-minded Americans, I stand in awe of this newly hatched scheme THEY call "Intelligent Design." But it's becoming clear to me that there are two distinct parts to this movement, and the more harmless sounding one is the one we should be worried about.

The core "theory" behind intelligent design is just a more sanitized version of the creationism pill they've been trying to get us to swallow for years. After reading several explanations of the theory, I think it can best be described as: "Dude, the world is, like, so complex, there must have been some super dude that created it all." The notion is so anti-scientific in its reasoning, I just don't see it as a serious threat to our national sanity. If anything, it's the last salvo of the extreme Christian right to force their origin story on the general public.

But there's something more covert in these intelligent design arguments. The theory itself is being swept under the rug as proponents play the "all points of view should be taught" card. It's a clever way to throw the pluralists own arguments back in their faces. George W. employed the tactic during his recent, highly-publicized remarks. Despite some reports that Bush layed alms at the altar of intelligent design, all he really said was "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." It sounds harmless, but it's not.

Many Americans still hold deeply racist beliefs. That does not mean that their opinions, based solely in bigotry, should be taught as an "alternative" during a history lesson on the civil rights movement. But that's the logical extension of this intelligent design rhetoric. The fact that so many Americans believe in some kind of God means that belief has a place in society, not necessarily in a science class. Bringing intelligent design into a science class doesn't introduce an alternative scientific theory, it introduces an alternative to science. It's the equivalent of a math teacher saying "Don't believe in geometry? Try sociology."

Or what about a lesson on ghosts? Most people believe in ghosts, so why not follow a lesson on human physiology with a lesson on ghosts? "Okay, now that we're done talking about mitosis, who knows how to kill a Wolfman?"

As someone currently teaching middle and high school students, I can also say that this argument is completely impractical. There's a reason that Comparative Religion classes are taught in college, even then at the 300 or 400 level. Middle and High School students don't generally have the intellectual maturity to juggle these concepts. The average high school student is able only to follow a basic chain of causality, with an understanding that there is more than one point of view. They work hard to grasp concepts like evolution from just the scientific standpoint, let alone some other paradigm.

There's a big difference between being open-minded to all viewpoints and demanding your viewpoint is presented in every situation. If you want to believe something akin to intelligent design, fine, more power to you. That's what Sunday School is for. But if you want your religious beliefs presented in every class, including science and P.E., that's what home schooling or Utah are for.

Just read the scores, monkey

Talk radio is full of barking idiots, but even the Rush Limbaughs of the world must cower before the awesome ignorance that is sports talk radio.

From time to time, I'll flip the dial to 710am, our local ESPN Radio affiliate, in the misguided hope of hearing some scores or other useful information. But I've come to realize that it's only called "Sports Radio" because "a bunch of jackasses talking about nothing" wasn't catchy enough. Whether it's a nationally syndicated show or some local scrubs, every show is nothing but some guy running his mouth with nothing to back up his argument. Opinions are like assholes, and so are Sports Radio DJs.

I don't even mind so much when their groundless rants are at least about sports. The other day I heard Colin Cowheard assert at least a dozen times that football coaches make a bigger impact than baseball coaches. I don't know that there's much of a point to that argument, and it seems to be contradicted by guys like Tony LaRussa and Sparky Anderson, but whatever. The thing is, 90% of the time these buffoons aren't even talking about sports.

Tonight I listened to 10 minutes of these guys reading the names of bizarre phobias and then making asinine comments. "Did you know there's such thing as Papaphobia, fear of the Pope?" (Sound effect of a cow mooing for no f***ing reason) They topped that only by making a joke about how the French always surrender during war. If that's biting social commentary, I don't know what isn't.

But nothing tops a recent episode of the Joe McDonnell show, during which the hosts read an account of six people being killed at a cock fight in Mexico and giggled like school girls. Now I admit a cock fight can be a great source of comedy, but graphic accounts of people being stabbed to death isn't the best source for lame-ass one-liners.

You will hear more misinformation about politics in 45 minutes of Sports Radio than Fox News can cram into an entire day - and they're really trying. Why is the debate over the supposed bias of news agencies like CBS and NPR when these sports DJs blurt out something that is blatantly false every 15 seconds?

I don't begrudge a man for being ignorant. In truth, most of us are when it comes to most things. And if you feel the need to share your crackpot theories with those around the lunch counter - more power to you. But to spout that garbage over the airwaves in the second-largest media market in America - that just makes you an asshole.