Mr. or Mrs. “tired of liberal self-delusion” raises an interesting objection to my argument that the liberal state can remain metaphysically neutral while teaching only evolution and ignoring creationism/ID. He or she says, “If the state flipped a coin in these matters what you ‘think’ here might have merit.” So, does neutrality require the state to do a coin toss between evolution and creationism?
Not in my opinion. It is important that I claimed that the state had “no alternative” but to teach only evolution. Let me elaborate what I meant. When you have no alternative but to do something, you don’t have to render judgment on those who choose to do differently. If the state really has no alternative but to teach evolution, it can do so without violating its sworn neutrality on questions of “the good life.”
Why would the state have no alternative to evolution? First, teaching creationism/ID would run afoul of the Establishment Clause, almost everyone but Clarence Thomas would agree. And “teaching the controversy” is to teach nothing at all, and to lie. (“Teaching the controversy” involves telling such whoppers as “evolution is only a theory.” If all that was meant by “teaching the controversy” is that the biology teacher would point out that lots of smart people believe in both evolution and God, I would have no problem.)
It is also worth noting that, while creationism and ID are incompatible with evolution, many believers and their churches see no conflict between evolution and faith. Those who do perceive such a conflict are free to opt out and send their children to private schools (and, I suggest, may even be assisted by the state in doing so). But I think that teaching only creationism would create a conflict for far more people than teaching only evolution, so it is not fair to say that we should just flip a coin between them. On that score, it’s noteworthy that most Americans are believers and yet still send their children to our godless public schools (and plenty of those who send their children to private school do not do so because of evolution). My contention is that, if we switched it around and started teaching creationism/ID, we would have more objections, more opting-out, more social conflict. And liberalism’s priority is to disarm social conflict, and to do so in a metaphysically neutral manner. The evolution vs. creationism is a tough case, but I think that liberalism rises to the challenge.