ID: Where Domino Theory Works

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

A while ago, Matt Yglesias stepped back from his shamefully accommodationist position on Intelligent Design.  I was originally confused by his stated reason for doing so -- "At any rate, if ExxonMobil, the American Beverage Association, and their ilk think it's worth lending financial support to this sort of nonsense, I can start to see why pushing back may be important."  Why does it matter who's supporting the nonsense anyway?  If fighting ID is a bad political strategy, it's a bad political strategy regardless of who's paying TechCentralStation to publish pro-ID nonsense. 

Now I think that Matt's list of TechCentralStation corporate contributors does, in fact, lead us to a good reason to fight back against the enemies of evolution.  It's essential to demonstrate that the Reality-Based Community has the power to defend public education from right-wing manipulation.  If the ID movement is able to show other conservative interest groups that confusing dull-witted school boards with phony research is a successful path to getting their agenda taught in schools, a bunch of other bad folks will follow their example.  If a biology textbook includes a little between-the-chapters essay on the dangers of global warming, expect ExxonMobil to fund a front group saying that no such thing is happening.  It's probably a bit of a reach for the alcohol and tobacco industries to block health textbooks that make reference to the dangers of their products, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them try.  Probably a bigger danger in health textbooks is a load of anti-gay propaganda.  Southern school boards will be pressured to purchase history texts saying that slavery wasn't really all that bad.  And defenders of genuinely useful sex education will face an even more powerful attack than they do now. 

In his excellent attack on domino theory in foreign policy, Robert Farley points out that "Domino theory depends on the notion that commitments are interdependent. If we fail to demonstrate resolve in one area, our enemies will attack us in other areas."  I think that's the case with Intelligent Design, though the issue is not one of resolve but of power.  If people on the right see that the defenders of well-established science and historical scholarship are politically too weak to block special-interest groups from controlling curricula, they'll see an ID-style attack as a fruitful strategy, and public education will face attacks from all sorts of crazy people.  But if the ID people go home hungry and their strategy is proven fruitless, we show our enemies that established scientific opinion is not to be trifled with.