Last but not least, nothing whatsoever of practical importance hinges on whether or not life on earth originated as a result of intelligent design. The theory is exceedingly silly pseudo-science, but it doesn't actually threaten anything. There is, moreoever, no reason to think it's especially crucial for the average citizen to have an accurate grasp of state-of-the-art biological theory. Most people don't understand quantum mechanics, general relativity, or any number of other scientific and technical topics and life goes on just fine.
-- Matthew Yglesias
Is Matt going the way of Thomas Friedman? First, he mentions that CAFTA really doesn't mean much since hey it only hurts people in Central America (a dubious assessment, but helped by poor reporting, I really don't know enough about the darn thing), and now he suggests that teaching "exceedingly silly pseudo-science" doesn't really mean too much either. In fact, those bloggists who use President Bush's support of Intelligent Design in our schools are really grasping at straws. After all, the feds don't make national science policy.
Such poor reasoning makes my rational side shake with pain. Seriously, the inability of certain people to reason (not to sound snotty, though I guess I do) really annoys me. I guess blogging furthers the tendency and probably did some of it here, but enough with that. Seriously now. Is it not important that our schools do not teach bad science or badly reasoned drivel generally?
Let's put aside the strawman about teaching quantum mechanics. This is on level with saying that teaching people that the Bill of Rights generally applies to the states requires we teach law school level analysis. The more important thing is that a basic thing that school should teach is basic reasoning. If a significant part of the science curriculum (and, hey, if the creation of the world is not that, what is?) is based on "silly pseudo-science," how could it now pollute overall reasoning? Whatever interferes with one's religion, political, or other beliefs could be avoided with assumptions that cannot be disproved (or proved for that matter).
Not to be overally dramatic, but this is the sentiment that overwhelms society in generally. Pseudo-policy decisions. Finally, it is overly naive (and Matt is apparently not naive) to suggest that just because the feds cannot directly* legislate something that it has no effect. Yeah right. What the President says alone has a large cachet and he promotes "silly pseudo-science" it has consequences. It also is, by the way Matt, an opportunity to make some political hay ... cheap or not.
What exactly is hard to understand here? Silly boy.
---
* I also assume the feds really does not make educational policy respecting health class and the like; they just fund abstinence only education and so forth. The federal government, at least in theory, is also responsible with keeping the states in compliance with the Constitution. This includes education policy that violates the First Amendment. Thus, the Clinton Administration set forth rules of the game in respect to religious activity in schools. Again, President pronouncements matter.