That title is like some nightmare borne out of a drug haze, isn't it?

But I guess it settles the whole issue: that tatty, tawdry, overstrung master of mediocrity, James Lileks, has spoken out on the teaching of evolution. And he has The Answer!

Which brings us to Darwinism vs. intelligent design, a debate we will now answer to the satisfaction of all!

To the proponents of intelligent design, the facts suggest the hand of the Big Guy. Absent some footage from a security camera that rolled tape throughout the Cambrian Period, this too is difficult to prove. But must students be forbidden to consider the possibility?

Darn. And there I had my hopes up. There are a few flaws in his statement of the conflict already.

"[T]he facts suggest…" Umm, no. That's our problem. There are no facts that suggest anything of the kind. There's no evidence, no data, no experiments on the side of the Intelligent Design creationism crowd, which makes it very, very hard to teach as science.

That's what we keep saying: what would we teach? Science educators do have standards, you know, and we do have criteria for what makes for good, interesting, useful science. Intelligent design doesn't meet them.

"[M]ust students be forbidden to consider the possibility?" Oh, dear. This is the kind of thing us atheists are too familiar with; ever hear fundamentalists rant and rail about how students are forbidden to pray in school? It's about as true as the claim that we forbid students to think about intelligent design. My students are free to consider anything they want: ID. What I'm lecturing about. Beer. The cute girl in the row in front of them. And I imagine they do.

They could also ask about intelligent design if it fit into the content of the course. As long as I can think of a way to work in information about real science while doing it, it's OK. Where does Lileks get the idea this stuff is absolutely forbidden?

Forcing teachers to include an intelligent design lesson would be counterproductive. Your author had a junior high science teacher who thought evolution was hogwash and read the required textbook passages in a contemptuous motormouth monotone, as though he had been forced by law to read the works of de Sade to a room full of nuns.

But perhaps we could avoid conflict if teachers felt free to lead the class in philosophical speculations, just as lit classes deconstruct the era that produced a book, or history classes talk about the hidden stories behind the events. It's permissible to spend a class period discussing whether Texas Masons had JFK shot on orders from the ghost of John Birch (speaking through Jack Ruby's dog), but often verboten to speculate that some metaphysical apparatus used evolution to turn amoebas into creatures smart enough to put cameras in orbit, behold the dazzling beauty, and say, "What a coincidence."

Oh, jebus. Lileks really is a space cadet, isn't he? We're talking about biology class. Biology, not study hall. Maybe he isn't familiar with this concept, but in many of our classes we try to have some discipline and focus and discuss real issues. There's content to cover! Vocabulary to master, data to memorize, formulae to comprehend, concepts to grasp! I get the definite impression that Mr Lileks thinks of classwork as "philosophical speculation," that is, rambling blithering about random brain farts and local trivia…kinda like one of his columns.

I know a few historians, too. I think they'd be just as up in arms about the idea that we can prepare kids to appreciate history by babbling about how "Texas Masons had JFK shot on orders from the ghost of John Birch" as we biologists are at the Lileks proposal that science courses are about daydreaming over some "metaphysical apparatus." It's very kind of Lileks to try and solve problems for us academics, but it sure would be nice if he actually understood what teachers are supposed to do. And maybe someone should explain to him that when the ignorant mischaracterize a discipline so grossly, it can sound rather offensive.

Wait, no…it is offensive. Lileks, you're a jerk.