Strengths and Weaknesses-

     -every aspect of life has them, in varying proportions. Usually we think our own opinions have more of the former and less of the latter. That's the nature of opinion--or in other words, a system of beliefs, or faith--we are each convinced that we alone know the truth. I'm familiar with this country's history; how its faith (yes, singular) has overlapped into politics. But it continues to amaze me how, even in the 21st century, the religious factor in the government still tries to impose its views onto politics and science--as recently evidenced by our Board of Education chairman Dr. McLeroy and his cronies.

     It most certainly was an interesting, drawn-out battle; any intelligent design/evolution debate always seems to end somewhat inconclusively. But a decision was finally reached, and Christopher Hitchens writes in Newsweek about the triumph for scientists: the BOE decision to keep the curriculum of "strengths and weakness" out of classrooms and out of textbooks written in the state. Hitchens throws his opinion into the mix and, though obviously happy for any victory of science, he stops to appreciate the possibilities if the creationists--excuse me, believers of "intelligent design"--had prevailed.

     In his typical skeptical fashion, he muses about the potential backlash if the Religious Right had won. "The last times that evangelical Protestantism won cultural/ political victories—by banning the sale of alcohol, prohibiting the teaching of evolution and restricting immigration from Catholic countries—the triumphs all turned out to be Pyrrhic... There are days when I almost wish the fundamentalists could get their own way, just so that they would find out what would happen to them." With his famous wit (the one that keeps even polar opposites like Rush Limbaugh reading his work), he points out that he would love to have "all sides" of all theories taught. "Let time also be set aside...for children to be taught the huge variety of creation stories... This is always interesting (and it can't be, can it, that the Texas board holdouts think that only Genesis ought to be so honored?)."

     Hitchens, a semi-regular writer for Newsweek, honors the magazine's fairly liberal audience with his outspoken anti-religious stance, and makes no secret of his views. He is the first to admit background is not biological science but antitheism and polemicism; unlike some of his counterparts in the evolution debate, he does not claim to be an expert or to have all the answers. Indeed, he is not above a changing ideology, as he notably did early in his career and more recently in his position on the issue of waterboarding as torture. His literary and intellectual background colors his conclusion, that open debate will lead to a windfall of followers for his side of the debate. He touts no broader outcome than this, and his evidence is his observations about the state of American cultural climate.

     The significance of this decision is an obvious victory for science, although I'm not sure that the subject won't be visited again. Each time, though, the religious influence seems less and less persuasive, and this ruling to teach the evolutionary version of our origins means that many young minds will be trained to think critically and scientifically and, more than likely, vote against further dilutions of science in schools once they reach the voting age. For one such as Hitchens, who holds religion in such high regard, this decision is clearly a step in the right direction, but he (logical and scientific creature that he is) calls for and encourages debate from all sides, knowing that it will only bring more followers to his camp. His closing words are especially eloquent and sum up the point of his article with particular grace. "This is America. Let a hundred flowers bloom, and a thousand schools of thought contend. We may one day have cause to be grateful to the Texas Board of Education for lighting a candle that cannot be put out."