Posted by
Karl Lembke on Monday, July 07, 2008 2:15:29 PM
A recent
article here at Townhall.com framed the debate over evolution in terms of "academic freedom". This got me to thinking.
One of the problems with framing the argument in terms of "academic freedom" is that it implicitly makes that value the highest value, without regard for other values like goodness or truth. "Freedom" without regard for what is good implies freedom to do what is bad. "Freedom" without respect for truth is freedom to lie.
In a comment, I drew a comparison.
Opponents of same-sex marriage fear social freedom.
Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas,” said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.”
Well, in the same way, the California Supreme Court has ruled that people have freedom to consider more than one option in marriage, and granted marriage freedom rights to those who are judged politically incorrect.
The dispute between evolution and Intelligent Design is framed as an attempt to deny academic freedom. The dispute between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is framed as an attempt to deny social freedom. (This is not the only argument made, but it's at the heart of many arguments.) It seems to me, if you're going to use "academic freedom" to get your way in one venue, you open the doors to the use of "social freedom" for people who are trying to get their way in another venue.
One reason why this appeal to "freedom" – and equivalently, "justice", "fairness", and "civil rights" is that it sidesteps the hard work involved in making and addressing the more telling arguments. And frankly, making these arguments is a lot of work.
Any explanation of why same-sex marriage is a bad thing will rely on one of two approaches:
1) An authority (in this case, God) says so.
2) A long, involved, easily ignored, easily misinterpreted, easily distorted sociological explanation which 90% of your audience will fall asleep in the middle of.
Unfortunately, evolution finds itself in the same position. The explanation of why it's the right answer is either:
1) An authority (in this case, science) says so.
2) A long, involved, easily ignored, easily misinterpreted, easily distorted scientific explanation which 90% of your audience will fall asleep in the middle of.
It's easier to appeal to emotions in either argument. That's why you'll see lots of name-calling on both sides of both arguments. You'll also see appeals to authority, and appeals to feel-good terms like "academic freedom" and "social freedom".
They're not going away. They're just too easy to fall back on.
But here's a deal.
You can have "academic freedom" for the "alternatives" to evolution, if you're willing to grant "social freedom" for the "alternatives" to marriage.