The problem with Democracy is that every viewpoint must be heard, regardless of its value. It doesn't matter how many opposing viewpoints there are; stupidity breeds ignorance breeds stupidity. From an article in Wired:
During a heated question-and-answer session, one board member accuses the scientists of posturing for me, the only reporter in the audience. Michael Cochran challenges the scientists to cite any testimony that the board hadn't already heard "ad infinitum." Another board member, Deborah Owens-Fink, declares the issue already closed. "We've listened to experts on both sides of this for three years," she says. "Ultimately, the question of what students should learn "is decided in a democracy, not by any one group of experts."
The notion is noble enough: In a democracy, every idea gets heard. But in science, not all theories are equal. Those that survive decades - centuries - of scientific scrutiny end up in classrooms, and those that don't are discarded. The intelligent design movement is using scientific rhetoric to bypass scientific scrutiny. And when science education is decided by charm and stage presence, the Discovery Institute wins.
This is from an article which discusses recent moves in Ohio to get Intelligent Design into the curriculum in public schools. Please go read it at www.wired.com and then tell me I'm wrong for thirsting for Meritocracy.
Regardless of the problems of Darwinism at the atomic level, we should not -- we MUST not -- start teaching creationism.
If we realize that flight mechanics are more complicated at the atomic level - that we don't understand the true physics of flight completely -- does that mean that United Airlines flight 227 from Boston to London is actually soaring on the shoulders of Zeus?