Teach the Controversy
Why “Intelligent Design” Endangers Our National Security
SOURCE: AP/Matthew S. Gunby
If conservative policymakers really doubt that the DNA molecule evolves, then they should ignore their doctors’ recommendation to get a new flu vaccine every winter for themselves and their family—a vaccine needed because of the swift evolutionary changes experienced by the flu virus. Above: samples of the Avian Influenza Vaccine, stockpiled in case of a pandemic outbreak.
It’s election time again, which means proponents of the marvelously misnamed “intelligent design” theory are once again arguing this buffed-up version of creationism should be taught “alongside evolution” in schools. These extreme voices of conservatism have been soundly defeated in the courts and before local school boards, yet political candidates wedded to the motivational power of intelligent design continue to tout the mantra to stir up their base.
But those who wish to be our nation’s leaders need to consider the implications for the 21st century power of a citizenry that lacks confidence in science and indeed is taught to denigrate its most basic precepts. History teaches that the most technologically sophisticated powers have vast advantages even over more numerous and desperate adversaries, from Spanish conquests of Central America to Israel’s victories over its Arab neighbors.
Our ability to defend our freedoms is directly tied to our longstanding scientific and technological advantages, not just in the military arena but also in our economy.
This reality has not changed. Our national security is thoroughly bound up with our ability to maintain our lead in understanding and managing the world that surrounds us. Long-term threats to Americans could result if our elected officials decide to pander to antiscientific tendencies among their most forceful constituents. As an adviser to national security and intelligence agencies, I am impressed at the concern repeatedly expressed by military officials and scientists that the gravest threats to our country, and the most promising defenses in the 21st century, lie in emerging fields of science, especially those related to biology.
One concern is that an enemy state or a terrorist organization could genetically modify a biological agent that spreads silently until timed to achieve maximum lethality in a large number of very mobile hosts. Even if the plot is detected early it may be too late to impose measures that minimize the damage very much. In any case, the psychological, social, and economic consequences would be immense.
There are many other nightmare scenarios for the production of biological and toxin weapons that could give an adversary a distinct tactical advantage in the new kind of asymmetric global warfare we face. These weapons are far less costly and cumbersome to produce than nuclear weapons. Largely useless on a traditional battlefield, they may be most impressive to a civilian population that frequents countless soft targets.
And what, besides a modest set of materials, many commercially available, is required to develop such agents? The main requirement is advanced training in modern biology, the organizing principle of which is, of course, evolution.
The same knowledge base can defend against threats from emerging biotechnologies. It may be possible to modify warfighters’ brain cells so that they are resistant to currently untreatable infectious agents like prions. New vaccines manufactured on powerful biotechnology platforms could better protect both soldiers and civilians from traditional bioweapons such as smallpox or new, genetically modified bacteria.
But if policymakers really doubt that the DNA molecule evolves, then they should urge their followers to disregard their military commanders’ decision to inoculate their soldiers against bioweapons. In fact, these extreme conservatives should ignore their doctors’ recommendation to get a new flu vaccine every winter for themselves and their family—a vaccine needed because of the swift evolutionary changes experienced by the flu virus. But those decisions would be poor choices for a country wishing to protect its military and keep its people safe against pandemics and biological weapons.
Then there are the economic costs of teaching “intelligent design.” Already there are alarming signs of a decline in America’s relative strength in science research and development. Although most people don’t usually think about national security in this way, our ability to defend out freedoms is directly tied to our longstanding scientific and technological advantages, not just in the military arena but also in our economy.
The world is becoming a much more competitive place in the global economy of science. We need successive waves of primary, secondary and post-secondary students of science learning about the efficacy of evolutionary theory and its practical application in our increasingly biotechnology-driven economy. The 21st century will be defined by the ongoing biotechnology revolution. Our nation cannot afford to handicap its international economic competitiveness or national security by teaching unrelated religious beliefs in science class.
The nation we all love preserves and protects its citizens’ right to believe pretty much whatever they want to believe, or disbelieve. But in defending that nation we cannot afford to handicap good science. The stakes are higher than a single political campaign. The future safety and prosperity of our nation are on the line.
Jonathan D. Moreno is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.
Comments on this article
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the Science Progress Privacy Policy and agree to the Science Progress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
