So, Iowa State is in the midst of the intelligent design brouhaha/pissing contest again. “Expelled” painted us in a bad light, probably without merit – but even ignoring the T-word, it’s unsettling how people seem to be against ID in instances when it’s not their business.

I do believe in intelligent design. But I admit it’s entirely because of my religion, and anyone who tries to claim intelligent design is not inherently religious should be shooed out of the conversation like that weird uncle who blathers conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat. If you believe intelligent design, you’re believing there is something/someone in the universe who has power or control over something as “small” as human evolution to something as big as the entire formation of the universe and everything within. God, Goddess, Flying Spaghetti Monster, your choice – but there isn’t a nothing with this power.

The problem with ID isn’t its religion, exactly. The problem is that weird uncle again. Just like there’s a range of devoutness from “Christmas/Easter Christians” to pastors and monks and to mouth-foaming nutjobs, there’s also a range of ID belief.

On one end of the spectrum, there’s people who say, “Wow, it’s so awesome that [Deity] created the universe . Let’s study it!” These are people who believe God created the universe within natural laws so we could see his hand at work/we come closer to the Goddess by understanding her works/His Noodly Appendage will touch those who unravel his spaghetti-entangled mysteries. This doesn’t bother me, and I don’t see why it bothers others. Who cares what motivates someone to research stars, human genetics, the fossil record? If someone isn’t studying it for evil purposes, shouldn’t we be glad he or she is studying it and is happy to do so?

But ID certainly has supporters who say, “We don’t understand it; it must be [Deity].” And that’s fine if you believe that, but that doesn’t help science. We know the sun isn’t magic and disease isn’t demonic because scientific-minded people ignored that line of thinking.

It’s these “weird uncles,” however, who tend to represent the group as a whole. No wonder everyone’s hostile to ID – they only meet people who hold a view that really is hostile to science. No one meets the folks who believe scientific discovery is a blessing.

So we have “There’s stuff we don’t know, which we should study to the glory of [Deity],” and we have “There’s stuff we don’t know, must be [Deity], the end.” And then we have people wanting it taught in schools.

The latter, obviously, has no place in any classroom. I’m not even comfortable with that being taught in private schools – America doesn’t need any motivation to get better at slacking off in science.

But this might surprise you from an ID believer: I don’t think the former should be taught in schools, either. Like I said, it’s inherently religious and there’s no way around this. Religious schools can teach it. Public schools? No.

Let’s say we allow science teachers to tell their students, “There are things we don’t know for certain. Some say this is because our science isn’t advanced enough, some say these things were assisted by a higher power.” Not too threatening. But are students allowed to ask questions about this? Why not? Why can’t we have a dialogue about Go- oops, an intelligent designer?

I say this having gone to a private school where we pledged allegiance to America – and to God and to the Bible. They couldn’t see the issue with “under God” in the pledge. It wasn’t religious oppression to require everyone to say it – only oppressing Christians to take it out.

Another problem is the potential to go further into gray areas very quickly. Is it still OK or does it still meet the requirements if the teacher says “I say” instead of “Some say”? What if he or she reverses the phrase order? Was your teacher rolling his eyes, or was he looking at the ceiling?

Seriously, there’s nothing in science curriculum that says “There is no creator.” If you tell your child at home the world was designed by a hand guiding the Big Bang and the development of life, he or she won’t be told there was no hand – only how the hand worked.

Can we just go for least interference here, people? The non-weird-uncle ID believers agree to not let it affect their work, and they teach their kids about it at home. The non-ID crowd can acknowledge that, no, it doesn’t make a difference if the teacher/researcher doesn’t let it.

And lastly, both sides agree everyone’s weird uncles are best left unacknowledged.

– Megan Krueger is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Homestead.