Here we see the a law professor writing an op-ed for The Hill showing how sneakily atavistic ideas can creep into the discussion of American politics:

What’s to blame for our divided nation? The cause can also be the cure

[…]

Developments inside the schools reinforce some of the polarization. The Constitution bars public support for specific religious faiths or conclusions, for example, but religious history and comparative religion have never been barred, although the court blocked Louisiana from requiring teaching of scientific creationism or scientific evolution as conditions for teaching the other. Comparing religious and scientific explanations for human origins would expose students to competing ways of thought and the possibility of conversation. Excluding that discussion may be contributing to the virulence of the battle against science, including environmental science. Conversation can lessen fear.

[…]

It’s just nonsense.

But the editor is playing on the old tune that the IDiots like to play, the both-sides approach to sneaking religion into the classroom.

Gottlieb is the author of a recent book on the problem of our contemporary politics:
Unfit for Democracy

His belief appears to be that our democracy would be better off being inclusive rather than exclusive. Well, okay, that’s a nice idea.

But if that means throwing out what we know of reality through centuries of science, then we’re losing something much larger than comity in contemporary politics.