On a summer day in Manhattan, my wife, daughter, and Iescape the intense heat of midday by walking theshaded paths of Central Park. And though it’s coolerstrolling among the trees, the humidity still hangsheavy and holds much of the day’s heat. So we exit thepark on the west side and seek refuge elsewhere — inthe cool, dry air of the American Museum of NaturalHistory.

Inside, my wife stands in line to buy tickets, whilemy daughter and I explore the grand, cavernousentrance hall. Immediately, my daughter runs to thehall’s centre, staring with dropped-jawed awe at theenormous skeletal reconstruction of a Brontosaurus.Although I share her awe, I find I’m more drawn to theornate, granite walls with rich raised lettering thatrecord the words and wisdom of President TheodoreRoosevelt, a lifelong naturalist who literally grew upwith, and frequently contributed to, this museum.

One particular quote catches my eye. It reads: “Agreat democracy must be progressive or it will sooncease to be a great democracy.” For a moment, Iconsider Roosevelt’s words, and specifically, the word“progressive.” Among other things, the word means “aperson advocating social reform.” But, so too, itmeans “promoting or favouring progress toward betterconditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.” Ismile as I wonder what Theodore Roosevelt might thinkof President Bush’s aggressive antipathy toward theword “progressive.”

The thought stays with me as my wife appears with thetickets. Together we take our daughter by her handsand venture off, deep into the museum. After a strollthrough the animals of Africa and Asia, we find theHall of Human Biology and Evolution and look withgreat interest at the three million year old bones ofAustralopithecus afarensis — better known as Lucy, oneof our earliest known ancestors — and at detaileddioramas of Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.

While staring at the strange, and yet somehowfamiliar, dioramas of early humans, my six-year-olddaughter turns to me and asks, “Who are they?”

So I try to explain. I tell her that we are descendedfrom these early people, that these early humans are,in a sense, our relatives. She turns and looks againat the dioramas, wrestling in her mind, I suspect,with the notion of monkey-like forebears.

And as I watch her struggle with the idea of humanevolution, I wonder whether I should have offered hera simpler explanation — perhaps something akin tobabies and storks. But I’m immediately reminded of thenewest attack on Darwinian Evolution — thepseudo-science of Intelligent Design, a silly circularargument that the complexity of life on earth — including our origins — can only be explained by theexistence of an intelligent creator.

Proponents of this new theory of our origins and oflife on earth demand that Intelligent Design bepresented in schools as an equal counter-point toDarwinian Evolution. And though Intelligent Design hasoffered no evidence as proof (except, ironically, forfaith), the idea of Intelligent Design is gainingground with many school boards and notablepoliticians, including the president.

“I think,” President Bush recently said of Intelligent Design,“that part of education is to expose people todifferent schools of thought. [If] you’re asking mewhether or not people ought to be exposed to differentideas, the answer is yes.” For a moment, we might saythe president is being positively progressive.

But the president’s new found progressive devotion tothe exploration of ideas has limits. He isn’t quite soprogressive when it comes to the same students beingexposed to the idea of gay marriage. Or the ideareasonable gun control. Or even the idea that a warwith Iraq might provoke more terrorist attacks than itstops. But some say the issue of Darwinian Evolutionis different. They say that Intelligent Design shouldhave equal time in schools because Darwinian Evolutionis only a theory.

Of course, gravity is only a theory, too.

The truth is President Bush and the Religious Rightare not so much interested in the progressiveexploration of ideas as they are interested in thecreation of collective ignorance. Or better yet, theyare only interested in the elimination of the word“progressive” from American politics and culture. Bydemanding equal time for pseudo-scientific fairy tales — as well as for political-military fairy tales, andfor global-ecological fairy tales — they create atyranny of tolerance for any old “theory” that willbest serve their purposes.

Back in the museum, as we prepare to leave, we returnto the grand hall. I look again at the quote fromTheodore Roosevelt: “A great democracy must beprogressive or it will soon cease to be a greatdemocracy.” I might have been inspired had the quotenot been the backdrop for the Brontosaurs. Instead, Icouldn’t help but wonder: has the word “progressive”become, like the old bones in front of me, anarchaeological curiosity — nothing more than a museumexhibit?

And if it has, what does that say about the future ofAmerica’s great democracy?