Via Instapundit I see that the hullabaloo over Palin’s creationist stance is exaggerated:
This is all true as far as it goes, but it’s a bit dishonest of Keim not to quote the rest of Palin’s statements in the article he linked: ‘Creation science’ enters the race.
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.
This is the same position as W – he’s sympathetic to the idea of creationism, but didn’t use his office to force it on anyone. I can live with that. I have a difference of opinion with many conservatives over creationism. Luckily I don’t have to worry about the issue as public policy because the courts have consistently ruled against teaching creationism in public schools.
RSS Posts Feed
If it’s the same position as Bush’s, doesn’t that tell you something, like maybe it’s lacking in intellectual honesty?
Like I said, I don’t agree with creationists, but like everyone else I don’t agree with a lot of people about a lot things. I think people are entitled to their opinions and personal beliefs. As long as a belief in creationism isn’t affecting public policy it won’t affect my vote for the candidate.
I get what you’re saying. But you also said the issue was exaggerated. I don’t think it is. It’s part of a pattern, just as it is with the current administration: Let’s not take a stand on something, even if there is a preponderance of science fact to guide us, because it doesn’t help us politically.
When I say it’s exaggerated I mean that most outlets are posting the part that makes her sound like she’s ready to convert the school agenda to creationism, while omitting the part where she clearly says she isn’t.
As far as political beliefs that bear on science, I’m not so sure that the supposedly mainstream beliefs surrounding anthropogenic global warming will stand the test of time.
The older I get and the more I see the less confident I am of the rationality of science as a constant. Science is only rational over sufficiently long periods of time. In the interim science makes lots of mistakes that get swept under the rug in science class. Worse, people are more than willing to mis-use science for their short-term political ends.
Fair enough. I missed the context of what you described as “exaggerated.” Still, the current administration has a clear and obvious distrust of science, and it’s not limited to creationism or global warming. I’d hate to see that attitude prevail in the next administration.
Why are people afraid of creationism discussion? If Michael Moore can use cinema to promote his agenda; then Ben Stein should have the same right.
It isn’t hard to tell to whom the media gives preference between those two (almost everyone has heard of “Bowling for Columbine” but not many have heard of “Expelled”).
I know that this is a little off the Palin topic, but it is amazing to me how certain opinions are quelled.
Pingback: Best piece I’ve read on Palin | Les Jones
I wouldn’t trust anybody writing an American science textbook to accurately describe the nuances of my views of creation.
Schools could use the views of Stephen Gould as a method of solving this problem within constitutional constraints. Acknowledge that science and religion depend upon different methods of inquiry. Science belongs in the Science room, absent religion.
Religion could be discussed within the guidelines of anthropological objectivity in social sciences classes. (i.e. One could hardly discuss the Great Awakening without at least acknowledging that religion is important to many Americans.)
In this way the public school could be respectful of the various religious views of students and families [non-interference / free exercise clause of the constitution] while not taking a point of view of advocacy of a particular religion [non-establishment clause].
Gould solves both problems with respect and keeps science in school and religion in church. QED.