Palin, Creationism, and Well-being

Senator McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate on the Republican ticket should concern any educator who values inquiry based on the scientific method–one of the most powerful thinking tools humans have ever developed. When asked about her position on teaching creationism in public schools, Palin, referring to both creationism and the theory of evolution, stated, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.”

Her comments raise several non-trivial concerns:

  1. As VP, she, like the president, is charged, under oath, with protecting our constitutional rights. In 1987, the supreme court ruled that teaching creationism in public school science classes violates the separation of church and state. Teaching it anywhere in the United States remains a violation of students’ constitutional rights. Does Ms. Palin not know this? Or does she simply not care about the rule of law and The Constitution intended to guide it?
  2. Creationism, or as it’s more slickly referred to, intelligent design (ID), is not science. It should not be allowed to compete with science class for valuable instructional time. Not even one minute.
  3. The driving forces behind intelligent design in the classroom have a very undemocratic, unconstitutional, and theistic agenda: “The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to “defeat [scientific] materialism” represented by evolution, “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”[2] and to “affirm the reality of God.”[3] Its goal is to “renew” American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]“ (Footnotes: Source: Wikipedia)
  4. Forcing educators to teach that ID is a viable alternative to the theory of evolution is misinformation. Misinforming people in the name of a group’s theological agenda is simply unacceptable.

Related posts of interest: Doyle and Clay Burell

BlankBelow, you’ll find a highly engaging and informative documentary on the issue. The documentary describes the legal battle that ensued when creationists tried to mandate the teaching of ID in a PA public school district. It’s not only engaging and dramatic; it also does an excellent job explaining the theory of evolution, the errors in creationist thought, the connections between creationism and ID, and the fraud perpetrated by those trying to inject their harmful agenda into the public school system. I highly recommend it. (Teacher’s section here.)

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III presided over the case: “In an era where we’re trying to cure cancer, where we’re trying to prevent pandemics, where were trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me. You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn’t benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries.” That really says it all. Any teacher that supports creationist teaching cannot be genuinely interested in the well-being of people. (This is not to be confused with teachers that support healthy debate on the issue. As anyone who watches the documentary below will see, the outcome of those exchanges, when done impartially, are obvious.)

Aside:

Powerful new evidence supporting evolution was published this June. (This came out after the trial seen in the documentary below.) Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.” (source)

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Posted on September 3, 2008 at 10:16 am by admin · Permalink
In: democracy · Tagged with: , , , , , ,
  • Anonymous
    (This is not to be confused with teachers that support healthy debate on the issue. As anyone who watches the documentary below will see, the outcome of those exchanges, when done impartially, are obvious.)

    I used to think "teaching the controversy" was a bold step for classroom teachers faced with this issue.

    I don't any more. I think they should say flatly and clearly, "Creationism, ID, and Genesis are not science."

    Otherwise, the simple act of permitting the question, "Is ID possibly an explanation?" is a Trojan Horse that gives the "theory" a level of respect it doesn't deserve.

    The ID folks themselves came up with the "but can't we even discuss the controversy?" strategy as a way to get their snake oil discussed in science classes.

    That discussion time is better spent on science, I think.

    Now I'm going to watch your video, thanks. (And I'm not sure I represented your viewpoint in your closing parenthetical accurately, by the way.)
  • Sorry, that was me above.
  • Clay: I agree totally that any debate on the issue should not be happening in science class. It's clearly not science. However, the topic of how we decide what is science, why ID doesn't qualify as such, and the thinking that leads rational beings to such conclusions, is in fact, great pedagogical material. The lawyers who won their case in the video show the kind of critical thinking and support for democratic ideals that would serve all students well. Learning about the case exposes students to some really high quality thinking. (And some real buffoonery on the part of IDers.)
blog comments powered by Disqus