On Aug 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: >> "McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School" >> >> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html >> Told you Maru >> William T Goodall > > > I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be > advocating > to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything > that > shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. > > It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to > offend either > camp: > > "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate > is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent > of teaching both." > > Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, > Palin declined to answer, but said that "I don't think there should > be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." > > "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said. > > > I don't think I would want it to be taught as an "equal" > alternative, but > she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially > sensitive > subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop.
Except that "teach the controversy", i.e. treating creationism as a competing scientific theority to evolution, is a stated (and documented) tactic of the "intelligent design" movement, specifically as a means of positioning creationism as a legitimate scientific theory. IMHO, even *admitting* creation into a classroom science discussion is already losing the battle. Creationism is religious doctrine dressed up as pseudoscience, and "creation science" is a pseudoscientific rationalization of creationism based on flawed and outdated scientific understanding and teaching resources, and "intelligent design" is a creative rebranding of "creation science" with some superficial wording changes (and this is documented in the Kitzmiller v Dover case) to make it sound less "religious" and more "scientific". It's not science, and dressing it up in scientific-sounding language doesn't change that. (It *does* make it *look* like science to people who don't understand what science *is* or how it works .. to them, "creation science" and evolution *do indeed* sound like competing theories of roughly equal merit, and they *do indeed* see the illusion of a choice between the two, with supernatural consequences.) "Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero." -- Toby Ziegler _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
