Four of the top contenders for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination are all creationists.
First, Mark Sanford:
DS: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in public schools* for instance Intelligent Design?
Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.
DS: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?
Gov. Sanford: Well I think that it’s just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real “chinks” in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being* is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of … in essence, destruction.
Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression*. Uuummm.. in the natural order of things. So, it’s in fact, it’s against fairly basic laws of physics* and so I would not have a problem in teaching both * Uh, you saying this is one theory and this is another theory.
Sanford, of course, completely mis-states the basics of evolutionary theory, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics.
But he’s not alone, because Tim Pawlenty agrees
MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that Creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science, that there ought to be parallel tracks for Creationism versus evolution in the teaching?
GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed — not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated, but in terms of the curriculum in the schools in Minnesota, we’ve taken the approach that that’s a local decision. I know Senator Palin — or Governor Palin — has said intelligent design is something that she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that’s appropriate. My personal view is that’s a local decision —
MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.
GOV. PAWLENTY: — of the local school board.
MR. BROKAW: And you would recommend it be given equal weight?
GOV. PAWLENTY: We’ve said in Minnesota, in my view, this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that, in my view, is plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in but, more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards at the local school district level.
Sarah Palin’s part of the club too:
PALIN: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.
“Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.
“And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution.
“It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”
And Bobby Jindal let psuedo-science corrupt the public schools as Governor:
Last year, Louisiana passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, a law that many scientists and educators said was a thinly veiled attempt to allow creationism and its variants into the science classroom. On Tuesday, the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy that sharpens those fears, giving teachers license to use materials outside of the regular curriculum to teach “controversial” scientific theories including evolution, origins of life, and global warming. Backers of the law, including the Louisiana Family Forum, say it is intended to foster critical thinking in students. Opponents insist its only purpose is to provide a loophole for creationists to attack the teaching of evolution.
“We fully expect to see the Discovery Institute’s book, Explore Evolution, popping up in school districts across the state*,” says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, is a proponent of Intelligent Design.
So there you have it.
Four of the names most constantly mentioned as potential nominees in 2012 all support teaching religious dogma as science, and at least one of them (Sanford) seems to have a 6th-graders understanding of what evolutionary theory is all about.
It doesn’t matter if they actually believe this stuff, or if they’re just saying it to pander to the “religious right”, it’s still nonsense.