Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

Republicans For Creationism

by @ 3:05 pm on February 24, 2009. Filed under 2012 Election, Evolution vs. ID, Mark Sanford, Politics, Sarah Palin, Science

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.

H/T: Little Green Footballs

5 Responses to “Republicans For Creationism”

  1. EJ says:

    To be fair, there is a difference between “creationism” in the sence of god made the earth in 7 days and there has never been evolution of the species, and “intellegent design” which acknowleges that species have evolved and the earth is far older then 5000 years old. Intellegent design, though a nebulous concept in of itself and its creation definately had some political motivations behind it, mearly states that the evolutionary process was not due to random chance, but rather that some type of intelligence guided it through the process. Intellegent design and evolution are not necessarily incompadible.

  2. To be fair, “intelligent design” is religion masquerading as science

  3. EJ says:

    I’m not saying it necessarily isnt religion masquerading as science. All I am pointing out is that you should be making that distinction between these two very differnt ideas. There are scientists out there, who though have no way to prove intelligent design, seek to find situtions in which evolutionary outcomes are unlikely by random chance as a matter of statistical analysis. For instance finding two distant spieces with a similar feature and then trying to force two culture of bacteria to make the same identical evolutionary step to try to calculate the odds of two differnt spieces actually adapting the same feature. There are some who do this. There are not any scientists that I am aware of that are making the claim that the earth is 5000 years old or that spieces never evolved. I’m not making a claim of support for intelligent design here; I only point out that a distinction should be made between it and “creationism”. They are very different ideas.

  4. Well, perhaps.

    However, intellectually there isn’t really a difference.

    In fact, I’d say that people who push pure creationism are at least more intellectually honest than those who push so called “intelligent design” and want us to believe that they are scientists.

  5. Keanus says:

    EJ, intelligent design (ID) has long been called “creationism in a lab coat. And that lab coat doesn’t anymore make it science than an actor wearing one in a TV ad. Also there are self-proclaimed “scientists” who support either creationism or ID, and sometimes both. But if one lifts the lab coat a tad, there’s nothing there, at least that’s recognizable as science. And, perhaps, most telling, when the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover got their hands on the manuscript versions of the book “Of Pandas and People”, they found that the only difference between the creation science version and the ID version was a global change of creationism or creation science to “intelligent design.” The claim that ID is somehow science is a total sham, or in other words, a lie.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]