August 29, 2008

Teach both what?

Unless she's figured it out in the meantime, Sarah Palin doesn't know much about either science or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when it comes to public schools.

Responding to a question during a 2006 gubernatorial debate on the so-called "controversy" between evolution and creationism, Palin said, "Teach both. ... I am a proponent of teaching both."

How many times and by how many courts do these people need to be informed that creationism — including its most recent incarnation, "intelligent design" — is religion, and not biology.

The platform for the Republican Party of Alaska, of which that State's governor is a ranking member, contains this bit of gibberish:
We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.
"Creation science"? Are they kidding? Apparently not.

The former set of absurd GOP claims is unconstitutional on its face, and the risible pointlessness of the latter is easily demonstrated by substituting the word "gravity" for "evolution."

Yet within hours of claiming to be "a proponent of teaching both" evolution and creation, Palin is reported to have said that creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Palin also admitted she hadn't thought about it much. That seems clear. What else hasn't she thought about much, I wonder.

Telling the truth?

1 comment:

Heraldblog said...

Evolution may be "only a theory", but in the physical sciences, that's about as strong as it gets. Creationism doesn't rise to the level of hypothesis. Whoever wrote the sentence could find her vestigial tail with both hands.