…and this is a 
And the right-wing calliope plays on…
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: September 4, 2008 8:40 PM, by PZ Myers
Cindy McCain is not running for high office, fortunately…but this still seems to be the predominant attitude among the Republican leadership.
Couric: How do you feel about creationism? Do you think it should be taught in schools?
McCain: I think both sides should be taught in schools. I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults. So, I think you know I don't have any problem with education of any kind.
What about miseducation, Ms McCain? Do you have a problem with that? Apparently not.
(via Atheist Media Blog)
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Alverant | September 4, 2008 8:49 PM
Funny that it's either/or with them. Either evolution is correct OR creationism is correct. If they want creationism to be taught as an alternative, shouldn't the creation theories of other religions be included as alternatives to creationism?
Posted by: MH | September 4, 2008 8:49 PM
David Irving is probably penning a high school text-book as we speak. Teach the controversy!
Posted by: Jared | September 4, 2008 8:50 PM
You know, I can't stand seeing this kind of idiocy in the public sphere. When highly public figures propose things such as this, I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or evacuate (the country this time).
Posted by: E.V. | September 4, 2008 8:53 PM
What the hell does she know? She thinks she looks good after she had some work done; she's completely unaware she looks like Cruella Deville. So I don't appear to be sexist, I will point out that Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys atrocious plastic surgery made him like a cross between ET and Calvin Coolidge.
Posted by: Nibien | September 4, 2008 8:54 PM
Well, I am learning German. It's no Sweden or Norway but... it's still one hell of a step up.
Posted by: Nibien | September 4, 2008 8:56 PM
Too late, commenting on how a female looks automatically makes you sexist. Haven't you been keeping up with the "attack the shadows" mentality?!
Posted by: Yoo | September 4, 2008 8:58 PM
I wonder what they'll say about teaching Hinduist cyclism along with the others? Somehow I have the feeling they wouldn't be very happy about it ...
Posted by: BobC | September 4, 2008 8:58 PM
If the theocrats win in November we will have a creationist vice-president and a creationist first lady, and America will be renamed to The United States of Jesus.
I just discovered this poll that needs to be Pharyngulized.
The results so far:
30% The universe was created in six days as described in Genesis.
41% Evolution is true, but God began and/or directs it.
29% Evolution is true, and religion has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Hairhead | September 4, 2008 8:59 PM
If I were interviewing Cindy McCain, my next question would be:
And how about the belief, held by hundreds of millions in the world today, that adulterers such are yourself and Mr. McCain be stoned to death? Should that be taught in the schools alongside the less deadly secular judgments on adultery?
And what about the belief, promulgated and defended by the Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years, that the Sun revolves around the earth? Should that be put on equal standing with the more modern, "scientific" Copernican view of the Solar System?
On a more personal level, if you acquired, God forbid, a deadly streptococcus infection, would you ask for the modern antibiotics, which were designed to cope with the evolved bacteria which constitute the infection today, or would you opt for "Penicillin Classic", which is far less effective, but the use of which does not acknowledge evolution?
Would you want the mechanic who fixes your brakes to believe that prayer is more effective repair for leaks in your brake lines, or would your preferred mechanic be a secularist who replaces them with new ones?
And as for your husband, if his skin cancer recurs, would the laying on of hands by a faith healer suffice, or would you show your contempt for the healing powers of Almighty God by getting a surgeon to cut out the tumour?
Finally, would you want your adopted dark-skinned daughter Bridget, whom you carefully avoid being photographed with, to attend one of the Christian schools which use God's words to justify the oppression and murder of non-whites by whites, or would you prefer her to attend a secular school whose teachers and administrators abide by the scientifically-determined fact that race is essentially meaningless in determining the relative skills and potentials of human beings?
Then I'd lose it and tell her fuck off, you pandering, hypocritical pig-woman.
Posted by: Kel | September 4, 2008 9:00 PM
I like the Simpsons take on it
Flanders: "We want alteratives to the theory of evolution taught in your school"
Skinner: "Lamarkian evolution?"
As soon as one says "both sides" in the context of evolution and creationism should have their opinion automatically stamped as INVALID. Why is it that people who don't know what they are talking about are the ones we seek to gain opinion from, or even worse: put in power?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | September 4, 2008 9:00 PM
Hey, I was taught creationism in school. Sure, it was taught in my world literature class, but we were still taught it.
I'd say let the kids decide whether reality is based off of storybooks or science. However, it doesn't matter which they believe reality is based off of, they should hwoever need to know both to make that "well-informed" decision.
Posted by: Monado | September 4, 2008 9:00 PM
Well, then I can see the same logic applying to a Comparative Religion course instead of "Christian studies" in the Religion class. The more children have a frame of reference to compare the different stories, the better! Pass it on!
Posted by: Dave Arthur | September 4, 2008 9:01 PM
Even seeing these questions seriously asked of candidates is scary to a non-US citizen. Could the US give control of their nuclear arsenal to a more sensible nation for safekeeping please?
Posted by: charles | September 4, 2008 9:02 PM
GRRRRR...creationism? Isn't that what churches are for? Are pastors and sunday school teachers getting lazy?...want your kid to learn that stuff then send them to church or private church school, don't expect them to get it in PUBLIC school...freakin' idiots get on my nerves
Posted by: thuvia | September 4, 2008 9:05 PM
It doesn't sound to me like she actually believes what she's saying, almost like she's just toeing the party line to make sure that they can keep a good grip on their fundie base.
Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | September 4, 2008 9:11 PM
"Funny that it's either/or with them. Either evolution is correct OR creationism is correct."
Every type of creationist seems to target only the scientific theory of evolution. Christians, Muslims, Hare Krishnas all seem to assume that when evolution goes, their religion's explanation is the default option...
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | September 4, 2008 9:11 PM
BobC #8
Yah, that poll, you rock.
Nice that it did have one correct answer available, some other polls do not have anything for the rational.
Posted by: Pr0t0ur | September 4, 2008 9:20 PM
There isn't anything wrong with religion in school so long as it takes it rightful place in history class. It's laughable that "they" consider it a both sides issue....makes you just want to roll your eyes.
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | September 4, 2008 9:21 PM
So, comprehensive sex education, then? How about comprehensive sex education with lab sections?Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 9:32 PM
"I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults."
I wonder if the phrase "frame of reference" is some sort of code for religious conservatives to pick up on. You know, the claim that we all view everything through a "lens;" everyone has presuppositions which change and filter the evidence to look the way they want it to look. One person sees a fossil and sees an old earth; another one looks at the same fossil through a "biblical world view" and sees the results of a global flood. It's all about starting assumptions, blah, blah, blah.
It's a common attempt to dumb everything down to the level of preference, make God as credible as everything else, and diminish science as simply one approach among many.
Posted by: mayhempix | September 4, 2008 9:32 PM
Cindy McCain: "teach the controversy..."
translation: "...pander to the rightwingnuts so I can add the White House to my list of properties."
Posted by: Realist Golfer | September 4, 2008 9:33 PM
It's refreshing to see this question asked by "mainstream media", but the response is SCARY!
Posted by: Denisc | September 4, 2008 9:34 PM
#9, I like the sound of hairhead. I agree with what he says 100%. I think as a general principle we should throw the bible back in the face of all literalists. There is a simple approach. Where in Leviticus it says abomination the penalty is death by stoning. For myself, I live on the east coast and one of my favorite foods is fried clams. Whole and Juicy. So by: Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." I should be stoned to death. Kindly do not interpret this passage literally. Stones don't mix well with my evolved flesh.
BTW: A good resource for further illustrations is;
The Skeptics annotated bible;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Atheist & Proud
denisc
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | September 4, 2008 9:38 PM
The most revealing part of the interview comes when McCain is asked about her views on Abortion, and she is unable to give a clear answer. "Oh, my husband said that? Well then that's what I think too." Later: "We called the McCain camp to find our what Cindy feels. She agrees with Laura Bush."
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | September 4, 2008 9:41 PM
Her answer was a complete non sequitur.
I... I... It... She... But...
(blank stare)
Posted by: JimC | September 4, 2008 9:45 PM
To be fair, perhaps both where in marriages that where bad and they have been faithful in THIS marriage(I suppose). Thats enough not to label them as the above. We are better than a cheap shot.
Life is tough enough for everyone without bringing meaningless personal issues aboard. McCain for all his faults has been fairly even on social issues until recently.
Creationism as a policy is of course a loser but I doubt he would go that direction as President(which I doubt he'll be anyway).
Posted by: Jackal | September 4, 2008 9:47 PM
I think the more people study grammar and speak and make sentences and make better sentences when they are adults. So, I think you know I don't have any problem with grammar of any kind.
Posted by: Lowell | September 4, 2008 9:48 PM
It's pretty ridiculous that she isn't familiar enough with the abortion issue to understand that, in order to make its legality a "states' rights" issue, Roe v. Wade would have to be overruled.
Posted by: ngong | September 4, 2008 9:50 PM
This "both sides" meme really ought to be vanquished. The creoid view ranges from flat-earth to "front-loading". Then there are myriad non-Christian views on creation, including FSMism. If you give equal time to all those views, honest-to-goodness evolution will get 1% of the airtime.
Posted by: qedpro | September 4, 2008 9:50 PM
I think when someone says that we should teach both sides, the next question should be "What exactly is the scientific theory of creationism and what scientific evidence is there to substantiate it?
Posted by: Schmeer | September 4, 2008 10:04 PM
I think they should also be asked to explain evolution. That should be really entertaining.Posted by: Mike | September 4, 2008 10:07 PM
With religious baiting atheists claiming science as their own playing their part opposite anti-science religious fundamentalists you've got the majority exactly where you apparently want them: stuck in the middle looking desperately for a compromise that sounds good to the rest of the majority. The Discovery Institute couldn't have done it without you. Congrats. "Teach the controversy" is working its way into far more school systems than just Louisiana's, and there are already too many for volunteer organizations to sue. It can't be fought only in the courts. It can't be fought by poking people in the eye and telling them to eat their science. What are you going to do?
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:09 PM
Breathlessly awaiting the appearance of Crash McPlane.
Turn off the TV and get the Pacifica stream at kpft.org
Posted by: Schmeer | September 4, 2008 10:10 PM
Insist on reality?Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:13 PM
palinDrone is a made to order scapegoat, slay her by proving she doesn't have a conservative bone in her body
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:16 PM
you're welcome
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 4, 2008 10:17 PM
Anything to get elected.
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:19 PM
Bushlicking? ata attack
USA USA USA
Laura Bush a model of anti psychotic drugs, and their side effects.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2008 10:21 PM
Mike #32 wrote:
If there weren't strong voices for atheism making the case that religion is not a universal given and God is not a self-evident fact, then there's a good chance the argument today wouldn't be whether we should teach only the secular view, or both the secular view AND the religious view in the schools. It would be whether we should teach both views, or ONLY the religious view.
And the secular view of evolution would be infused with spirituality -- the Great Chain of Being leading to God -- in order to make it acceptable to the new middle.
Posted by: MoxieHart | September 4, 2008 10:21 PM
Is anyone else amused by the phrase "...poking people in the eye and telling them to eat their science?"
In Cindy McCain's defense, she was prolly so high that she can't remember what she said.
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:23 PM
Dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal, but some are just better than others, I'm not one of them, so I married into it
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 4, 2008 10:24 PM
Molly for Hairhead #9 I say! Huzzah!
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:26 PM
Stand on your side, boots on your liver, fingers in your pockets, and cameras in your streets, government in your bedroom
Posted by: scooter | September 4, 2008 10:31 PM
Maverick: Cheap cigarette rolling machine from the seventies.
Did I say Cancer?
five times
ditzy cheerleader follows bad airplane pilot, welcome to the next Fellini movie
Posted by: raven | September 4, 2008 10:43 PM
Science brought us a 21st century a lot different than the 11th century and made the USA the world's leading economy and a superpower.
In a worst case scenaria, the US can go back to the Dark Ages while Russia, Europe, China, India and who knows who else run circles around us, and eat our lunch.
If enough people want to live on a pile of rubble and die young while pretending the earth is 6,000 years old, it will happen. It worked so well in Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and similar third dumps.
You are wrong about the courts as well. There is a creationist court case every few years and has been for decades. They always lose. Until the US constitution is scrapped, they always will, it is illegal to force sectarian cult religious views on others in the public schools. BTW, the majority of xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. This is US extremist cult nonsense. If you weren't mentally crippled from a cult upbringing you would know all this.
Posted by: Hairhead | September 4, 2008 10:44 PM
Molly and me? In the same sentence? I blush, I blush!
Posted by: Nick | September 4, 2008 10:57 PM
The mindless dishonesty of these people is so staggering it takes my breath away. How, exactly, is electing a guy who voted with Bush 90% of the time and who gives every indication of 'staying the course' supposed to "shake up Washington?" By choosing a running mate who wears skirts? How is another four years of Rethuglican rule a change?
Posted by: dubiquiabs | September 4, 2008 11:00 PM
@ Mike #32
Having trouble with cause - effect?
There's always Pope Nisbet's blog for you to hang out.
Posted by: raven | September 4, 2008 11:01 PM
I have to say this is the lowest the USA has ever gotten in my lifetime. And that includes the Vietnam war.
McCain is 72 years old and it is rumored, has been having age related problems thinking. From his latest appearances, I believe he is showing age related cognitive decline. His VP is a wild eyed extremist from a kooky cult who has no interest in reality. The fact that these clowns are anything more than amusing crazies indicates that something is drastically wrong here.
Not crazy about the Dems either but they are the least likely to finish wrecking the country.
If McCain and Palin get elected, IMO, it is over for the USA. This country is like an alcoholic, they have to hit rock bottom before they stop drinking poisoned kool aide. These collapses can happen fast. The Soviet Union went down hard in just a few years.
If they get elected, stockpile your favorite beverages and watch out for flying debris.
Posted by: Dawei | September 4, 2008 11:05 PM
Well I think you guys should welcome "Teach the Controversy" in a science class.
Sky Fairy did it v natural selection
Evidence for Sky Fairy, an old fat book full of contradictions, sodomy, legalized slavery, random stoning and bear mauling all trust up in moral whining, evidence for Evolution impartial and abundant.
If the IDers step out of line with bogus science they can be slapped down.
Kid are smart they will get it.
Posted by: JStein | September 4, 2008 11:11 PM
This same woman said that Palin had foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia.
She's stupid.
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 11:24 PM
#23 - Denisc - er... bible quotin' the fundies until they choke and run away crying is a favorite hobby here. Just wait till we get a real tasty hunk of troll meat thrown to us. You'll see. *evil grin*
Posted by: Patricia | September 4, 2008 11:33 PM
#50 - Dawei - I volunteer to teach the bible to the kiddies. Side by side with a science teacher. Let them explain evolution, I'll quote the bible story of creation - both versions. Then I'll explain about Cain and his wife. The kiddies should love that!
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 4, 2008 11:48 PM
"I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults."
Is that really what she said? Because I can't parse that sentence at all. I get the impression that it's the sort of trust in kids being able to make their own decisions bullshit, which I know is bullshit because they sure as hell wouldn't want you to "teach the controversy" when it comes to sex ed. In fact, I can't think of any other arena where the religiotards profess to trust kids to use their brains at all.
Posted by: cubefarmed | September 4, 2008 11:50 PM
I think i would be willing to pay to watch that, Patricia :) My sides would split with laughter!
Posted by: Kel | September 4, 2008 11:50 PM
Just like we should welcome arithmancy in the mathematics class?1. There is no controversy in science between the two ideas
2. Creationism is not science.
"teach the controversy" fails on two fundamental accounts. There's no way it should be allowed anywhere near a science room.
Posted by: pcarini | September 4, 2008 11:56 PM
It appears that for most of John McCain's speech tonight he had a solid blue or solid green background behind him. Maybe they thought they'd give a gift to those with twisted minds and video editing software ;)
Posted by: Patches | September 5, 2008 12:17 AM
In the conservatives' case, they think the kool-aid is an antidote and when their poisoning continues to get worse, they insist on drinking more and more of it, because the idea that it's the kool-aid that's poisoning them is unthinkable.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 5, 2008 12:19 AM
John McCain isn't completely stupid. He laid into Republican corruption and basically told his party why they were going to lose.
Posted by: Zack | September 5, 2008 12:23 AM
I just want to see Palin shake up the Washington.
Posted by: Michael | September 5, 2008 12:26 AM
If Palin ever becomes president, I don't think I'm being reactionary if I think we'll actually have debates and attempts at legislation towards requiring teachers to teach both sides of the issue and the inevitable public court battles that follow (as if there are only two sides -what about the other thousands of creation beliefs - of course it's impolite to mention this).
Eve if it didn't come from Palin, it would come from her army of faithful followers. Witness her acceptance speech.
Posted by: pvrugg | September 5, 2008 1:08 AM
I have never ever regarded any of NBC's Morning show alumni as real journalists, the inane shallowness of their 'interview' has always been just breathtaking...
And that they are now considered to be seasoned and respected journalists is a sad, sad statement on the level of journalistic quality and integrity in the US.
Posted by: Trish | September 5, 2008 1:29 AM
Hmmm. One school for every 10 churches. At least that's what I gather visually in my part of the world.
It's not our fault they aren't do their job stimulating the imaginations of their worshippers. It's not the department of education's problem either.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 5, 2008 1:32 AM
Over the past couple of weeks I've been doing a series of illustrations on my blog on the theme of "Teach both sides of the controversy" in evolution.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/08/teach-both-sides-of-controversy-part-3.html
What was surprising to me is that the biggest response Ive been getting is from pro-evolution christians - actually a sizeable and finally more vocal proportion of the religious population.
The pictures have been widely circulated amongst these pro-evolution christian sites (and shockingly I now find myself on the 'moderate christian news aggregator' !! - but I'm an evil atheist, godammit!).
I've made the argument before that the 'teach the controversy over evolution/creationism' is nothing but sectarian religious promotion. Its a religion versus religion question, NOT a science versus religion question. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, whatever we think about their other views on reality in general, there are a lot of moderate religious folks on our side in this question.
Posted by: TimJ | September 5, 2008 1:32 AM
There have been some comments in favor of Hairhead's response. I would like to say though that if this medical treatment is pursued, Hairhead could be sued for malpractice. I am pretty sure he forgot that the patient must be anointed with oil in addition to the laying on of hands. Clear evidence for this can be observed by reading, I think, the book of James. But I leave it to others less lazy than myself to experimentally verify this by looking up the correct verse. In the meantime, I feel like mountain climbing tomorrow, so I'll be using my faith to move one closer to the house.
We should also teach the controversy whether or not dark matter is responsible for galaxy cluster formations, or if they are simply held in place by a god to be a sign for our seasons. Let the kids decide.
Posted by: bastion | September 5, 2008 1:38 AM
At the RNC tonight, Cindy McCain said in her speech that:
1. Republicans want government out of our lives....[except when it has to do with some really very minor issues like reproductive rights, the right not to be spied upon by our own government, the right to keep books some might find offensive in public libraries.]
2. Republicans are the party that supports equality for all citizens....[well except for the gays.]
Posted by: Dawei | September 5, 2008 1:39 AM
#56 Kel, Well thanks for filling me in, I did not realize that fairy magic was not science, does this mean that my crystal pyramid healing set is not based on science either. Shucks...
You are right of course, but you can fight them on their own turf by turning the "controversy" into a debate creation myth v science, with real evidence ooh.....
Yep let them in and holler about Jesus and how the fairy poofed the whole lot into existence. Providing a logical explanation next to that only makes them look a bit dim. Of course this is based on the assumption that you have a science teacher who has not been co opted by the Church.
Posted by: Dawei | September 5, 2008 1:49 AM
#53 Patricia,
Nice, you could also try II Kings 2:23-24, that would have a certain relevance to the little cherubs. Although might make them a little scared of cuddly toys and wooded areas.
Posted by: TimJ | September 5, 2008 1:57 AM
Almost forgot. We also need to teach the controversy in geology. Along with flood geology, of course, we need to include Paul Bunyan geology http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/UnNews:Geology_classes_in_Alabama_now_mandating_alternative_%22Paul_Bunyan%22_theory.
(or just google for "unnews bunyan geology").
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | September 5, 2008 4:20 AM
Let them "teach the controversy" - but ensure that any church or organisation that supports "teaching the controversy" loses its tax exempt status.
Losing money? A sure test of faith, and a public look at the accounts too.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | September 5, 2008 5:07 AM
Thus jested Jackal @27:
I think the fewer people read word-salad and giggle and make fun and make hilarious comments when I am reading.
Posted by: alex | September 5, 2008 5:18 AM
remember when "teach both sides" meant "teach evolution and ID"?
at what point did it suddenly become "teach evolution and creationism"?
i acknowledge that, effectively, ID and creationism are the same, but there's an important semantic difference here when McCain gives her support to creationism here. that opens the door to the far-right wacky young earther shit, rather than just Dembski's faux-sophisticate rabble.
Posted by: Philip1978 | September 5, 2008 5:40 AM
Why bother teaching the "controversy"?
It is not Science.
Its religion and religion does not belong in a science class.
All those advocating Creationism and ID be taught are asking for the the highly improbable to be demonstrated in a class room or science lab - what good is that going to do? You simply cannot do it!
Keep religion out of science, they can never work together.
Science relies on evidence, proof, testing and demonstrating, religion relies on fear, misery and magic.
Please tell me the correct way of showing that it was in fact, from one of the 30,000 denominations of Christianity for example - ie the are 30,000 different ways to believe in the same John Frum type deity, the exact God that somehow beat all the other gods created down the ages to collect the intellectual property rights to the universe and its goings on.
Its sodding pointless and highly stupid even attempting to do that.
I say teach the science and keep religion completely away from it.
Posted by: Didac | September 5, 2008 5:50 AM
Should Holocaust denial be taught at schools in a 'Teach the Controversy' framework? Should faith healing be taught at Medical Schools in a 'holistic approach' side by side with evidence-based medicine?
Posted by: clinteas | September 5, 2008 5:51 AM
@ pvrugg,no 62:
//I have never ever regarded any of NBC's Morning show alumni as real journalists, the inane shallowness of their 'interview' has always been just breathtaking...//
YES !!! I thought I was the only one feeling that way...
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 5, 2008 6:01 AM
We need to turn some of Sokal's gags on the creationists/wingnuts. Get them to support teaching mathematics based on non-ZFC foundations. After all the axioms of equality and choice are librul baby killing propaganda.
It's set THEORY not set FACT!!!11eleventy-one
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 5, 2008 6:22 AM
I have no problem with Intelligent Design/creationism being taught in schools - in classes on philosophy or comparative religion, for example. But they are not established scientific theories and should not be taught as such in science classes.
And students should be taught critical thinking skills, skills which should be applied to the doctrines of the various faiths amongst other things.
Posted by: rightsaid | September 5, 2008 6:26 AM
"Vanity Fair editors estimated that McCain's fierce saffron shirt dress with the popped collar, diamond earrings, four-strand pearl necklace, white Chanel watch and strappy shoes totaled up to $313,100."
She doesn't have to think. Everything has been handed to her. Let's not hand her the keys to the White House too! Her answer about what she thinks about abortion was laughably confused.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 5, 2008 6:41 AM
@66: "A government small enough to fit it in bedroom"- Colbert (quoted from memory)
Serious point on "teach the controversy": Ignoring the non-controversy of evolution would you ever actually teach a scientific controversy to secondary school kids anyway? Few enough of them can get a handle on basic, well established science. How are they going to get any benefit from learning about the things which aren't well understood by those who dedicate there lives to science.
Posted by: Dawei | September 5, 2008 6:49 AM
We should think about teaching the controversy that surrounds "teach the controversy", it would be a sort of existential mockery of the recursive nature of the creation myth.
Do you think that anyone would get this or am I just amusing myself.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 5, 2008 7:00 AM
Ian 77,
I wouldn't even go that way. What do creationism or ID have to offer from a Philosophical stand point ?
And comparative religion ? Please, what does this have to do with public education ?
Let's not fall in the trap of giving something back because somehow, children might be missing something.
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | September 5, 2008 7:06 AM
There is one side to science, and one only, and that is science. Biblical creationism is not a very good hypothesis, as it's been showed to be what we knew it was; myth and fantasy.
"Both sides"? What mindless rubbish! As if he believes that there isonly one creation myth out there. Is he ignorant, arrogant or just parroting stuff he knows goes well with the ignorant people?
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 5, 2008 7:17 AM
#81: "And comparative religion ? Please, what does this have to do with public education ?"
This seems like an appeal to ridicule that could be used on any subject except basic reading, writing and arithmetic: "And poetry/astronomy? Please...".
Dennett makes a good case for compulsory, purely fact-based religion classes. Religion is important; people kill for it. If kids don't know what being a Sunnite, or a Catholic, or a Hindu IS then they can't begin to make sense of half the world news.
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | September 5, 2008 7:24 AM
And yes, they should of course teach about religion, the various major religions, their histories, mythologies, where they are the most popular, etc. It's part of our societies... sadly.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 5, 2008 7:35 AM
I think this can very well be included as part of a history/geography class without the need for a separate dedicated "comparative religion" class.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 5, 2008 7:43 AM
Still doesn't explain why a kid who ,granted, needs to understand the historical differences between Catholics and Protestants, or Shiites and Sunnites, needs to learn about creationism in class.
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | September 5, 2008 7:58 AM
When reading about religions, it's unavoidable to at least touch on the various creation myths.
Posted by: debaser71 | September 5, 2008 8:12 AM
The question is pointless because some amount of teaching ABOUT creationism is fine. The issue is teaching creationism as science. But, of course, the media can't frame it that way and maked the creationists look really bad because well then there'd be no 'controversy' for the media to harp on about.
Posted by: gravitybear | September 5, 2008 8:30 AM
Immediately after Cindy McCain said this, "So, I think you know I don't have any problem with education of any kind," the next question should be, "Then what do you think about comprehensive sex education?"
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 5, 2008 9:02 AM
negentropyeater, I was misunderstanding your earlier post, I think. I thought you were dismissing comparative religion classes in themselves while it sounds like you were dismissing teaching creationism under the cover of them.
All the same, if comparative religion is done honestly, rather than on the model of various clergymen coming and doing their sales pitch, I think creation stories aren't a bad choice for inclusion. For one thing the idea that biblical creationism and evolution through natural selection are some how equivalent is less likely flourish in a mind that has seen other creation myths placed side-by-side with the biblical story.
The good thing about the secular, fact-based study of religion is that it lays the cards the table. It puts all the different claims about what the emperor is or isn't wearing out for kids to train there critical thinking skill on. This is likely to hurt religious certainty and so some religious leaders don't like the idea too much. However, it's hard for them to argue against it without admitting that kids who see the facts (about say the Nicene Council) will stop believing.
It's pretty well made of win.
Posted by: tsg | September 5, 2008 9:12 AM
I was taught creationism in public school science class. Okay, technically I was taught about creationism in science class. It was about half an hour out of one class and grouped with other failed hypotheses as a demonstration on how science not only keeps the good but weeds out the bad.
ID should only be taught in science class as an example of how not to do it.
Posted by: Mr P |