Students falsely fear Palin and creationism teachings
As a society, as a school and as individuals, we should never be afraid of information.
As of late, the stir created by John McCain’s nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has been overwhelming. This nomination was initially surprising because Palin was virtually unknown to the general public.
Since the announcement, politicians and the media have been digging into Palin’s record. There have been accusations of inexperience and abuse of power, just to name a few. Also, the pregnancy of Palin’s unmarried 17-year-old daughter has been an especially incendiary issue.
But I want to address something specific that has come up. Fellow college students have raised the issue with me that Sarah Palin is a creationist.
This essentially means that she supports teaching the Christian theory on the origin of mankind alongside evolution in schools. Friends have expressed to me their dislike of this position and cited it as a reason to find Palin objectionable. Simply put, however, they are grasping at straws.
Palin’s position on creationism was first made public during a debate when she was asked about creationism versus evolution. She replied, simply saying that we should “teach both.” And this is what has all the college kids riled up.
First of all, whether or not you are a religious person should have no bearing whatsoever on how you feel about this issue. This is about conveying theories. And we must remember that evolution is only a theory, but is still being taught in schools as solid fact.
Why can we teach one theory but not another? Why not teach all perspectives and possibilities for mankind’s origin? Many people say that we can’t just teach the Christian perspective because it would prejudicially rule out other religious theories.
The solution is simple: teach aspects of all the major creation stories.
A child should not go through school only having been taught the theory of evolution when there are many other widely accepted theories.
Another criticism I hear is that religion isn’t science, and therefore has no place next to evolution. Creationist theories can easily be classified into philosophy or history classes, thus eliminating the religion-science debate. That being said, there are scientists who subscribe to evolution, but believe it was guided by an intelligent designer. This basically takes the very same ideas and principles behind evolution and just adds a supreme being with an overall objective.
Now if we take a theory that says a higher power created mankind through evolution it blurs the lines between science and religion. Many have called this theory intelligent design, or creation science. At this point whether it belongs in a science or philosophy class has yet to be decided. I think it would be fine in either.
The central point to all this is that there seems to be a tremendous fear, or at least aversion to, religion in school. What are we afraid of? If we are simply teaching theories, there can be no harm.
I encourage you to read the play “Inherit the Wind.” It tells the story of a small-town high school teacher in the 1920s who goes on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. The small town is heavily religious and has an intense disdain for evolution.
What I see now is the exact same mentality, but with a complete reversal of positions.
Our society today is so fixated on science and evolution, and so concerned with being politically correct that it fights teaching a philosophical tradition that has been part of our culture for hundreds of years.
As a society, as a school and as individuals, we should never be afraid of information.
The fears and anxieties toward creationism, specifically that of Palin’s position, are ungrounded. The evolution-only advocates have nothing to worry about.
Besides, Palin will have plenty of issues much bigger than creationism on her plate.
This entry was posted
on Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 10:32 pm and is filed under Perspectives.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print this post
Email this post© 2008 The Nevada Sagebrush
September 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
This is truly the stupidest pro-creationism debate I’ve ever read. If you’re going to take on a controversial topic, do research instead of going with your pre-conceived notions on these differing “theories,” which are apparently equal. All of Biology is based on the Theory of Evolution. This theory is not just any theory, like various religions, but is a scientific theory which has much greater qualifications to reach the stance where it is now at in our society. Creationism, no matter what the religion, is based on books and scriptures telling really great stories. This is why the Old Testament and New Testament are featured in Core Humanities classes and not science classes. Other religions such as Daoism or Buddhism is featured in various Philosophy classes. Religion is already in school, just not as science. It does not belong in science because it is NOT science. Christianity, as an example, is much too vague in describing happenings of the world. The explanation for all things that happen in the world can not just resort to “Oh, God decided this would happen…so it did.” This provides a shield for people to hide behind in justifying virtually anything, whether it be discrimination, oppression or even genocide. Religion cannot be viewed in the same sense as science because it lacks two very essential aspects: rationale and logic.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“First of all, whether or not you are a religious person should have no bearing whatsoever on how you feel about this issue. This is about conveying theories. And we must remember that evolution is only a theory, but is still being taught in schools as solid fact.”
NIC DUNN, it’s obvious you know absolutely nothing about science. A theory is the highest level of understanding in science, so your “only a theory” nonsense proves you’re uneducated.
The creation myth that Palin believes in, and that you obviously believe in, is not a scientific theory. All creation myths are childish idiotic beliefs in magic. No competent biology teacher would ever agree to teach the breathtaking stupidity of magical creation.
Biological evolution has overwhelming evidence, and newer evidence from molecular biology and genetics has shown beyond any doubt all life is related. Evolution is taught as solid fact because it is a fact you uneducated hick.
NIC DUNN, you should be ashamed of yourself. You have a lot of nerve to spread lies about science. If you know nothing about a subject, and you obviously know nothing about science, you should shut up about it. Keep your insane belief in magic in your church and out of our schools, and stop lying about science.
You could google “evidence evolution” and study it. I know you won’t do that because like most everything-is-magic creationists you would rather forever live in your childish fantasy world than educate yourself. Just don’t be surprised if everyone laughs at your stupidity and your dishonesty.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“That being said, there are scientists who subscribe to evolution, but believe it was guided by an intelligent designer.”
This is another lie from the uneducated NIC DUNN. No respectable scientist would ever invoke an intelligent designer, also known as NIC DUNN’s imaginary magic man.
Grow up Dunn. Your total ignorance is no excuse for your lying.
Dunn, how does your magic sky fairy guide evolution? Does it say abracadabra or hocus pocus? Are you ever going to grow up, Dunn?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“This is about conveying theories. And we must remember that evolution is only a theory, but is still being taught in schools as solid fact.”
Before you start the with well worn phrase “it’s only a theory”, why don’t you take the time to find out what a scientific theory is? It may come to you as a shock, but a theory is not a guess. It is explanation of facts that has been rigorously tested, reviewed and debated by people knowledgeable in the subject, modified when new facts are discovered, verified by repeated experimentation, and has become an established consensus.
The use of the phrase “only a theory” exposes your ignorance of critical thinking and the scientific method; not to mention the fact that the evidence for evolution is breathlessly overwhelming.
“The solution is simple: teach aspects of all the major creation stories.”
Good idea. Teach all the creation myths; teach genesis, teach how Eros arose from an egg laid by Nyx, teach how the Sun Mother opened her eyes and awoke all life on earth, teach how Kaang created the trees. But don’t suggest they are ways to truth or should be taught as science.
“A child should not go through school only having been taught the theory of evolution when there are many other widely accepted theories.”
No Mr. Dunn, there are no other widely accepted theories to replace evolution. There are only schizotypal magical thinkers that except a Late Bronze Age myth about a second tier sub-god called YWH.
It would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that idiots brain wash small, innocent children with “love Jesus or burn forever in hell”.
“That being said, there are scientists who subscribe to evolution, but believe it was guided by an intelligent designer.
Right. And you can count those so called scientists on one hand. (Incidentally, a PhD in government does not make you a scientist, unless you work for the Discovery Institute.)
“At this point whether it belongs in a science or philosophy class has yet to be decided. I think it would be fine in either.”
No it’s not fine. Creation myths are not science.
“The central point to all this is that there seems to be a tremendous fear, or at least aversion to, religion in school. What are we afraid of? If we are simply teaching theories, there can be no harm.”
No harm? Well, let’s teach our kids it’s okay to keep slaves as long as you don’t knock out their teeth or eyes when you beat them. Let’s teach our kids to stone people to death if they work on the Sabbath. Let’s teach our children the earth is flat.
I guess, to critical thinkers like yourself, that would be harmless.
“As a society, as a school and as individuals, we should never be afraid of information.”
I agree. Why don’t you ask the priest class why their knees shake when you mention the Ugaritic texts?
September 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Next time you write a blog informing college students they are wrong for not agreeing with teaching creationism in schools, you should check your facts.
Evolution is, in fact, taught as a theory in high schools where teaching anything but creationism is allowed in their respective state. I was taught in my sophomore biology class that creationism is the divine way and evolution is merely a theory.
I really hope you aren’t in the journalism school. ‘Cause whoever you had for JOUR 102 would be ashamed.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“We must remember that evolution is only a theory.”
Yup, just like the theory of gravity. Hey, Nic, I’ll give you a dollar if you step off the 4th floor balcony at the Joe. I mean, it’s just a theory, right? :)
But seriously, Nic - quit now before you embarrass yourself any further. Last week you stated that Iran was our friend, and this week you show your terrifying lack of understanding of fundamental science…
September 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Correction - it was my fellow commenter by the name of Thompson who suggested that we befriend the beautiful people of Iran. Sorry about that. I guess I just don’t care to memorize people’s names when I hear dumb ideas, be it befriending our sworn enemies or teaching fairy tales in science classes.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
ROFL @ Sworn enemies^
I’m sure you don’t know a single Iranian person. Good call, ignoramus.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:25 am
I actually know an Iranian. But then again, not so sure if he’s Iranian enough for you - he grew up in Scotland before moving to the States. :^P
And yeah, “sworn enemies” pretty much covers it. Remember the whole Shah thing? Or the 444-day-long hostage crisis? Or that they are currently waging a proxy war against us in Iraq by supplying insurgents with weapons and money?..
Your turn, Troll.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
When I saw creationism was being talked about in the school newspaper I thought to myself “Finally, something beyond the typical. Finally, something worth discussion.” Unfortunately, this is what I got.
It seems as if you are trying to not like evolution to like Palin. It seems as if you are trying to not like evolution for reasons beyond compassion and fair treatment. It seems as if you are trying to not like evolution for misguided ideological reasons than for its political ramifications.
It seems clear to me that you haven’t spent much time with the whole “evolution, creation, schools” debate. Everything you said from the “let’s teach everything” to the “intelligent design” to the “teach it in other classes besides science ones” have all been thoroughly excoriated time and time again. The lack of understanding present in this article rang not only hollow throughout, but rang incessantly and annoyingly: like a kid that has discovered his first bicycle bell.
Creationism isn’t just something people “are grasping at straws” about…it’s an important issue with many positions, reasons, and insight. If it wasn’t a big deal, you probably wouldn’t have wasted your time bringing it up and I probably wouldn’t have wasted my time responding. But it is important and what she plans to do with her personal beliefs while in the White House is important. There aren’t many issues that strike at the heart of people’s world view than creationism, about science and secularism in general. Your belittlement is unbecoming, childish, and put bluntly, stupid.
I apologize for the harsh tone of this comment, but you have written dribble: dangerous dribble. This kind of pointless story doesn’t help the conversation along, it just impedes the very people who think this is worth their time. Your utter disregard for other people’s opinion, your very ignorance on the subject matter is contemptuous. I sincerely hope you don’t shrug off this comment and the others like it, with the same heavy-handed, the-devil’s-in-the-details-so-I-just-won’t-look-into-them attitude.
But you probably will.