The battle over evolution and creationism in public schools forges on. And in Texas, where some social conservatives have advocated for a more balanced approach to the study of life’s origins, it seems creationists may be in for major disappointment.
Notice that social conservatives are merely asking for 'balance'; how could that be unreasonable? The answer is simple: the type of balance they'd like is not balance at all as it is appropriate to the discipline of biology. Scientists and sciences are responsible for reviewing/regulating the methods appropriate to their respective fields. In general, the scientific method includes the collection of empirical data, testing through observable experimentation and the formulation of hypotheses and predictions that can be so tested. Creationism conforms to none of these methodological requirements. Within evolutionary biology two scientists may disagree on the importance of alleles in replication or Dawkins' notion of the 'selfish gene'. And these sorts of disputes can (and perhaps should--depending on the level of education) be included in biology textbooks. That, however, is because both sides may be discussed within the confines of the methodology appropriate to the sciences. Creationism should be taught in schools (even secular, public schools) in classes on religion, history, philosophy. That represents balance.
Breitbart.com is up in arms today at the NYT editorial page for including this advertisement. According to Breitbart contributor John Nolte, the ad is "Christian Mocking" and disrespectful. I cannot resist, however, pointing out that literalism (reading each word of the Bible as literally true) is not a Christian doctrine--at best it is evangelical. More importantly, it is incredibly stupid and intellectually lazy--and a recent invention. The Church Fathers (for example Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa) did not believe that the creation story in Genesis was meant to be taken literally (as the former's Hexaemeron and the latter's De opificio hominis witness). One can be a devout, orthodox Christian without believing that god created the world in six days (or that the brothers of Yahweh (the Elohim) copulated with human women creating a race of giants (the Nephilim) (Gen. 6:4)).
I think it is absolutely imperative that the Bible be taught in schools (indeed, I do teach portions of the Bible at the college where I work). It should be taught, however, in religion classes or in literature classes. The Bible is one of the most influential texts in the whole of western history, and should be treated as such. It is not, however, a science book (nor do any of its authors really make such a claim for it), and, hence, should not be used in science classes. Apparently the Indiana state legislature agrees, since Rep. Dennis Kruse was unable to pass his legislation that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science classes. But Kruse will not quit. Instead, he's decided there is more than one way to skin a cat. His newest proposal, which he calls the "truth in education" bill, will allow students to ask questions in class, challenging teachers to prove what they are teaching. Why hadn't we thought of that before?
Bill Nye makes the connection between science, creationism, politics and the economy. Rubio is not only wrong about the age of the earth (since when does Rome teach literalism?), he's also wrong about the impact of such thinking on the future of the economy.
In the past days many bloggers, pundits, journos and commentators have been discussing the Marco Rubio interview in GQ. In my own blog I pointed to some of the more interesting comments on Rubio's evasion of the question in Paul Krugman's blog over at the New York Times. More recently, several news organizations and blogs have struck back, defending Rubio and/or attacking media coverage of the story by pointing out that then Senator Obama made almost identical statements at a conference in 2008.
Slate.com's approach to the allegedly unbalanced way the media has treated the story was to note that "willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value". Michelle Malkin's approach is characteristic, relying heavily on tone and question-begging epithets:
In general, people love to point out hypocrisy; and one could claim that that is what is going on here. Nevertheless, while pointing out hypocrisy may be somehow satisfying, it is logically irrelevant, and certainly has no bearing on what makes the news. If I were to critique Rubio's position while maintaining the same position myself, I would be a hypocrite. However, that would not invalidate my critique, nor would it make my position newsworthy, because I do not have the same standing as Senator Rubio. Of course the president is newsworthy in this sense. Nevertheless, "the president said it too" is not newsworthy either. Why? Because the issue is not who believes in creationism and who believes in evolution in Washington. The issue is that certain politicians, and especially politicians on the right, use their religious belief to make policy. In that sense, their beliefs are relevant and newsworthy. And, in that same sense, what the president believes regarding creation is about as newsworthy as whether he prefers Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.
