Palin sets a P.Z. Myers trap for Dems

Given what happened in small town school boards like in Pennsylvania and Kansas, I wouldn't bank on the idea that even the 'heartland' Americans are all that big fans of the so-called 'Intelligent Design' being taught in science classes.

i.e., even in Minnesota, which is pretty heartland'ish, that 'Expelled' movie was out of theaters long before the copyright issue came up. And given the lack of outcry of 'why isn't it available', seems there was not a whole lot of interest beyond a few megachurches that had to give away tickets to it.

Deliberate blasphemy, you got a possibility.

The idea that 'religious outreach' and pandering to the Creationism crowd are synonymous would be insulting to most religious people, who are well aware that most people are NOT Evangelical literalists. Indeed, I do believe that is the very stereotype they criticize liberals for making.

I now have a vision of PZ in a Wily Coyote suit...

I can tell you exactly when I lost belief in intelligent design.

At the urging of a Bible teacher, a Baptist no less, our class drew a timeline based on the "and the generations of" verses in Genesis 5. You likely have heard them:

"3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

and so on.

If you draw a timeline, you have Adam on the boat with Noah and Noah sitting at the feet of Jesus. So I don't suppose the Bible is literal when it comes to days and years. To me, to put the Bible in the straitjacket of literal meaning when it's clearly meant otherwise isn't honoring either Scripture or the God who preserved it.

But not everybody will read the Bible my way. Believers in intelligent design don't. One thing for sure, though, they aren't likely to adopt my view if I laugh at them (and secularists can be equally and even more unself-aware). Would that my liberal brethren would learn this.

I agree that it is a strange thing to think that all religious people, let alone all Christians, are desirous of "intelligent design" in science classrooms. That being said, I still think the positives outweigh the negatives with Sarah Palin. Indeed, she is making me reconsider voting for McCain whom I had long ago written off for his warmongering. I like her style, what she has accomplished, and especially her rock solid stance on life issues.

But here's the real question that no one on the news shows or in the blogs seems to be asking: Will she have influence? We're talking about her as if we assume she will have a big role in a McCain administration. Perhaps we've gotten used to that idea in the last eight years as Cheney has certainly had more than average influence in the Bush administration. But is there anything to indicate that McCain considers Palin to be a credible advisor? Is she really going to be an insider or is she just evangelical window dressing?

"To forbid discussion of these ideas is anti-intellectual."

To indulge them in the science classroom is anti-intellectual.

Daniel,

Intelligent Design in a science classroom would be incongruous, but no more incongruous than most of your comments on a blog intended for people who think for themselves about the questions of the day, instead of parroting some partisan line.

No offense, but you are hardly the best judge of Sarah Palin's or anyone's intellect, including your own.

Danny, have a cracker and be careful of the stones that you throw.

"instead of parroting some partisan line."

Physician, heal thyself.

What we're talking about here is "young-Earth creationism". This is the belief that Earth is only about 6,000 years old, that the Pentateuch account of Earth's creation and early history is literally correct, and that Darwinian evolution did not occur. This is important to specify. People (such as myself) who believe that the universe is billions of years old and that life, including humans, evolved, and who therefore interpret the Old Testament account metaphorically, still may believe that God created the universe. We differ from young-Earth creationists on when and how He did it.

It is even possible to believe that the universe has always existed while still believing that God created it: see the book How to Think About God by philosopher and Thomist (and, before he died, Catholic) Mortimer Adler (whose works I'd recommend to anyone here). As a mathematician, I have no problem with this, since there are several levels of infinity.

Finally, it is important to note that most of the founders of ID such as Dembski, Behe, and other Discovery Institute members, accept a multi-billion-year-old cosmos and much of Darwinian evolution. They are most certainly not young-Earth creationists, although I suspect that the majority of their rank-and-file supporters are. Many of their beliefs about protein synthesis and such are controversial (and as far as I can tell, probably incorrect), but overall they are much closer in their beliefs to standard scientists than they are to Evangelical young-Earth creationists.

OK, having said this, I would note that virtually no working biologists, chemists, or physicists, regardless of religious beliefs, is a young-Earth creationist. There are a few young-Earth creationists, just as there are always a few cranks in any field of endeavor. Yes, they say that they are not being given a fair hearing, that academia is shutting them out, and so on; but this is the same thing proponents of cold fusion, perpetual motion, and alien contact with Earth always say, too. Please note: I am writing this in the spirit of the thread on ending hatred and divisiveness. I am trying to avoid such things; so when I use the term "crank", it is not meant to be an attack, merely a description. No serious physicist doubts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, contra the perpetual motion types; no serious biologist doubts Darwinian evolution and an ancient Earth, contra young-Earth creationists. Anyone who says otherwise without compelling evidence (which has not yet been shown) is just that--a crank. Perhaps intelligent, perhaps a wonderful person, but a crank, nonetheless.

I reiterate that this is not a religious issue. Conservative Evangelical biologists such as Francis S. Collins (author of the excellent Language of God, is not a young-Earth creationist. I have two friends who are biology teachers and conservative Republicans. They both think young-Earth creationism and ID are the silliest things they've ever heard of, and are always frustrated when some kid gets up and says, "That's not what my preacher says!"

It's Galileo all over again. He got in trouble for teaching the helioentric doctrine that the Earth revolves around the sun, and was forced to recant. But, as he said, Eppur si muove, "It still moves!" Eventually the evidence became so overwhelming that the geocentric cosmos was tossed in the bin of history and the heliocentric view was accepted by even the most conservative Christians.

It's exactly analagous: no one who understands astronomy and physics would even consider the geocentric universe. No one who understands biology, chemistry, and physics would even consider the young-Earth creationism view. For some reason the public at large eventually accepted the understanding of scientists in the first case, but not, at least for large numbers, in the latter. Nevertheless, it still moves and it still evolves!

I'm sure Mrs. Palin is a wonderful person. However, to select a VP candidate who believes in young-Earth creationism is no different from selecting one who believes the Sun goes around the Earth. Conservative Republican Christians who understand science should have as much of a problem with this as liberal Democratic atheists. Properly understood, this is not, or should not, be a political or religious issue, any more than the heliocentric cosmos is. The world goes around the Sun, whether you are Christian, Hindu, or atheist, Republican or Democrat; ditto the age of the world and evolution.

In many ways it seems as if we are drifting towards a point at which one party tacitly approves a theological doctrine that both violates all known science and which is accepted by a minority of Christian denominations (the largest church in this country, the Catholic Church, has no problem with evolution), whereas the other party is the party of opposition to all religious notions. If this is so, then our country is in much worse shape than I thought.

Just for full disclosure, I'm not in favor of Dawkins and his ilk, either. Their idea that to understand science properly necessarily entails atheim is just as absurd as the geocentric cosmos. They plug scientism, not science.

Thus, I think that thoughtful Republicans who have any respect for scientific thought need to protest Mrs. Palin on this matter. By the same token, I think it perfectly appropriate for the Democratic Party to oppose this issue, while making it clear that they do not disrespect her faith or her right to hold certain beliefs, even if they are wrong! However, the right to hold mistaken beliefs does not imply the right to allow them to influence public policy. E.g., if a nominee doubted the Laws of Thermodynamics and therefore thought it possible to produce infinite energy, well, he/she can believe that all they want, but they'd better not try to apply it to our energy policy! However, the wisdom of having a candidate who disbelieves the laws of physics, be it in thermodynamics or evolution, is highly questionable.

For all these reasons, I really think the comparison to P. Z. Myers was totally inapt and inappropriate. The Democratic Party should not act in such a way as to be perceived like him, and I admit, alas, in the realtively scientifically-illiterate climate of contemporary America, that's a real possibility. Nevertheless, it's not about an a****** like Myers deliberately desecrating something sacred out of spite; it's about people trying to stand up for truth and trying to rebut the idea that good science cannot co-exist with religion.

Linda wrote: Is that what politics has come to, setting traps? What happened to public service?

I respond: Amen! Preach it, sister!

Duh-sciple

She may get McCain elected but she will be destroyed by the comics. She's no Dick Cheney and the only people really afraid of her are gays who identify as "bears."

The woman is clearly a nutbar and the mockery, even in staunchly Republican Waukesha, WI is causing laughter to resound in the corner bars (where I do my polling).

Right now the big, local joke is a series of questions about what she is raising in her hair. And these are people who will vote for McCain and religiously attend the bi-monthly gun show at the local expo center!

And it seems no one around here can stand the sound of her voice, which does not surprise me.

Turmarion, your writing is a joy to read. I flew through it because it flowed so well.

After reading this blog and Reformed Chicks for over a year I think Obama is likely wasting his time with his outreach efforts. Not that he shouldn't try, but given the wedge issues he isn't likely to succeed. ID seems like a small piece of this pie and having someone make fun of Palin over it won't likely make it that much bigger.

Palin wants Creationism, not ID, taught alongside the established history of the earth from factual evidence. Just what is there about the difference between science and religion that you people don't understand? If that's the case perhaps Obama doesn't want your vote.

I'm new here so be gentle.

Before you even get to the evolution of species on planet earth, you have to create the universe; The Big Bang Theory is the generally accepted scientific "fact" for this.

The Big Bang Theory holds that all the matter in the universe was contained in a microscopic dot (how many laws of physics does that break?). At some point (who, what, why, when?) the dot...sneezed. This dot for reasons unknown to us began to expand, chemical reactions took place, matter collided and the universe began to take shape. All this from a few observations as simple as things like red shift (all galaxies are moving away from each other, etc.). Okay, tell me I don't need some serious faith to swallow all that.

Evolution is not really that different. Bees, giraffes and many more animals so complex we still don't understand why they don't fall over dead when they fly or bend down to take a drink. Did the world end up with the geography it has because of slow steady change, catastrophes, or a mix of them?

My point is not whether Creationism, ID, or Evolution is the CORRECT (angels singing Hallelujah in the background) answer. They all take faith. They all require you to assume true evidence that you can not see or replicate. I get so sick of those who do not believe what I believe (what I believe is not the point but I am sure it is evident) telling me that what I believe is fairy tales while they will stick to Science. I'm not an idiot, my IQ would probably embarrass them into silence. It doesn't matter what you believe about how the earth was created or how man-kind came to be; you require FAITH to hold those theories as your truth.

My point? Do not ridicule others unless you are willing to have your own ideals examined. Many here are open and see this, some..not so much.

Watcher,

In the interest on objectivity, since science requires it, could you provide something that would indicate "The number of biologists, geologists, etc, who believe in a "young earth" is not zero, not even SMALL." I find this difficult to believe. This is not in the spirit of hatred, as you accuse Turmarion, let's call it incredulity.

Uh huh - you just have to respect a right wing hypocrite who, when her 16-year-old daughter becomes pregnant, decides to pretend like the baby that was born in April was hers (the elder) and not her daughter's. She's a liar from day one and abysmally inexperienced (isn't that what you righties have been damning Obama for?)

Linda and Karen, I have a nit to pick with the allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

Multiple lines of evidence indicate that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. So if God rested on the seventh day then that day would only be 200,000 years long. The Earth is likely 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is almost 14 billion years old. So the days would need to vary wildly in length which seems to defeat the point of calling them days.

So humans are a recent addition to a world that predates us by an enormous amount of time. Obviously this is not troubling to some people, but it seems worth pointing out because it shapes the thinking of people on both side of the issue. Even though I think they are wrong, I can see why a young Earth creationist has their point of view as they want to believe in inerrancy of the Bible and the centrality of humans in creation.

Speaking of traps for the Dems, Cheryl provides Exhibit A:

Uh huh - you just have to respect a right wing hypocrite who, when her 16-year-old daughter becomes pregnant, decides to pretend like the baby that was born in April was hers (the elder) and not her daughter's. She's a liar from day one and abysmally inexperienced (isn't that what you righties have been damning Obama for?)

[SNORT!] Ha! I love it. Keep it up, haters. McCain-Palin will coast to victory in November.

A Trap? Hardly. More like a pitfall for the Republican ticket.
I largely agree with Kevin's post. The selection of Palin just shows that Republicans are willing to put a complete crackpot in the second highest post in the land. Folks who might have voted for McCain - like me -- now have to consider whether having him in the White House is worth letting some anti-science looney tune pollute the nation's agenda with arcane religious dogma.