Don’t they know he has TiVo??

Let’s be clear. Science is not about belief. Asserting students get to decide whether or not they believe in evolution makes no more sense than saying they get to decide whether they believe 2+2=4, or that they believe the Civil War started in 1861. The veracity of evolution is no more a debate in science than plate tectonics, the atomic structure of matter, gravity, or genetics. To be fair, not all scientific theories are verified. String theory is a perfect example of a very well developed scientific theory on which there is great debate. It may well turn out that strings go the way of recapitulation (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) and get relegated to the dust bin–or not. But evolution has 150 years of data and observation verifying it. There is no debate among scientists.

Yes, debate skills are useful, critical thinking skills are essential, and discussion is healthy in an educational environment. Debating the merits of the philosophies of Kant vs. Marx is healthy. Students should get to hear both sides and decide for themselves if Johnson made the right decision to lead the U.S. into Vietnam. Getting information to come to their own opinions on when human life legally begins is a topic worthy of discussion. I would personally like to see students get balanced views of Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva contrasted with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To learn about the Jesus of the Qur’an as well as the Jesus of the Bible. But I suspect the people who are all about “teaching the controversy” in evolution (where no controversy exists) would not be so keen on teaching the controversy on religion where the world is rife with it.

The point being, “debating” evolution is actually counter to the goal of developing critical thinking skills. One of the key elements in the critical analysis of anything is sorting out the facts from the assumptions. Teaching students that 150 years of verifiable and repeatable data collection is merely an assumption is the basis for the sort of reasoning that produces Holocaust deniers, not scholars. To take this to it’s logical conclusion, students should not accept anything they are taught as fact. And no one is seriously advocating that.

Why am I talking about this now? Because the GOP is. Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin have both stated they support teaching evolution and Creationism in science class and letting children makes decisions about what they believe. (To their credit, at least they are talking explicitly about Creationism and not trying to couch it as Intelligent Design.) John McCain has said he believes in evolution, but he can see the handiwork of God whenever he hikes the Grand Canyon. This makes him sound more reasonable than his wife and running mate, but doesn’t clearly illuminate his position on whether or not Creationism should be recognized as science. More troubling, it asserts that he finds evolution to be a matter of belief. Yet I recognize (as does he) that he cannot come out and say Creationism has no place in science class without alienating the base he just energized with his Palin pick.

Why does this matter? Because I think it’s essential that our leaders possess unparalleled critical thinking skills. That includes being able to separate facts from assertions. It also includes being smart enough to be aware of what you don’t know, and wise enough to know who to trust to provide that expertise. By asserting that evolution is a matter of belief, they are demonstrating neither talent. And that concerns me.

A post from bloggerette Kim:

Today, I have a couple of firsts in my life. The first one is that I’m not going to “comment” on a blog, I’m actually going to write one.

The second is that, yes “for the first time in my life”, I’m actually ashamed to be a woman that might get attached to last night’s disgusting display at the Republican National Convention. I, like everyone else, started a path of trying to get to know who Sarah Palin was when she was the surprising pick by John McCain for the VP of the United States. Immediately, my reaction was, “He picked a women and it was a ploy to get Hillary voters.” Having thought that, I was still willing to give her a chance to show why he picked her. Unfortunately, I still haven’t figured that part out yet. I, like many others, am willing to leave everything personally about her pregnant teenage daughter out of my mind, as kids are off limits (and I’m not dumb enough to think it couldn’t happen in my family). But the mother’s policy making ideals and judgments, even about her raising her family, are not off the table. They will determine what policies she goes after if elected.

From what we’ve learned, she doesn’t believe in birth control, sex-education, pro-choice, etc. If she had believed in the first two of those things, we wouldn’t really have to discuss the third one or her views on it quite yet. But since we do have to discuss it in America far too often, isn’t the Pro-Life movement about more than just abortion? Shouldn’t it also be about the choices you make for ALL lives? If so, then why personally, did she choose to put her baby Trig’s life in potential jeopardy while in labor with him and get on a plane, fly as long as she did, pass by very reputable hospitals, just to get home? This, after all, was a high risk pregnancy for a couple of reasons… first, she knew it was a challenged baby, and second, her age alone puts her in that category. That decision does speak to judgment in my point of view, and one that should be on the table for debate. And then, politically, pro-life should also be about the death penalty as well. After all, even President Bush said that he would always come out on the side of life (well, with that one exception of the death penalty law).

On top of that, we’ve learned that both her pregnant daughter and her soon-to-be husband have both dropped out of school. Now I know that Sarah being the mother of a 17 year old, can’t tell her not to drop out (any more than she could tell her to not have sex). But, wouldn’t she try to counsel her that it would be in the baby’s best interest to have parents that are at least high school graduates.

All this could be left aside if it wasn’t for the fact that John McCain brought her on to the national stage and introduced her as a great mother with great judgment and practically the second coming of Jesus (if you listen to the extreme Christian right of the party). And that brings me to why I am so ashamed and embarrassed at the thought of being lumped with a woman like I saw on TV last night. She spent much of her speech being that “pit bull in lipstick” that she referred to as the hockey moms. She was demeaning, sarcastic and downright nasty with so many personal attacks to the opposite side, that I almost had to turn it off. The hypocrisy of the Republican party based on good Christians values was repulsive. Isn’t that the same group that is supposed to love everyone and treat people as they want to be treated? Aren’t they supposed to be the party that is based on What Would Jesus Do? Well, I know as a real Christian, that Jesus wouldn’t have done what she or any of the other speakers did last night. It was personal for them last night. I wish everyone watching those speeches last night, would also watch the fact-check sessions today to hear the real facts about the very few discussion points about policy that came out. But not to worry.. there weren’t many of those. The whole evening was devoted to slams. On the plus side for her… she wasn’t the only one I was disappointed in. You see, I once thought Mitt Romney would be the best choice the Republicans had to win, but even his own party decided he wasn’t good enough. I decided that last night for myself as well. Huckabee… another slamming Christian that got rousing applause each and every time he slammed. And as for Rudy… I can’t even go there. He was just not even worth my typing ability.

At any rate, there is one thing I can say the Republicans did well last night… even masterfully. Their strategy in this speech made a pit bull out of Sarah, and it played perfectly to their notion that no matter what any Democrat says about her today… they can scream sexism. And yes… it’s already happened. It happened immediately after when Harry Reid said her speech was “shrill and sarcastic”. The women commentators even said as woman that was a bad word to use. However, as a woman who won’t vote for someone simply because they are one too, he was spot on in that assessment. Of course you couldn’t call a man’s speech shrill, but that was what it sounded like to me too. I’m just not the kind of dumb woman that they were hoping would fall for this speech.

I happen to think that after last night, it’s a sad day for women… not a good one. If any other woman, in any aspect of her life, acted as our potential VP did last night, she’d be called far worse than shrill and sarcastic… and has been many times. So if she can act like this, why can’t we say the same about her?

When this campaign season started, I was actually saying that if McCain got in the race, I could almost see me voting for him. That was before he did a complete 180 so that he could play to the base. I was a bit lukewarm on Obama, but knew I would vote for him over McCain. Now, after having watched both party’s conventions (and even before watching McCain tonight), I’m way more aligned with the Obama camp. He tried to inspire people, while the RNC just tried to tear him down. I’ve had enough of the hypocrisy.