Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A good idea, but it’s probably for the long term
Next Post: Plummer still hasn’t come up with a decent excuse
Posted in:
* From today’s Sun-Times…
GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady said Tuesday he would not stand in the way of a public school board should it want to teach creationism.
“I believe knowledge is power, and I believe local school districts should establish the curriculum when it comes to those things,” Brady told the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board in a wide-ranging interview session with running mate Jason Plummer.
This is not really new news. He’s said it before. You can watch the entire Sun-Times editorial board endorsement session if you’d like…
* Question: Do you agree with Brady that it ought to be OK with the state if a local school district decides not to teach evolution and substitutes it with creationism? Explain.
* Bonus Question: Do you think this will make much difference in the campaign? Explain.
If you’re going to answer the bonus question, please make sure to answer the actual question, first. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 11:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A good idea, but it’s probably for the long term
Next Post: Plummer still hasn’t come up with a decent excuse
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I imagine school districts teach all kinds of weird stuff around the country. So, no I really don’t care. And don’t think it will have any impact on the election.
I mean, my God, the man is saying he wants to stay out of people’s business. Not get into it.
Comment by Greg B. Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:01 pm
Do school boards have a right to decide such a matter? If they have that right then it is also right to have a governor who respects that right.
Do Amish schools have a right to teach their children differently? Do church schools have similar rights? Do private schools? If you believe that they do not have these rights then you will need to make some constitutional changes, wouldn’t they?
So this is not about evolution. This is really not about creationism. This is about our rights as recognized by the constitution.
Brady seems to accidentially get this answer right.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:09 pm
1) Creationism is not science, so it should not be taught instead of evolution. If people want their children to learn creation myths, they can be studied in literature or social studies classes.
2) It might remind the Republican voters who care about education (e.g. all the people in the Chicago suburbs who obsess about schools and pay high property taxes to support them) that Brady isn’t their kind of Republican. It won’t help Quinn, but it might help Lex Green.
Comment by lakeview Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:10 pm
I actually do think this will make a difference in the campaign. Because it was something he said, not a commercial, not an attack ad by Quinn. It’s something that Brady said which is not consistent with what most voters feel.
On the other hand GWB didn’t believe in science either, never hurt his election chances so maybe I’m wrong.
Comment by Siriusly Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:10 pm
Siriusly, Answer both questions, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:10 pm
I’ve never really understood this one. Is the idea to teach the Book of Genesis as fact in the public schools? I’m against that for what used to be obvious reasons: I want faith taught at home and in church and science taught in the public schools.
My faith isn’t in conflict with the teachings of science.
I don’t think it will be an issue at all in the election. Those debates generally get traction in a booming economy.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:11 pm
The state has every business stepping in and setting standards, and if the ISBE would like proper science education taught in schools then bless their heart if they storm in and throw creationism out. If you want to teach that God is responsible, cool; I agree He is.. But don’t muddle the message of evolution in science classes and watch us fall even further behind.
That said, no impact on the election.
Comment by Peter Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:11 pm
I think the schools ought to teach both. I belive in choice to a certain extent and this shouldn’t necessarily be up to school districts both creationism and evolution should be taught.
To address the bonus question, in the grand scheme of things this doesn’t matter. I want the young people in our public schools to at the very least learn how to read, write, and arithmetic. I also want them to be critical thinkers so that hey they can decide whether evolution or creationism makes sense.
I do want them to leave the system to be able know and the arguments between the two and go from there. Of course if you just teach one or the other and then expect them to believe that’s how it is when we really don’t how it really is. Then I think that’s the problem.
Comment by Levois Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:12 pm
I do think it can impact the campaign; I have learned reasonable people can disagree about guns and even choice. But creationism is on a whole different level - and I think it scares people to think that a public official would advocate for this to be taught in our public schools.
Comment by Oh please... Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:12 pm
Brady’s statement is totally at odds with federal law. So, as someone who would be governor, I think it’s irresponsible to take the position that local districts should be allowed to teach creationism, if they choose to do so. But I guess he’s sending out a not so coded message to the religious right that he’s their guy.
Ultimately, whether you call it creationism or intelligent design, it has no place and shouldn’t be discussed in a public school curriculum, because they aren’t based on science.
Comment by Phil Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:13 pm
If school boards can do that with curriculum on science today than I am fine with that remaining that way. As long as you are teaching the mandated stuff some of this should be left up to local school boards.
As for making a difference, I doubt, I think this is the type of thing that will not swing any votes that are not already swung.
The election is going to be about jobs and the economy, not 7 days vs 7 Billion years or whatever…
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:17 pm
So Brady is saying he agrees with local control? He wants to let local governmental bodies do their jobs. Sounds like exactly the kind of leadership I want in our government.
Comment by A.B. Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:18 pm
I assume VMan must have misunderstood the question, It asked about public schools. His answer was about private schools.
In any case, unless the class is actually on religion (and I don’t recall any courses like that when I went to public school, although in college I did take a few courses in the area), I don’t see any reason to teach creationism. Time to stop the nonsense. Creationism is religion. It is not science.
Will it have an impact? Slight, to remind a few people that although they may not like Quinn, Brady is extremely far to the right and as such, the election does make a difference.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:20 pm
Err, no.
Should a local school board be allowed to abolish the scientific curriculum, if it so chooses? The question is not just to teach “creationism,” but to _replace_ any mention of evolution? That’s not in the quote but maybe it’s in the video (sound is off where I am). That’s far more radical a position than most even of the “intelligent design” people take. That’s basically like abolishing biology class.
That’s a violation of the right of children to learn the basic scientific and rational heritage of the human race, over the past hundreds of years. Even under a Roberts court, too, I think it would be dead on constitutional arrival in Washington D.C.
Is it an issue? Maybe a little bit, up in the liberal-leaning Dem areas. This might inflame a few more Democrats to go vote, and it might turn off a few suburban women against Brady, if they learn he thinks it’s OK for kids not to _learn_ biology.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:21 pm
As ANOTHER Brady said …”I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice the futures of their children to the gods of science. And what are their rewards? Confusion and self-destruction. New ways to kill each other in wars. I tell you gentlemen the way of science is the way of darkness.”
Does this make you, Rich, E. K. Hornbeck???
So am I with Henry Drummond or Matthew Harrison Brady?
Schools should teach what they can prove, and show that faith is not to be feared, but faith and the science is a gift to learn what can be proven. As Henry Drummond said better than I coulde here, “Yes. The individual human mind. In a child’s power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted “amens” and “holy holies” and “hosannas.” An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man’s knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes or the parting of the waters.” Amen.
Will it be a factor … No, unless Brady makes a stink that his “option” should be more than elective … like Matthew Harrison Brady.
My advice to Brady on pushing, “Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the book of Proverbs. ‘He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.’ “
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:22 pm
== and I think it scares people to think that a public official would advocate for this to be taught in our public schools. ==
He didn’t advocate it, he said it was up to local school districts. He didn’t say it should be part of state mandated curriculum.
Big Difference.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:25 pm
I agree with Brady. Let locals decide important educational questions regarding their children. If you are a parent who disagrees with the school board, the awesome part is you are still the most important thing in the child’s life, thus, you can educate the kid thru museums, documentaries, etc.
Second, no this wont be an issue. It is still about the economy/budget, etc.
Comment by Cuban Pilot Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:26 pm
Brady is from McLean County where the county Republican chair was the leader of the Illinois Christian Coalition. That man, John W Parrot Jr stated that Brady had “matured” when Brady ran for gov in 2006. No doubt Brady’s alignment with the far right of his party includes embracing their tenets in regards to what is taught in the schools.
Does it make a difference? Some of my Repubican friends who are educators are very conflicted about Brady’s right wing stances. There are those who fear more what he will do to education in this state and will hold their noses and vote for Quinn. How much that will influence the outcome remains to be seen.
Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:26 pm
No, One Man, it really isn’t a big difference. Brady is OK with teaching creationism in public schools as science. Whether he pushes it forward or just stands on the sidelines doesn’t matter.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:28 pm
Should creationism be taught in public schools? Well, it’s not on the ACT and that seems to drive a lot of the secondary curriculum these days in this state. We teach to the test, don’t we? At least that’s how it felt the last 10-15 years of my career.
Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:29 pm
No difference in election.
I would think that a presentation of Creationism and Darwinism and how they relate to the scientific method would keep everyone happy.
Science is always evolving. Darwinism is a theory of evolution. It has to change based on new information. Remember when dinosaurs were cold blooded slow moving creatures? How about geology before plate tectonics was understood? I should be a piece of cake to show where creationism fits in…..
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:31 pm
No, I don’t agree with Brady that creationism should replace evolution in public schools, even if that’s the decision of the local school board. I might agree that creationism can be discussed along with evolution. In other words, I don’t think creationism should be out and out banned from discussion, but simply put in context with the science of evolution. As long as evolution remains the primary part of the curriculum, I think locals can decide to mention creationism as a deeply held belief by some.
I do think it can be an issue though, because feelings are very strong on this. However, it probably won’t be a game changer since most “schools” that teach creationism are home schools or parochial schools, not public schools. I don’t think there’s much interest among Illinois school districts to chuck evolution from the curriculum.
I would like to hear creationists try to convince anyone that dinosaurs roamed the earth with people though, sort of like the Flintstones. That’s entertaining to me. Scary, but entertaining.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:31 pm
Well Skeeter, I think you are wrong but anyway…
Does anyone know where Quinn stands on this, does he feel a SD can teach creationism if they want to?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:33 pm
I agree if a school district wants to teach creationism or intelligent design it should have the right to do so. I am a supporter of intelligent design/ creationism. It does not “toss science out the window.”
I do not think this will affect the race as this is probably one of the smallest issues we have. If I am reading this correctly, he only said he would not stand in the way of school districts teaching it. Those opposed to this were never going to vote for Brady anyway.
I am not sure if the United States Supreme Court would allow a school district to teach creationism.
Comment by Richard Afflis Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:35 pm
On Q: 1, no, it should not be forced on schools at any level, because it is not an established scientific truth. Even the Pope has recognized evolution, and the Catholic church is all right with teaching it. And evolution does not necessarily infer you must deny the existence of a God. Just that you can’t prove him thru empirical means. In secular schools teaching creationism is displacing established scientific fact and theory with a religious dogma that’s been given equal weight with established fact. We can’t have that and pay for it with tax funds. It is unconstitutional. You want to teach a religious dogma that purports to be scientific fact, pay for private schooling for your kids. Do not meddle in public school curricula, particularly in the sciences.
On Question 2; I think it can and will hurt Brady by making him seem more extreme and right-wing. He already has a televangelist’s haircut and demeanor, and this just plays to the stereotype. It makes him look like someone who puts faith over science and faith over civil law. Will this earn him fringe votes, sure, but I think it costs him the vote of more reasonable social moderates. Government is serious business, and I don’t want to vote for anybody with a loose grip on reality to be governor; Blago was enough already.
http://theedger.org/wp-content/uploads//2008/09/equal1.gif
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/culture/teachcotnroversy.jpg
Comment by Gregor Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:42 pm
Question 1: Absolutely not. If a school wants to offer an elective that looks at different theories of creation from various religions and cultures - great. I would have taken that class. But you cannot replace the teaching of evolution with creationism. We teach science in science class, and creationism is not science (even if you call it Intelligent Design).
Question 2: The only impact will be helping cement/motivate those folks already against Brady. There might be a fiscal conservative or two that this pushes over, but this issue is not going to swing the election.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:43 pm
They shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, at least not so in favor of creationism. Somebody mentioned educating a generation of critical thinkers, and that can’t really be done without presenting contrasting and conflicting ideas.
So I don’t have a problem with teaching creationism, unless of course, it’s under the guise of science. It’s not science, it’s theory or even philosophy, and if taught, it should be in those relevant programs, along with other philosophies/religions - Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, etc.
Evolution, on the other hand, is pretty well grounded in science and should be kept there.
I doubt the issue will rev Dems to vote in bigger numebrs, and I doubt that suburban R moderates will be inclined to vote for Quinn as a result of this ‘revelation.’ So, no impact.
Comment by Thoughts... Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:45 pm
Q: Do you agree with Brady that it ought to be OK with the state if a local school district decides not to teach evolution and substitutes it with creationism?
A: Absolutely not. Creationism isn’t science. If someone wants to teach science in the science classroom and creation myths in social science classes. Fine. But any equivalence between evolution and creationism is a false equivalence.
Q: Do you think this will make much difference in the campaign?
A: Perhaps not “much” but “enough.” Creationism in the classroom is just the sort of thing that could firmly identify Mr. Brady as “one of those Republicans” in the eyes of voters. And the margin of victory in this race will be so tiny that that could swing the result.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:47 pm
hurts-reaffirms in the eyes of suburban moderates and independents that he’s a nut.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:47 pm
It’s ok with me if they teach Creationism, so long as they also teach kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:47 pm
No, it is not OK. Schools should be about reducing ignorance, not preserving and fostering it.
As for whether it will hurt Brady, I don’t know. This Republican is very depressed, but also very unwilling to vote for Governor Jello.
Comment by well Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:50 pm
One no public school board should be substituting evolutionism in favor of creationsim since there is this little piece in the Federal Constitution that reconizes the seperation of church and state. Creationsim needs to remain at home and at church since it solidly grounded in Judeo/Christian teachings and it is not the job of the public education system to teach students about God. Now if public schools were to offer a religion class I would not be opposed, but keep in mind they would have to be religion class that study a wide range of religions, namely Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism since those tend to be the four largest.
As for the impact on the election, none what so ever since the main focus of this entire election is the states financial crisis. This is something that will be swept under the rug until after the election.
Comment by Andrew Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Again, answer both questions if you address the bonus question, please.
Final warning.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:54 pm
Absolutely not. Knowledge of how THIS WORLD works is power. Evolution is such an essential building block to any fundamental understanding of biology, ecology and life itself. The science of evolution is established.
Brady is trying to have it both ways. He seems to accept that evolution is working on earth but I don’t think he really understands that life does not evolve toward an endpoint. If no end, then no special creation — man. For Brady’s religion to be effective in preparing man for the life after this world, then man’s salvation rests on the belief of a special creation for man. If this is not true then why would Brady’s anthro generated god bother with saving our sorry butts in a life after death.
Will it make a difference? Probably only to those who are turned off by Brady’s other stances on social issues. This will help him keep his margins downstate, but in less fundamentally oriented communities that would hate to have to fight these these religious battles in local schools, not at all.
Comment by vole Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:55 pm
In terms of the Supreme Court and constitutionality, the most relevant precedent would be _Edwards v. Aguillard_, the 1987 Louisiana case where the Supremes ruled that Louisiana could not mandate the teaching of creation science along with evolution, so side by side in the same class. It was a 7-2 ruling with Scalia dissenting.
That was a state law. But a public school -district- was brought up and challenged under _Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District_, for requiring the use of an “intelligent design” text as “an alternative to evolution.” The district judge ruled, as the Supreme Court had, that this was an unconstitutional establishment of religion by government.
The Courts have hinted that a “faith and traditions” offering in the public school curricula, which talks about creationism alongside other religious teachings, might pass muster. But any ban on teaching evolution or replacement of teaching creationism would almost certainly be struck down in federal court, given past precedents. If the Supreme Court did not intervene to overturn _Kitzmiller_, I really doubt it would step in to save this one.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:55 pm
Creationism and intelligent design are not science and should not be taught as such. It does make a difference. In the U.S., the wide ranging, curiousity-driven research that has made us a leader in developing new technology has its foundation in a strong science curriculm.
Intelligent design has, at its core, the premise that if something is too complicated for someone to understand, there is no need to study it further. The cause is ascribed to God and everyone should move on to something else.
The Supreme Court has recognized this in Edwards v. Aguillard, a 7-2 decision. Creationism can be taught in a comparative religion class, but it is not science.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 12:57 pm
We need to remember that he is not adovcating for the teaching of creationism but rather local school board members that are more directly accountable to us the voter and property tax payer can make the decision if this is something that they believe should be part of the classroom discussion. If you don’t want it taught work to unelect a school board member.
Comment by One of Three Puppets Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:01 pm
No, creationism is ridiculous and should not be taught as science. History maybe if it has to be taught at all.
I think Brady is playing to his base but I agree it makes him look like a nut to many groups.
On the other hand, maybe the campaign has decided that they will take that chance if it gets a chunk of creationism supporters out of their chairs and into the voting booth. Campaigns have to make these kinds of decisions. We’ll see how this one goes. I thought Brady was going to stay away from these kinds of issues, though. Interesting.
Comment by cassandra Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:01 pm
To answer the first question, I do not think it should be in place of the theory of eveolution but rather in addition to or perhaps in a religion class.
Comment by One of Three Puppets Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:04 pm
No. Letting a public school board substitute creationism for evolution is essentially turning a public school into a religious school. When the creationists can prove the existence of God by experiments and observations that can be duplicated by others, I’ll let them start pushing their wares as science. I’m a recovering Catholic, settling into agnosticism with hopes of reaching atheism.
Insofar as such a stand impacting voters, I do not believe it will. Voters are focused on divining who will best serve the economic interests of Illinois. I was giving the edge to Brady until today’s Trib reported that $50 billion of more borrowing to shore up IL employee pensions is an option with Brady. hopefully, he was temporarily insane from lack of sleep.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:13 pm
I think that they should both be taught, but to answer the question, yes, on this issue School Boards should be free to make the call. The state has the responsibility to ensure that a fundamental curriculum is in place to teach reading, writing, math and basic science. Now, while evolution it is a popular and influential scientific theory, but it is not the end-all-be-all of science. In other words, the relevant question is, can a child who is not taught evolution, but rather creationism, understand the general principals of science well enough to compete in our economy? I think the answer is yes.
I’ve seen it said several times in the comments already that “creationism is not science, it is religion.” That is a myopic and counterproductive viewpoint. Creationism, at least in the more moderate form of ‘intelligent design’ is both. It is an attempt to answer an important question that science cannot: how and why was the universe created? The “big bang” is universally understood to be a flawed and incomplete theory. Creationism is a legitimate attempt to answer a scientific question, therefore, it is a matter for “science” class. But it is also admittedly a religious issue as well. I always felt that good teachers were the ones who helped you understand how all your subject related to each other and to the world. “Science” wasn’t just a subject you had to learn for the sake of it, it was about understanding the world. Creationism is an attempt to do that, so again, I’d argue that it is perfectly appropriate to discuss in science class.
Will it make a difference in the campaign? It could, if Quinn is willing/able to turn this into a wedge issue and scare moderate suburban voters into thinking that Brady is going to outlaw the teaching of evolution in the state. I wouldn’t put it past him to try, but I’d like to think that voters are smart enough to not let it work.
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:14 pm
Rich, the setup didn’t say that Brady was OK with not teaching evolution so in that regard I disagree.
I do agree with letting local school boards set curriculum. They can answer to their electorate if they make the wrong decisions.
Bonus: A lot of ‘if”s. I don’t think this will impact the race unless it is shown Brady’s position is substantially different than Quiinn’s. Has Quinn been asked the same question? If not, no impact. If so, how different is Quinn’s position? And would Quinn’s position cost him any votes?
I haven’t seen creation/evolution on anybody’s radar as an issue this cycle, so I think any hope or angst on this issue is an exercise in futility.
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:15 pm
Absolutely not. As someone pointed out, that is pretty much teaching the Book of Genesis, a clear violation of church and state. It is not a scientifically acceptable theory and has no place in places where rational thought are too be nurtured. And to replace evolution with that? Crackpot.
Therefore to segue into the bonus question I do think it can have an effect on the race if Quinn chooses to make it an issue because I think that is the sort of thing that would make people on the fence sort of jump up and say, “whoa, Brady believes that?” But saying that, as most things Quinn, he won’t capitalize.
Comment by Jake L Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:17 pm
1–No it is not OK to have school districts teach philosophy in science class. Many here have already stated this in very clear and eloquent ways. Creationism/ID is not science. Simple as that.
2–I can honestly say that Brady lost a potential vote from me so it has officially impacted the election. I’m so fed up with Quinn’s idiosyncratic approach to governing that I was thisclose to voting for Brady. Now I will not.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:17 pm
One thing I tried to push in my years as a board member for an elementary district was continuity. I still believe it is very important. It is surprising the opposition I got from educators in my district. Everyone wants freedom to teach their ideas and approaches to the cuuriculum. While I respect independence to an extent, one has to keep the child in mind. A child transferring from one school to another or one district to another should not find themselves in a completely alien environment in regards to the curriculum. I believe the state control of districts is supposed to promote this consistency. However the argument can be made that if the state wants to control and maintain consistency of schools they should fund the schools at the promised 51% instead of the 30+% they currently fund. Local boards use the argument that if they are the ones that are supplying the majority of the funding they should not have to listen to outsiders. All that being said and getting back to the question, for the sake of consistency I believe evolution should be taught as a science, covering FACTS and known scientific occurrances that support evolution. This is important as our world continues to evolve, species adapt, new species are created by new environmental forces. This is information that is going to be used by many of the students in many different careers they choose.
Creationism is not a substitute for evolution. With creationism we are getting into the area of religion. I do believe that we should teach religion in our public schools but not in the way they teach it in Catholic schools. I believe we should teach all religions in social studies classes. In this global world we live in we cannot begin to understand our neighbors, or their cultures without learning their religions. Especially, we cannot begin to understand the countries that are currently at the forefront of our news without understanding their religions. In our everyday lives we rub elbows with people from India, Pakistan, and many of the middle eastern countries. Our kids need to understand those folk’s beliefs if they are going to be living and working with them.
I believe the focus of the campaigns is coming around to where it should be. Jobs, Jobs, the budget. While this issue might be important to some it is going to be lost in the focus on fiscal issues.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:18 pm
1. Yes. Local families should be able to control their own schools…and if the kids fail the statewide aptitude tests, well…Evolution is only a theory. It is not proven. Catholics, such as Brady, however, do not believe in creationism in the same way that some evangelicals do. Catholics accept science more readily. But it all started w/God ultimately. Both should be taught. Evolution should be considered a “scientific theory.”
2. It won’t make a difference. There are bigger fish to fry, and most parents want a say in their children’s schools and curriculum.
Comment by Peggy Far South of I-80 Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:19 pm
I think it is unacceptable to REPLACE teaching evolution (a strongly supported empirical science) with creationism (no legitimate evidence behind it).
At the absolute most, a school board could mention, or lightly teach creationism ALONGSIDE evolution. As much as I disagree with it, I think school boards should have that right. But to REPLACE evolution, and teach creationism as if it is fact is a sham. The “evidence” creationism is based on is ridiculous and easily disputed by anyone with a basic knowledge of biology, chemistry, or physics.
Will it affect the campaign? Probably not. If it does it will be miniscule. Much bigger issues are at play here (economy, jobs, taxes). If anything, it could add to the idea that Brady is too far right, driving angry Democrats back to Quinn, or to SLC. But the premise that Brady is far right had already been pretty well established.
Comment by Matt Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:35 pm
1. Was Brady asked the question as if creationism would replace evolution? Or if creationism were taught in addition to evolution? There’s a big difference there. I would be okay with a local school board making the decision to teach creationism in addition to evolution. I like those decisions being made on the local level.
2. I doubt this makes any difference in the campaign.
Comment by eastsider Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:38 pm
Q1: I agree w/Brady that the state should stay out of the debate surrounding matters of local curriculum. This is consistent with the message that local control is the best way to go. He didn’t say that districts could blow off state/fed standards in favor of teaching whatever they wanted. So, as long as students meet the standards, feel free to teach whatever you want.
As to the complaint that ONLY sciene should be taught in science classes, you either don’t have children in school or don’t listen to what they are being taught in science classes. There is a great deal of non-science philosophy and general “do-goodiness” being “taught” in science classes these days that is not rooted in hard-core fact.
Q2: This won’t hurt the Brady campaign. Even if Quinn’s humming bird campaign decides to flit to this topic and waste time and resources, most voters are going to ignore it as a side issue that really has nothing to do with the economy and jobs.
Comment by SangamoGOP Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:43 pm
Absolutly not — are you kidding? Why not let the local school board decide whether we should teach kids that the earth is flat or round while we are at it? Or how about this, we’ve all seen those polls that show that a sizable percentage of the population thinks the sun revolves around the sun. If three of those people get elected to your school board should they be able to change the curriculum? After all, that would represent “local control” which is one of the things that Brady has “gotten right”, right?
Comment by Lakefront Liberal Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:45 pm
I’m with Left Lefty. For moderate Dems fed up with Quinn’s poor management and political skills and moderate Republicans looking for change, I believe this will make a difference. I, too have considered voting for Brady, but this statement reminds me that he is a far-right social conservative. Whitney gets my vote.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:47 pm
Read and comprehend much?
The point as others have astutely pointed out, and to re-iterate,is that Brady is NOT advocating for creationism to be taught in school, Brady doesn’t believe it is his job as governor to tell schools to teach it or not teach it.
I think there should be uniformity in what tax payer-funded schools teach. The easiest thing for schools to do would be to teach both in my humble opinion. That would be fair, as on issues like this nobody is all wrong and nobody is all right.
Will Brady’s statement on being willing to let schools decide whether or not to teach creationism hurt him politically? Not sure, though we see already people are chomping at the bit to take what Brady actually said out context and misrepresent it. Gee, I wonder why? Politics? MGT attack ads? Can’t read?
Speaking of being at odds with federal law…Quinn supports Chicago being a sanctuary city, right?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 1:58 pm
I don’t think the two theories are completley exclusive and would never want to teach my kids scientific theory at home because the schools won’t. Brady’s position is ridiculous.
Of course it will matter in the election. The sooner folks find out big Bill is a Mad Hatter the better it will be for Dudley Doright.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:03 pm
1) NO!
Creationism/”Intelligent Design” are religious beliefs that don’t belong in public schools. You want your kids to learn this as the basis of their education, put them in your church, synagogue, mosque, or what-have-you school. Evolution is a proved scientific theory — it’s the best explanation for what we observe in the natural world, based upon observations and tests. Beyond that, it’s a private matter of belief as to who or what is behind it all.
2) I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference. It might, if Quinn’s campaign were more competent; say, competent enough to whip up an ad featuring Brady’s comments on this matter.
And everyone here should bear in mid the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, from whose Wikipedia entry I briefly quote:
“On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate which required the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional and barring intelligent design from being taught in the Dover school district’s public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.”
Comment by Northsider Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:04 pm
The responses to this question are the sort of thing that make me want to bang my head against the wall repeatedly.
I’m all for advancing local school board autonomy–but for the love of God (pun intended) there are limits.
Creationism should not be taught instead of evolution. It should not be taught along with evolution. It should not be taught in our public school system as science in any form.
Why? Because it cannot be “taught.” You cannot teach something as science for which there is not the slightest iota of evidence. Evolution is taught by understanding the scientific method, walking through fossils that have been physically discovered, understanding the aging of these materials, learning how scientist determine the age of materials, learning about the biology of a variety of species and comparing their function, analyzing similarities in DNA, and on and on.
Creationism is merely a “belief” that some people have on faith alone. You cannot “teach” it anymore than you can “teach” that if you blow yourself up in a crowd you will be rewarded with 72 virgins.
If folks feel that it is necessary to ensure their children actually believe something for which there is zero scientific evidence, do it at home or at church…not the public school science classroom.
Comment by Paul Richardson Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:21 pm
1) Should schools substitute Creationism for Evolution (in science classes)? NO!
Creationism is a Bible story. Evolution is a scientific fact (but not all scientists agree about every single precise detail, they do all agree with the big picture). The only place that creationism should be taught is in a religion class (along with other religions).
Removing evolution from the science curriculum will materially damage our education system. Evolution touches on and is supported by so many different disciplines, I think that it would damage our state’s ability to produce well educated citizens and attract companies and good jobs.
2) Will this impact the election?
Dear God, I hope so, but probably only a little bit.
I used to be a pretty religious person, but I’ve mellowed as I’ve gotten older. I know a few people that truly believe in creationism, but they don’t know anything about science. I hope that this makes people pay more attention to this election.
I was didn’t really have a positive opinion about Quinn. I didn’t know anything about Brady. But, now I am 100% going to vote for Quinn.
Comment by Bob in Aurora Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:26 pm
Absolutely not and for a Governor to say it is not a problem or not his business is the height of irresponsibility. Somehow, I think he would have a different position if the school board were going to include Satanism or Marxism as viable religions or political systems. His shorts would be in a massive knot. Its impact on the election will only be to solidify his base.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:28 pm
1) As others have said, it’s important to get the facts straight: Brady isn’t advocating the teaching of creationism in lieu of evolution. In fact, he isn’t even advocating teaching them side-by-side. He’s simply saying that the local community ought to have the right to decide that for themselves. I personally agree with that judgement. I also believe that same position should be held if we were talking about how a school district should handle teaching (or not teaching) about the role of homosexuality in society. More liberal communities will settle the substance of the debate differently than more conservative communities. Ultimately, people can vote with their feet and move their kids into districts into whatever schools are more in line with their values. Long-story-short: I think Brady is right on this and all of this debate this thread is having RE: the substance of evolution vs. creationism is the debate that the LOCAL school districts and parents ought to have for themselves–not dictated in a top-down approach from Springfield.
2) I don’t think this will impact the election at all. Barring any major personal scandal or October surprise, the issues are already baked in the cake: jobs, taxes & the budget.
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:41 pm
I think creationism/intelligent design is not a science and should not be taugnt, as such. Schools have become quite fearful of teaching anything that smacks of religion for fear of triggering the atheists/ACLU. Teaching it as part of a religious studies course, or as part of a study of cultures and how differences are worked out, is fine. Fundemental beliefs are learned at home anyway and should be.
I am not sure of the impact on the election. Brady plays to his base and they will find comfort in that. Independents may continue to focus of bread and butter issues and look over that which doesn’t directly affect their immediate concerns. Those on the left won’t vote for Brady anyway. Minimal effect on the election.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 2:42 pm
For all the folks that think allowing creationism to be taughtin school, I’d ask you to remember one thing. Creationism, as we understand it inthe US, is based on a particular theological perspective, i.e., Judeo-Christian. There’s an increasing number of kids in Illinois public schools that don’t come from this religious tradition. Allowing creationism to be taught in our public schools in essence favors one religioius perspective over others and that’s not constitutional.
Comment by Phil Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:01 pm
So Bill Brady believes in Creationism and local control. That is some great hard hitting reporting Sun Times. Next thing your going to tell me is that Pat Quinn names his briefcase. (By the way, if given the choice between a guy who believes in Creationism and a guy who names his briefcase, I’ll take the former.)
To answer the question, I could care less if some school district wants to teach the Old Testament, just as long as they leave the New Testament to me the church I choose to attend.
Comment by Jaded Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:03 pm
–To answer the question, I could care less if some school district wants to teach the Old Testament, just as long as they leave the New Testament to me the church I choose to attend.–
LOL, what in (insert possessive form of your higher power here) name does that mean? I’ve read it five times and I don’t have a clue.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:34 pm
Both Intelligent Design (Creationism) and Evolution (Darwinism) are THEORIES and not laws of science. Neither has any provable facts associated with them. Both are leaps of faith. Both are appropriate subjects for a science class, and both should be taught in class with the corresponding amount of skepticism. This is how I did it when I taught 7th Grade Science. The students and parents were very appreciative of the way I was handing it and I never got a complaint.
No maven, poobah, overseer, director or other such entity should dictate what is being taught in the classroom unless that entity is local and is responsible and reflects the mores of the community it serves. Those once-removed authorities (like the State or Feds) can predicate their funding on test scores, and since they can exert their influence on any standardized tests, but they should stay out of the local decision to the greatest degree possible.
Someone above noted that Brady has stumbled into the correct position. Whether he has stumbled or has thought this through thoroughly is unknown to me. But his is correct.
This will not be an issue in this campaign unless the chattering classes or Quinn can make it one. I think that the chattering classes have little or no effect on public opinion, especially this close to the election. Quinn has more serious problems to address in his own campaign. The airwaves are already getting saturated with ads, his budget is probably much less than he likes, and his bumbling appearance has to be addressed.
Quinn will lose this election, and it will not be because he did not try to exploit this issue.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:39 pm
Local school boards are comprised of local people elected by other local people in regular elections and get local tax dollars to fund local schools. Of course they should have jurisdiction over curriculum as well as budgets, hiring, etc. Of course, as a Republican Brady would support the principle of local oversight of their own schools. That said, this whole issue seems like a strawman run amok. In reality, how many school boards in all of Illinois are we talking about here where this science/creationism issue might conceivably ever be an issue? Any at all? And, if there were to be a rogue board out there about this issue or any other issue, do people commenting here really think that parents and voters would not set it right post haste? Just how many knuckle-draggers do you think there are residing here in Illinois? The lack of trust in the ability of people to manage their own local school affairs is stunning and kind of sad. I’m curious who should do the “allowing” and the “disallowing” of curriculum if not the local boards.
No, I do not think this will be an election issue except for a few voters who may not be able to see through the strawman.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:43 pm
Cinci, why am I not surprised you think ID is equivalent to evolution? Did you teach your students that the universe was created in 6 days too? Do you really believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:46 pm
The fact that Cincy taught seventh graders and believes that evolution is not supported by science scares the heck out of me.
What happened to standards for teachers? Are they just hiring anybody willing to sit in a classroom?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:51 pm
I also loved “Cuban Pilot’s” response: “If you are a parent who disagrees with the school board, the awesome part is you are still the most important thing in the child’s life, ou can educate the kid thru museums, documentaries, etc.”
Of course, if I ever get elected to a school board, I am going to seek to add “Nothing and nobody of value ever came from Cuba” to the program. Cuban pilot won’t mind if his kids learn they have no value. He can still be awesome! /snark/
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:56 pm
These are the kinds of questions reporters deliberately throw at politicians in order to make them appear deranged and extreme.
A look at these postings should delight the journalist intending Brady to appear as a whack-job.
The question isn’t about evolution. It isn’t about science. It isn’t about creationism, whatever that means - the question is as governor, will Brady allow school boards to determine what neighborhood children are taught? As governor, will Brady start demanding ID be taught alongside evolution?
The answers he gave are correct. Brady will respect the rights of school districts to determine curriculum. No, he will not force ID into schools, because of his earlier answer regarding respecting the rights of school districts to determine curriculum.
But if you think Brady is a whack-job who will force ID on Illinois schools, then you are also probably the last person who should talk about reason or science because the guy has made his answer clear here.
And you fell for a silly political question by a silly reporter, to boot.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 3:58 pm
Come on VMan.
If a school district proposed spending six weeks reading the collected works of Karl Marx, do you really think Bill Brady would nod and say “locals can do as they wish”?
You know the answer was not about local control. We all know it. Stop the games.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:03 pm
VM, I want a governor who will stand up for children if and when a local school board does something crazy like try to teach creationism insteat of evolution in science class. I want a governor to embrace science and reject faith-based myths masquerading as “science.” Our children deserve to be taught properly, not indoctrinated by zealots if we expect them to move our economy forward some day.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:03 pm
I hate to disapoint you VanMan but I was talking to God and even he thinks Brady is a whack job.
All kidding aside, for anyone to think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed or localized IS a whack job.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:07 pm
VMan-
Do you believe that there is anything regarding running local schools that should not be left solely to the discretion of local school boards?
Challenging Brady’s answer is far from falling for a silly political question. It’s a false dichotomy to present the issue as either thinking Brady is whack-job who will impose ID (I don’t) and thinking local school can teach whatever fanciful thing they want so long as they have enough votes (I don’t).
There’s a bit more complexity here.
Comment by Paul Richardson Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:09 pm
The real political issue, as I and others have noted, is local control of schools. Parents that want evolution and no creatonism can vote for that too, by their school board elections. And both ideas are theories, as Cincinnatus notes.
Further, the real issue in the scientific study for families is that their children will be forced to learn and give answers on tests that do not comport with their learning at home or in their religious faith. Young children shouldn’t have to struggle with such deep conflict. I am teaching Catholic Sunday school to middle schoolers. Every week one student or another has raised questions about what they’re learning about evolution in the public school v what they learn from the bible and Sunday school. I have given general answers to indicate, from a Catholic viewpoint, they are not necessarily incompatible.
Evolution doesn’t tell us how the first living creatures and plants arrived out of nothing.
Comment by Peggy Far South of I-80 Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:13 pm
Sorry wordslinger: In paragraph 2, line 2, insert the word “and” after the word “me” and before the word “the” (how is that for an LRB drafted amendment). In other words, I don’t care if they teach the Old Testament as long as they don’t teach the New Testament. My opinion (which is what I thought this was all about) and I really don’t have the time (nor do I feel the need) to go into why I feel that way on this thread.
Bottom line is that it was a loaded question asked and answered to produce gut reactions from people on both sides of the issue and it is really irrelevant to this election.
Comment by Jaded Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:16 pm
I’m glad you cleared that up Jaded.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:20 pm
Look fellas, I am a sciency kind of guy, with all the skepticism that goes with it. I spent way more time on Darwinism than Intelligent Design. But they are both THEORIES (go ‘head, look it up) without facts provable by scientific experimentation. I also told the kids about flat earthers, the geocentric universe and other theories that were debunked by science. The universe was not created in 6 days, that can be proven wrong. By science. Show me any “missing link” between any two species (not just man and ape). Show me any provable fact (let’s not even go to the extent of asking for truth, which is different than a fact) supporting either Darwinism or ID. They don’t exist. Both are theories trying to explain the observable universe.
So before you point fingers, and make fun of anyone, step close to a mirror and look at yourselves for the closed-minded, overly confident people you are. While your there, I can show you the equations for why the mirror reflects, and mirrors your image.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:22 pm
Illinois needs to get it’s priorities straight.
jobs, jobs, jobs, creation, jobs, jobs…
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:26 pm
Look, there are two completely different debates going on in this thread:
1) Whether creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools at all, and
2) Who should make the determination regarding question #1.
The question Brady was answering was question #2. It’s entirely process-based. His position is that it isn’t his right to dictate the answer to #1 and that it’s up to local folks to decide. Most prudent candidates–including Quinn I’d guess–would likely defer to the local school districts in matters pertaining to developing local school policies. Let local officials wrestle with these issues, and if a debate erupts regarding the constitutionality of it, take it to the courts. The bottom line from Brady seems to be that he isn’t running for School Board President, nor is he running for Supreme Court Justice.
Brady’s position is probably what Quinn’s is as well: governors ought to support very basic nuts & bolts educational standards (math, science, language proficiency), but then leave pretty much everything else up to the local communities to decide.
Unless of course I’m wrong and Quinn does advocate one-size-fits-all educational dictates from Springfield. In which case he’s the guy that’s out of step, not Brady…
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:28 pm
VMan, as usual, you’re trying to hide your fundamentalist bias. Why, if that’s what you believe?
You’re the the guy who’s said, on a number of occasions, that there are 10,000 years of human law on the subject of marriage.
Where did you find that “fact?”
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:33 pm
Pot Calling Kettle @12:57pm may have given the most succint explanation of Intelligent Design that I have ever seen. REAL science (which ID is not) attempts to answer questions by finding evidence to support or reject a hypothesis, settling on whatever is supported by a preponderance of evidence, like a decision in civil court, unless and until new evidence is found.
Peggy Far South of I-80 @1:19pm says, “Evolution is only a theory. It is not proven.” News flash: gravity is also only a theory — scientists at least since Newton have been trying to figure it out, for over 300 years, and have still not figured out how it works.
Back to Rich’s questions.
1) No, I disagree. As D.P. Gumby @2:28pm observed, Brady would probably give a different answer if the local control issue were about teaching a different economic or political theory.
2) I doubt it makes much difference. Advocates of creationism or ID are probably voting for Brady anyway, so I don’t see much upside. There is potential downside from scaring away moderates/independents who don’t like Quinn but won’t vote for a right-winger. However, even a 200 vote swing could be meaningful!
Comment by cover Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:34 pm
Cinci, I respect anyone who teaches and appreciate your approach to the subject. But c’mon, evolution theory seeks to find a natural explanation while ID theory seeks to find a supernatural explanation. Natural explanations can be observed, measured, etc. Supernatural explanations can not be observed, measured, etc.
There is a big difference and you know it. Or you should know it if you were teaching.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:34 pm
===governors ought to support very basic nuts & bolts educational standards (math, science, language proficiency===
Except, that does go right to the heart of this question.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:43 pm
===Both are theories trying to explain the observable universe.===
Take bears as an example. Why are Grizzly bears brown and Polar bears white, even though they share virtually the same DNA? Evolution says that natural selection made bears living in snow covered climates white to better blend in with its environment to survive. ID says the reason is because God wanted white bears and brown bears, so that’s what He created.
Which theory makes more sense to you? The natural explanation or the supernatural explanation?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:55 pm
No, Religious views of man’s beginning have nothing to do with science. Should we also represent the beginning of the world according to Greek mythology (and other living and dead religions) as ’science’? It’s also unconstitutional to force religious beliefs upon any population.
Any, impact? Minimal. The people who would be attracted to this idea would probably vote for Brady, anyway. Those who are offended by this proposition might get off their behinds and come out on election day, or not.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:55 pm
Jaded, there’s no way I’m going to work that hard to figure out what you’re trying to say.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:56 pm
OK 47th, I’ll bite. Both Grizzley’s and Polars live in the Arctic so why aren’t the grizzley’s white.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 4:58 pm
47th,
As a person who hasn’t stepped into a church in 40 years, I certainly cannot be called a religious zealot (I know you didn’t call me that, BTW), but from a scientific view, the odds of life on Earth are so infinitesimally small that I have struggle to understand how it occurred. That confusion spills into the ID/Evolution debate, at least in my mind. I don’t know if it is supernatural, or a matter of pure odds. I am open to learning the right answer, and discount neither theory. A truly liberal education considers both. That’s how I taught it.
And back to the topic, that decision is up to the parents. The farther away from the parents the decision on curriculum is made, the more likely that it is wrong. One-size-fits-all education turns students into automatons. State (and Federal) officials can influence the locals by the tests they fund to measure performance. If the question on the test talks about evolution as one theory of life, and asks for its explanation, that is a fair question. If the question marks evolution as somehow superior to ID, that’s probably a bad question showing bias. So there is a role of the state for influencing what is taught, but not dictating what must be taught. The locals should make the decision, but if the state is testing something (say evolution), the school district will find ways to teach both to their students, and make all parties happy.
Brady’s postion can be considered nuanced. However, I doubt it isn’t any more nuanced than saying he is for local control of school districts, as other posters have said.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 5:01 pm
If anyone’s interested, Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible, removing all the supernatural instances passed on in the oral traditions of the tribes of Israel in search of the ethics promulgated by the Semites and Jesus of Nazareth.
The result, according to Jefferson:
“There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”
Give it a read, give it a think. Or you can wallow around in Leviticus and search for reasons to hate your fellow man.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 5:02 pm
In related news, the Republican hopeful said under a Brady administration, the dinosaurs Adam and Eve rode around on 5,000 years ago would be officially designated “Jesus horses.”
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 5:33 pm
Cincinnatus is right but he doesn’t go far enough
Of course we should demand that evolutionary science show a “missing link” between two species.
But we must also demand that physical science show a “missing link” between ‘water’ and ‘ice’!
We must demand that thermodynamics show a “missing link” between ‘kindling’ and ‘fire’!
We must demand that geometry show a “missing link” between ’straight’ lines and ‘crooked’ lines!
We must demand that meteorology show a “missing link” between ’sleet’ and ’snow’!
We must demand that mathematics show a “missing link” between ‘one’ and ‘negative one’! (And don’t try and tell me ‘zero,’ cause that answer means nothing!)
If you’re so smart, Science, where are these missing links?!?!
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 5:58 pm
Where did the big bang start from? Who put the first particles there to bang?
There was a story A scientist said to GOD anyone can creat life I could do it right now! And God said please show me. And the scientist said first you need a little dirt. And God said, Oh no you don’t; you make your own dirt.
Comment by Conservative Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 6:07 pm
Its ok to teach Creationism as a theory as well as evolution. Both should be taught not one or the other. The teacher or school board needs to put its faith aside and teach both.
Will this matter in the election? Well, I find it distracting to Illinois’ very real economic problems.
Comment by waitress practicing politics... Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 6:35 pm
Thanks Cinci,
Believe it or not, I believe God created everything from the big bang on. But I am not a fundamentalist nor a Biblical literalist about how that happened. That’s my faith and it’s not something I need proven to me.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. But in public schools, we need to leave faith out of it and teach science. And if locals try to insert a faith-based approach to public schools, I want a Governor who will put a stop to it.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 7:09 pm
Evolution is a theory based on hypothesis that can be tested and repeated with similar results by other people. As the recent PBS show on what Darwin did not know showed, advances in DNA analysis and comparisons of embryonic development are providing amazing supportive data for the basic tenets of evolution while demonstrating the strength of science by re-adjusting itself regularly as more processes are understood and the resulting outcomes can be duplicated. Creationism simply does not have the same mass of data. Teach it as philosophy but include all the other theories including Aztecs and Buddist approaches.
Will it hurt Brady? He would do well to stay out of this area entirely. As some writers have said, supporting ID puts you in a pretty far right category that can be a real turn off.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 7:36 pm
Evolution is not a “theory”, like “I gotta hunch”. Relativity is also a theory, but no one is trying to prevent it from being taught. There are differing applications of the word “theory” used in science, and when folks claim that evolution is a “theory”, they are using the wrong definition.
Obviously evolution exist. We have emperical observations confirming it. It is based on science, and as far as I know, we still want to teach science in school based on what we currently know about science. That is the way it has always been. 150 years ago science taught phrenology. We used to have a tree of the races taught in science. We’ve moved on when we learned more.
But the fact that evolution exists does not mean that God does not exist. Those panicked over confusing young minds into believing that since evolution exists, simply don’t understand the fact that evolution confirms the existance of God. Godless societies do not survive.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 9:08 pm
–Godless societies do not survive.–
That’s true. China is the longest continuous civilization on Earth, and they have loads of gods.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 10:27 pm
*SIGH*
Anyone saying that both evolution and creationism (or i.d.) are just “theories” is scientifically illiterate.
Evolution is well established science.
Creationism is a well established Bible story.
Saying that they’re equivalent is like saying a fish needs a bicycle.
Comment by Bob in Aurora Wednesday, Oct 6, 10 @ 11:09 pm