pageok
pageok
pageok
Defining "Creationism" Down:
I have received 3 polite emails to the effect that there is a reasonable "creationism" that a Republican candidate like Bobby Jindal could hold. Here are some excerpts:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are Jindal's thoughts on creationism really so dangerous and scary? As a devout Catholic, who presumably adheres to Church teachings on creation, he probably believes in Darwinian evolution (as the Church often is at pains to point out) but regards the process as one planned and put into motion by the divine author. 'Creationism' might be the worst label ever, as it lumps together the earth-is-2000-years-old crowd with those, like Jindal, who acknowledge the scientific evidence of evolution but feel that it's merely a component of something larger (eg God). Jindal would be wise to point out, early and vigorously, where his differences lie.
And this:
Sadly your point implies that no religious republican will be acceptable as the definition of creationist seems to be expanding to include viewpoints that accept the idea that evolution was guided by God's hand. And that means no republican as I don't see a secularist surviving the primary. Years ago, the Catholic Church made its peace with evolution as the process by which God created the world. Now that is considered part of creationist as part of the intelligent design movement. Similarly with Orthodoxy which has said the how isn't a method of faith just the why and who. The belief that creation of the world was purposeful and God directed is a part of most Christian faiths, even the liberal ones, as well as most non-Christian ones.

Of course, a religious Christian would probably oppose a lot of the left's agenda so it all works out.
Now let me be VERY clear about this:

  1. If this is all that is meant by "creationism" there would be no electoral issue; but
  2. There is absolutely no reason why THIS position would be taught in schools at all, much less in science classs; so
  3. To the extent these 3 Republican governors ARE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD favoring teaching creationism or "intelligent design" in public schools as a "perspective," they are endorsing a position that goes way beyond what these writers are describing; nevertheless
  4. I believe in giving these politicians the benefit of the doubt on these issues--I am certainly not gunning for them, I am sincerely disappointed to hear that this may be their views, and I hope this is a mischaracterization of their views; however
  5. Obfuscation will not get this done--they will not receive the benefit of the doubt as presidential candidates; and
  6. Wishing will not make make the coalition that is the Republican Party hold together, much less get the party past 50% of the electorate; but
  7. I am not expressing my own preferences--if such a candidate happens to be nominated who is good on enough of the issues I care about and has executive experience and skills *I* may well be hoping he or she wins; but I am nevertheless confident that
  8. A Republican candidate who is an avowed adherent to creationism will not be elected President of the United States; of course
  9. I could be wrong about this; but
  10. PLEASE do NOT put this to the test by running this electoral experiment; so
  11. If your favorite candidate is on record favoring creationism as science to be taught in government schools, he or she has sunk already himself on the national political scene whether you like it or not. Better find another candidate.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Defining "Creationism" Down:
  2. This is Not Good: