|« Join Us for Remy Bumppo and Chicago Public Media's Journalism Panel: "Is the Truth Front Page News?"||A Steel Tree: Return to Pittsburgh »|
IL-GOV Wed Oct 06 2010
I have one question that I believe should be used to disqualify people from running for executive office. It is, "Do you accept the theory of evolution?" Anybody who says no should be disqualified. No, it's not a religious test that would violate the Article VI prohibition. It's a moron test. We could also ask, "Are you a moron?" but then we'd be less likely to get an honest response. This way we could actually root out the morons.
This has nothing to do with conservative/liberal, Democrat/Republican. Evolution is a fact--in fact, it's more than a fact. It is a theory built upon literally millions of facts. Believe whatever other thing you want, but denying that evolution took place--maybe not exactly how science now conceives, but that it took place in some way--is absolutely no different than denying gravity. Newtonian physics got the mechanics of gravity wrong, but that didn't make gravity itself wrong. If you think "the jury is out" on evolution, you're not particularly bright, willfully ignorant, or poorly educated (which may not be your fault, but still--probably shouldn't be elected to executive office).
Bill Brady thinks it's okay to teach Creationism in schools. By doing so, he betrays his claim that he accepts "both" creationism and evolution. Accepting both as equivalent to be taught is like saying you accept "both" the theory of electromagnetism and fish are delicious. I don't care about any of the rest of his politics. How can you vote for a person like that? Creationism in schools? Really? We want the US to create well-educated kids prepared to tackle the most significant problems of the future--not to mention stay on the cutting edge of science--and we're going to allow school districts to teach Creationism? How stupid is this guy?
I want you to take a moment to think about the implications of a grown man running for an office at the top of one of the largest states in the most powerful nation on Earth saying that schools should be allowed to teach bronze age mythology as a substitute for a body of science so well proven that hypotheses made 150 years ago are borne out today by branches of science that didn't even exist at that time. He is either so stone dumb that he believes there is some equivalence here not based on superstition, or so pandering that he'd be willing to let generations of kids in this state be misinformed so he could win an election.
Really think about that Republicans. Particularly you, well-educated Republicans in suburban Chicagoland.
This man believes our public schools should be allowed to downplay a body of science accepted across the world and taught in most places as the unifying science behind all branches of biology and now even much of anthropology and psychology, and instead teach them stories specific to one narrow interpretation of one specific religious faith.
Is he stupid? Or a panderer? Those are the only options. He can couch it in "local control" of curricula all he wants. But you know if some LSC or school district decided to teach the KKK's view of the Civil War or, oh I don't know, a Marxist interpretation of American history, your support of local control would dissipate pretty quick. Have some intellectual honesty. How can you vote for somebody who would do something so unbelievably stupid--or reckless, as say school districts can just as well teach creationism as evolution?
UPDATE: I understand exactly what Brady said--that he wouldn't "stop" school districts from teaching creationism. Taking that position is, practically speaking, no different. If you accept the theory of evolution, then you would absolutely find it impossible to allow school districts to "teach" creationism in schools. The fact that Brady equivocated doesn't ameliorate what he is saying one bit. There's no gray area here, even ignoring the growing body of legal decisions (i.e., see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) that have held that such "education" is a facial violation of the establishment clause. From a science education perspective, saying school boards should be permitted to teach creationism is inconceivable.