Exhibit A for Sarah Palin’s fundamentalist, pro-life cred is her decision not to terminate the pregnancy when she learned that her child would have Down’s syndrome. But, it’s hard to square using pre-natal genetic testing to determine that your baby will have Down’s syndrome and an openness to teaching creationism.
The anti-modernists use of modern science and technology is particularly galling.
Please share widely!
you know, I’m going to suggest that you go all the way through the silly huffpo article to get to the Globe, which said:
<
p>
<
p>so then if you go all the way to the Anchorage daily news, which i might opine you should have frickin quoted and linked in the first place if you wanted any credibility rather than linked that liberal propagandist huffpo, but goddamn it the site seems to be frickin DOWN right now (dammit!) but nonetheless even though you are in a liberal oasis you should really realize that quoting huffpo or media matters or some other mouthpiece of the left is about as credible as me saying something like “Rush Limbaugh said XYZ and oh by gosh I’m so indignant about it and aren’t you too?”
<
p>comon now. seriously.
<
p>Full disclosure: I believe that the tendency among certain segments of the right to attempt to eject teaching of evolution in favor of creationism as science curriculum in schools is shameful and indefensible.
<
p>
‘Cause it seems like you’re making mine.
<
p>I described her as open to teaching creationism, which is pretty much what she says in the quotation you provide. Sorry, but creationism has no place in our science curriculum, even when it’s suggested that it be offered as part of a “healthy debate.”
that it should not be taught “as science”.
<
p>But teaching both sides of any issue as part of a healthy debate does not really say that, I think.
<
p>For that matter, teaching things in a science curriculum that are e.g. history of science matters (or current events in science) could work as well. Did we learn of the Earth is flat vs round debate in science, or history? I dont remember actually.
<
p>You make her sound like a creationist (as does the huffpo) when the secondary source says anything but.
Courses teaching current social issues at the high school level would benefit from including this question within the larger frame of religion’s place within a liberal democracy. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
<
p>The specific question posed in the 2006 debate is thusly described:
<
p>
<
p>Not as good as a transcript, but this Anchorage Daily News summary is the best I’ve found. This phrasing clearly communicates the idea of “alternatives to evolution” meaning “other explanations”, rather “current social issues”. Telling is the answer of Democratic candidate Tony Knowles:
<
p>
<
p>Knowles clearly takes this question as asking about the teaching of creationism as a valid theory. Palin’s answer followed his, and unless she is answering a different question than the one asked, and the one answered by Knowles, she is clearly advocating creationism in science class.
Where she said “in science class” – even the question said “in public schools”
<
p>Maybe I missed it
<
p>
creationism in any public school accept as part of a course on comparative religions or creation myths among peoples.
<
p>She’s a fundie Christian who wants her religion crammed down children’s throats and specifically wants her creation myth taught as science.
I know you’re being willful here, but I’ll answer anyway. If you’re being asked to teach about an “alternative”, you do it next to the other choices. I’m not going to teach about the standard explanation of the origin of World War II (Hitler started it) in history class, then teach the alternative theory (provoked by Versailles and maltreatment of Germany) in math. The only place to teach an alternative to evolution is next to evolution, i.e., science class. The questioner knew what he was asking, the other candidate did, too. You’re being rather condescending to Palin by implying she can’t understand a simple question, here.
and it’s not an alternative to evolution, it’s compatible with evolution. It should be taught as a philosophy in addition to the Big Bang Theory as a theory about the origins of the universe. Evolution shouldn’t be taught as being contradictory or in conflict with creationism.
…the “round earth” theory? Should all “theories” without a bit of evidence to back it up be taught in schools becasue the popular will believes it should be?
Worth debating. Unless there is incontrovertible quantifiable empirical evidence, ie the “hard sciences”, then perhaps we shouldn’t be teaching the theory of anything else.
Given that the Huffington Post is not known for putting out lies and generally wants to get at the truth of things, I don’t see any harm in quoting it here. If I were writing a post on RMG, which I am not, then quoting the Huffington Post wouldn’t make any sense because the inmates would discount any evidence that appeared on it. That says more about the audience there than about the quality of HuffPo.
<
p>If Demolisher wishes to provide evidence — rather than assertions — as to why we ought to believe otherwise, I’m open to that. Media Matters in particular is extremely well documented.
I am still stunned by the ignorance on display here. As a disabilities advocate, I thought I had heard it all…until I saw this BS tonight. Whether you believe in creationism or not, genetic testing is a vital tool in preparing for a child with developmental disabilities. Children with Downs very often have heart defects. They may also have poor muscle tone and a protruding tongue, which can create problems with feeding. Digestive problems aren’t uncommon, and neither are malformations of the spinal column. It’s just appalling and grossly inappropriate that anyone would take a shot at this woman in this manner. There’s plenty else to take her to task for…just leave this crap at the door. It has no place in this debate, particularly by people who at least pretend to be progressive.
Genetic testing is critical. My two children were considered high-risk pregnancies (because my wife was in her mid-thirties) and we got genetic testing. And, my wife was recently screened for the BRCA1 genetic mutation. So, please don’t preach to me about the importance of genetic testing.
<
p>My point is the hypocrisy or ignorance of those like Sarah Palin who take advantage of science and then try to undermine it with nonsense like the need to introduce creationism in the science curriculum.
<
p>Anybody who promotes creationism, even as an alternative, should be forced to live a pre-modern life, without the benefit of any 20th or 21st Century science or medical discoveries.
<
p>Think about all the work done by all the medical doctors and other scientists to get to the point where we understand the developmental disabilities that you describe above. Now, imagine if all those people who have contributed to our understanding of Down’s syndrome were taught creationism in public school.
<
p>As a disabilities advocate, how’s that alternative?
<
p>Then, ask yourself if a person running for Vice President of the US should be held accountable for that kind of hypocrisy.
You’re really not suggesting this, are you?
<
p>
<
p>That’s mighty progessive of you. Evidently, tolerance AND medical advances are only reserved for people with whom you agree. And this isn’t backward, stone-age kind of thinking?
<
p>I’m not a big fan of teaching creationism in public schools, but as a disabilities advocate, I think it is disgusting that you would suggest that people not be able to avail themselves of medical advances that can support their developmentally disabled children unless they adhere to your views.
<
p>And this quote was what my dear sweet grandmother would call “too clever by half.”
<
p>
Actually, Down’s Syndrome was first identified in the mid-1800’s, and I would bet dimes to donuts that these doctors were in fact, taught creationism in high school. Downs was identified as a chromosmal defect in 1959…when many students were still being taught creationism. Your argument also assumes no opportunity to learn evolution outside of high school – not in the home or in college.
<
p>As for the hypocrisy of it all…your little piece informs me that intolerance is not just a Republican quality. What was it that the pot called the kettle?
Of those who promote ignorance.
<
p>I’m not an expert on Down syndrome (as evident by the glaring mistake that you note) nor on disabilities, but I’d be willing to see your dimes and donuts and raise you that social acceptance of the disabled tracks pretty well with growing awareness of the biological and medical issues related to disabilities. There’s this quote from the Wikipedia article on Down syndrome:
Please note that it was geneticists, not creationists, that led a movement to de-stigmatize the condition.
<
p>And, yes, I overstated when I said that anybody who promotes creationism should be forced to live with pre-modern medicines. But, please, please, please, recognize the vicious irony that you identify. Ms. Palin and other creationism supporters and apologists will slow the medical advances that developmentally disabled children and their families rely on. Ms. Palin is not just any mother with a Down syndrome child, but has been an elected public official and is now a major political party’s vice-presidential candidate. Her hostility to science can have a profound affect on all sorts of medical issues, including those that matter most to disabilities advocates like yourself.
by believing that God is responsible for the creation of our universe, you believe I am putting a hindrance on stuff like genetic research?
<
p>Wow.
<
p>I wonder what Gregor Mendel would say.
But I can say that the agenda of Young Earth Creationist types (ie not Catholics) do impeade scientific education and scientific advancements in the United States.
<
p>I agree with Sean that the Bush administration and the evangelical base that put him in office has been very hostile to science, as has been discused extensively on this blog, and that hostility needs to end.
<
p>I do think that whatever Sean Roche’s point was in posting this thread is poorly articulated and I don’t get the conflict between pre-natal testing and supporting creationsim in public education. I think there’s plenty of meat to criticize creationism and its proponents without connecting it to the Governor’s pregnancy. I also think that better arguments can be articulated against the anti-science agenda of the evangelical right.
<
p>If there is a connection between anti-science and Palin’s pregnancy, a really strong, clear fact-based case should be made and it should not be up to the reader to make the connection between the two disparate hyperlinks. The author shouldn’t assume the readers know what the author is talking about and should spell out exactly what he wants readers to see. Pretend that the audience is uninformed and lazy.
is the apex of the laziness when it comes to religious intellectuality.
<
p>However, before this attack is made, I would like to see some shred of evidence that this is in fact what she wanted taught in pubic schools, and in what classroom.
However, I am a supporter of a comprehensive sex education course, so sure, pubic too!
I have no direct knoweldge of her position. All I have is the quote from the article that is blockquoted in demolisher’s comment.
And I think this is what’s wrong with this party. We tend to embrace the cultural difference of everybody in the world – except our own people. And it’s the searing arrogance and presumptuousness to assume that we’re right all the time…and that everyone that disagrees with us is wrong is something that the folks in the hinterland hone right in on. You wonder why in this year of the Democrats that we’re not kicking ass? This is part of it.
<
p>Now Sean…again – too clever by half:
<
p>
<
p>Who says? Does being a geneticist exclude one from from believing in creation – in 1961? I would bet these same geneticists were taught creationism in high school, if we estimate that they graduated from high school somewhere between 1925-1955. Is there any reason why they couldn’t be both? As JoeTS rightly points out, Abbot Mendel, the father of genetics, was an ordained priest. Do you think he didn’t believe in creationism?
<
p>And again, Sean, – the overstating of the case:
<
p>
<
p>Does advocating teaching both creationism and evolution make one “hostile to science?” How about this – is it just medical science that Palin and her “ilk” would be hostile to or all science? How about rocket science? Are they hostile to that too? Hmmmmm. What about nuclear physics?
<
p>You know, Sean – there is plenty of stuff to go after this woman for…but this isn’t it. To tie her support for both creationism and evolution to being “hostile to science” is a huge stretch, and to suggest that people like her should not have the medical advantages that science hath wrought is just not becoming of a progressive.
Darwin: It may appear that living things are designed but that design is just an illusion.
<
p>Intelligent design: The design is real, and here’s the evidence.
<
p>Who’s right? 1) Let’s debate it. Or, 2) Darwin’s right, let’s ignore intelligent design.
<
p>Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
<
p>Behe in a his book (the title of which I haven’t taken time to find but a search of his name will turn it up): Behe asks what kind of organism is Darwin describing, and he says it would have to be a system composed of a bunch of perfectly matched parts that perform a function. Remove any single part and the system doesn’t work. A high bar indeed to cross.
<
p>Now, keep in mind of course, that Evolution is a theory which in continually being supported, and possibly not supported. If you can’t admit that you’re no better intellectually than someone with a devout believe in Intelligent Design.
<
p>So in Behe’s book he describes some of these functions, in effect raising them up for scientific debate. One, I recall –and there were several– was the human blood-clotting where interactive enzymes cause clotting, and the absence of a single enzymes resulted in death or disease. The design he says is best explained by intelligent design and not evolution.
<
p>Critics disagreed. In particular a guy from my alma mater said no, that’s not right, Behe’s misunderstanding the data. It’s my understanding that to this day, scientists are debating the particular system.
<
p>Now you can claim that scientific design is not tested; it’s based on faith and it’s not a theory, but based on my single example, you’re wrong. There are real scientists who currently disagree. Behe appears to have put forth a theory, and a method to test that theory, and there appears to be active research both in support and in opposition.
<
p>All that stuff I just wrote. You don’t want that stuff in a classroom?
<
p>Keep your panties out of a bunch, I didn’t even mention a Creator.
<
p>But if you think we ought to leave Intelligent Design out of the science classroom, you are a religious zealot, BELIEVING in evolution and ignorant of anything to the contrary.
That comment should be framed and handed out at scientific conferences as an example of “what we’re up against”. Spend a few days reading Pharyngula and educate yourself.
Pharyngula is a terrific site, and certainly anyone who is concerned about the anti-evolution/anti-science agenda of the uber religious right should spend some time over there.
by the scientific community at learge and essentially disowned by his own university. That you invoke Behe to make your argument actually deconstructs it, but I’m sure that doesn’t really matter to you.
<
p>Intelligent design is creationism and tip-toeing around diction doesn’t change that. Already been established. Already been discredited.
<
p>I do admire your tenacity in trying to insinuate your own quasi-scientific creation myth in the science classroom, however.
Of course he’s been discredited.
<
p>So has the ‘man filmed the moon landing from a studio’; there were more than one shooter in Dallas; the genocide never happened by the Nazis.
<
p>So teach the damn stuff. It’s school, not your church.
<
p>Show, in science class, the students how the varience in shadows in the moon can be caused by topography, and not studio lights.
<
p>Show first hand accounts, in History class, the anti semite arguments, and prove them wrong.
<
p>And bring up Intelligent Design, in science class, and show that evolution theory has been show valid time and time again.
<
p>Is there another side to the Climate change argument?
<
p>Or, you can preach your dogma.
“bring up Intelligent Design, in science class,”
<
p>Why? It’s not science…just because a couple PH.D’s claim that it is science doesn’t make it so. Work with enough Ph.Ds, and your level of admiration for the degree rather ebbs. Creationism/intelligent design is a set of beliefs unsupported by replicable experimentation, historical evidentiary record, coherent set of principles, or working models does not make it science. It’s no more science that the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
<
p>If some people come up with “pixie math” as an “alternative” to trigonometry, and convince others to agree, that doesn’t mean it should be taught at math. If pixie math gains the allegiance of many people, it could be taught in social science, I suppose.
…for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
<
p>Scientists unravel galactic spaghetti monster
Got it. There’s precisely one government-sanctioned of the origin of the species.
<
p>So you (you being the NEA, et al) create a conflict which serves with simply no benefit to anyone.
<
p>Does it really matter to you, to the GDP, to the health and well-being of any single human being you can think of, if your neighbor thinks intelligent design is a bona fide theory; while another neighbor thinks it’s bigfoot and others as creeping Fundamentalism?
<
p>Sure there’s social issues that matter: racial equality, tolerance of your neighbor, but Darwin? Give me a break, or else explain why it’s important.
<
p>Let it in the school. Debate it, reject it. What the hell? What if the parent wanted ID taught? They’re too stupid to know what’s best for their own kids I suppose.
<
p>A VP candidate says, let’s allow intelligence design debate into the school. You’d think she’s tried to legalize crack.
<
p>No, you’d think she was just another fundamentalist Christian trying to sneak her religious beliefs into the science classroom wearing a brand spankin’ new sciency-sounding name in order to sabotage the heathen concepts of real scientists.
But your attempts at laconic sarcasm don’t change the fact that you avoided every word I said and didn’t do anything to lessen my point.
<
p>As for the sentence when you wandered dangerously near a point, it does matter for our nation’s GDP whether future scientists can distinguish science from religion. Yes. And if you’re convinced parents are never too stupid to know what’s best for their kids, I’d advise you to avoid anything in the newspaper save for Cathy in the comics section.
<
p>Point? You’ve made no point. You’ve drawn a line in the sand, explaining that ID is not science, why it’s incorrect, yet failed to explain why it’s importance is more than that of a peppercorn.
<
p>Parents too stupid to know better?
<
p>I’m sure, but seriously, are you to judge, particularly over an issue so mundane? So mundane that in your response you can’t even attempt an answer to justify what effect its teaching, or lack thereof matters to anyone, other than you.
<
p>And if you’re worried about its effect on future scientist, then you should welcome it. Teach why it wrong. Teach the scientific method and welcome debate rather than the NEA knee-jerk of ban it; it’s wrong!
If you are saying she definitely should have terminated her pregnancy on learning of the Down’s I couldn’t disagree more. She chose life even with the knowledge of what was to come and she should be commended for that. I am pro-choice, which means to me respecting either a decision to terminate OR not to terminate.
<
p>Creationism, on the other hand should be taught in schools just as soon as we get through teaching that the Earth might be flat after all:) There is no place for this except in a Literature class and preferably in conjunction with origin myths of other religions and cultures. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that even “balanced treatment” of the two ideas (creation being a myth in the best sense and evolution being truly a theory in the scientific sense) was unconstitutional. No, intelligent design doesn’t work either. There is no evidence for this hypothesis and it’s just a way to backdoor Genesis into where it doesn’t belong in the hopes the rest of us, including the courts, are too stupid to notice.
<
p>I can’t really see how raising a child with Down’s and promoting creationism have anything to do with each other.
But, I confess that I haven’t been that clear.
<
p>First, start with why someone who is avowedly pro-life would get genetic testing. Anyone who gets genetic testing wants information, else what’s the point. Someone who has previously made up her mind not to terminate a pregnancy, it seems safe to assume, gets genetic testing to learn what she possibly faces. A women in her mid-forties is looking, most of all, to learn if the child will have Down syndrome. As a woman approaches 45, the risks of a Down syndrome baby are over 3% — not trivial.
<
p>If you know for sure that you’re not going to terminate, learning that you’re child will have Down syndrome allows you to prepare. Why is that important? It turns out that medical science has made great strides in improving the lives of children with Down syndrome. So, being prepared can have a very positive outcome for the baby.
<
p>It’s science that allowed the Palins to learn that the baby would have Down syndrome. And, it’s progress in medicine and science that means that child’s life will be much healthier and happier than it would have been if the child had been born years ago.
<
p>So, maybe my irony-meter is calibrated a little more sensitively than others, but if I were the parent of a child with Down syndrome I might be a little more supportive of hard science given that technology and medical advances were clearly going to make that child’s future — and mine as his parents — a lot brighter.
<
p>Trig may be God’s gift to the Palins, but his brighter future is a gift of science.
<
p>Now, here’s one for the folks who are disability advocates and tolerant of those who support teaching alternative theories in science classrooms: would you support the teaching of eugenics as an alternative theory?
She took advantage of modern science to learn about her baby, so she should be more predisposed to trusting scientific evidence. That does make sense; thank you for clarifying.