There are many reasons to dislike Sarah Palin but, for me, one in particular stands out. She is a creationist, which makes her thicker than the primordial soup from which all life developed and, therefore, about as suitable a candidate for the office of Vice President as, say, Harpo Marx. Harpo, of course, never spoke and only communicated through whistling or blowing a horn, so that’s a pretty good analogy for a candidate who has not actually been allowed to speak directly with the press about any matters of import. Not until she’s learnt her script, anyway. A month and still no press conference? What are they afraid of?
Anyway… Depressingly, creationism has been something of a hot topic here in the UK of late too, with debate about its suitability for inclusion in science classes. This is an open and shut case, of course. Nothing that lacks any basis in scientific fact and demonstrates none of the discipline of rigorous scientific enquiry should be allowed anywhere near the subject. It is as preposterous as teaching Klingon alongside real languages or flat earth theory in a geography class. Creationist theory already has its correct place on the UK syllabus – in the Religious Education classes. And there it will – and must – stay. To even entertain the notion of it being taught as science alongside evolution is an insult to academia.
I’ve written about this subject several times before and at greater length than here but the argument has to be maintained every time this silly proposition rears its ugly head. The universe in which we live is a remarkable and fascinating place and we should teach our children what we know about it, not fill their heads will infantile explanations about an ethereal being creating it in six days. Nor should we fall for creationism’s more sophisticated relative “intelligent design”.