During last night's Delaware senatorial debate, Christine O'Donnell was asked a perfectly straight-forward question: Do you believe that evolution is a myth? The question was asked because she had previously stated exactly that.
Rather than simply answering the question, O'Donnell opted to demonstrate that she is every bit as ignorant of established law in the United States as she is of biology. She said that her opinion is unimportant because local school districts should decide what is taught to their students.
In fact, however, local school districts do not have the right to violate the US Constitution. And when it comes to creationism, there have been numerous cases that have demonstrated that creationism -- in all of its guises from "creation science" to intelligent design -- runs counter to the establishment clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.
Nonetheless, O'Donnell was firm in her conviction that local school boards should teach whatever they want to teach. She said that not permitting creationism to be taught alongside evolution as its equal is unconstitutional.
What she apparently doesn't know is that was exactly the point at issue in many cases that have been decisively concluded. For instance, in 1982 the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education case came about because the State of Arkansas enacted legislation mandating exactly what O'Donnell advocated this evening: if evolution were to be taught, "creation science" had to be taught as an equal.
The law was ruled unconstitutional by Federal District Judge William Overton, a conservative jurist from Arkansas. His decision was as clear as any could be. Consider just two paragraphs from his decision:
The conclusion that creation science has no scientific merit or educational value as science has legal significance in light of the Court's previous conclusion that creation science has, as one major effect, the advancement of religion.
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Louisiana passed a very similar law to the unconstitutional one adopted in Arkansas. The US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 came to the same conclusion and ruled that it was illegal to teach creationism in public school science classrooms and laboratories.
More recently, intelligent design, yet another form of creationism, was also ruled unconstitutional on first amendment grounds. Another conservative jurist, John E. Jones, III, issued a ruling that had devastating consequences for creationists who were attempting to force teachers in Dover, Pa., to teach intelligent design (ID). Again, consider just two paragraphs from his 2005 decision.
We find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.Nothing here is breaking news. Court after court has determined that creationism advances one particular religious belief and thus it cannot be taught in public schools. It's difficult to imagine that O'Donnell could be completely unaware of the precedents that have conclusively settled this issue. But it is even more disconcerting to imagine that O'Donnell would purposefully ignore the law in an attempt to pander to her base.
As The Clergy Letter Project demonstrates, creationism is opposed by thousands upon thousands of religious leaders. In fact, creationism is bad religion and even worse science. And, as I've shown, what O'Donnell advocated in tonight's debate is also illegal.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate - Fighting For The First State
'SNL' Does The Best Parody Of Christine O'Donnell's 'Not A Witch ...
Christine O'Donnell Opposes Masturbation in MTV Documentary - ABC News
The Old Adventures of New Christine - Think Progress » Home Page
GOP's Delaware Senate Nominee Christine O'Donnell Not a Big Fan of ...
Bill Maher pointed out quite recently that America has become "a nation of idiots". He is right to a point where this country is most likely ungovernable. Democracy requires an informed electorate, and that condition certainly does not prevail, as evidenced by last week's election results.
Moreover, the general political and functional illiteracy of the American public bodes very poorly for our nation's future as a "going concern". For the functional illiterates who would scream "WE ARE A REPUBLIC!" (as though there was a difference); much less that the name of the "R" party was the type of government the US has -- NEWS FLASH: "democracy" and "republic" mean exactly the same thing.
Trying to initiate or maintain a rational discourse with such rabble is very much equivalent to carrying on a debate with a rock. This is an exercise in my favorite fallacy: "Trying to apply a rational standard to an irrational object."
All of this is the intellectual equivalent to trying to get a pig to fly. "It is a fruitless exercise and it frustrates the pig."
For someone with your credentials, you'd think you could do a much better job of making a case. It sounds like you're running scared. This sort of reactionary, cliche'd, pulling of the fire alarm is not the least bit convincing.
And its not arrogant to say that creationism is not as valid as evolution as a scientific theory- thats just fact. Evolution is not religious, and does not claim to say or understand anything about god. Similarly, creationism or intelligent design are not science, and should not pretend to be so.
Christine O'Donnell educates us about the Constitution through music and dance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDUCra9rUxQ
This idea that there is no separation of church and state, as in religion can still interfere with government is all too popular in the Tea Party, the Tea Party Caucus and it pops up in the new GOP platform thanks to Mike "evolution is a myth" Pence.
I think Mark Twain would want his name back too.
With respect (because I enjoyed your article), no, it isn't difficult at all to imagine Christine O'Donnell has no idea what she is talking about and is completely ignorant of even the most rudimentary background information on topics she chooses to address.
What's difficult to believe is that, after listening to her spew ignorance, jingoism and ha.te, anybody would listen to her further or, heaven for-fend, go so far as to vote for her.
Evolution from molecules to man IS a myth - no space to argue it here though.
And secular humanism is the official religion taught in our schools, in defiance of the separation of church and state. So all the little kiddies who have been faithfully indoctrinted in the ooze of liberal humanism are now bullying each other, killing each other, impregnating each other, doing illicit drugs, just like humanism teaches them to do and Christianity would have taught them not to do. Going great isn't it? So much better than those Beaver Cleaver days. Hooray for Nietzche! Hooray for Marx! Hoorray for Satan!
It takes at least to the college level for courses to improve in most places.
Then she would be speaking of what should be, not what is.
However, it's clear to me if that is what she is thinking, she is wrong.
Did you actiually watch the debate? The only thing i found surprising is that Descarte may actually have been wrong. It is apparently possible "to be" completely without thinking.