Posted by Randy Barnett:
Defining Creationism Down:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_22-2009_02_28.shtml#1235426099
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 nominated who is good on all 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 PLEASE do NOT put this to the test
by running this electoral experiment; so.
10. 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. Find another candidate.
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
