Friday, July 14, 2006

South Dakota republicans don't even bother hiding it

The South Dakota Republicans have been hard at work drafting up their 2006 Resolutions.

The first 15 are rather typical of the Republican, involving the standard ass kissing of superiors, support of their own candidates (didn't see that coming...), gloating over holding all constitutional offices except one, ass kissing of the voters, restating positions loaded with logical fallacies, ignoring the seperation of church and state, homophobic tendencies, and the like, #16 stands out:
Resolution 16:

WHEREAS, education on species origin is a vital aspect in the understanding of nature and the purpose of human life; and,

WHEREAS, evolution is a theory that is taught in public schools as fact and at the exclusion of all other theories; and

WHEREAS, the South Dakota Republican Party believes there are other plausible theories, including creationism;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the South Dakota Republican Party supports efforts to expand beyond evolution the knowledge, scope, and debate in public education on the theories of species origin.
This statement is loaded with the typical intentional misuses of terminology, inappropriate blending of science and theology, and misunderstandings of how the educational system works. Let's examine it a bit closer:
education on species origin is a vital aspect in the understanding of nature and the purpose of human life
The resolution immediately begins by conveniently ignoring the fact that the origins discussions in classrooms are scientific in nature. They have to leave out of course, since bothering to recall that this is a scientific discussion would mean that things like the "purpose of human life" are irrelevant. But since when has honesty ever stopped them?
evolution is a theory that is taught in public schools as fact and at the exclusion of all other theories
Did you catch it? The whole "evolution is a theory" bit? These guys really need some new tricks.

The next part in which they state it's taught as fact is a less used tactic, but wrong nonetheless. The fact that they don't understand that it's taught as a theory just goes to further the evidence that they didn't bother paying much attention in class or read their textbooks. Reviews of the most commonly textbook explicitly label evolution as a theory, not a fact. We honestly wonder if they've ever picked up a textbook (and no, that doesn't include the bible).

Furthermore, the claim that there are other "competing" theories again shows the deliberate misuse of the term "theory". There are no other scientific theories. But perhaps if they just keep pretending there are, God will answer their prayers.
the South Dakota Republican Party believes there are other plausible theories, including creationism
At least they're being honest, dispite being intentionally misleading. The use of the word "believe" explicitly shows that it's a matter of faith to them and has nothing to do with actual evidence or science.

And to further that claim, they state that Creationism is one of those "theories". Who cares that the Supreme Court ruled nearly 20 years ago that biblical Creationism is unconstitutional. Yet that's what they want to preach teach!
the South Dakota Republican Party supports efforts to expand beyond evolution the knowledge, scope, and debate in public education on the theories of species origin
Translation: Screw the scientific method, we want to be just like Kansas and include the supernatural!

4 comments:

matt dick said...

At least you can hope that your home state will soon not be the leading symbol of moronic educational regressionism...

Just looking for the silver lining.

Paul Decelles said...

This is at best just cynical pandering to the creationists that are part of the religious right. At worst this is another step in the politicizing of science and we know from history that that sort of thing is a disaster.

I don't see any silver lining here. :-(

Moderate Republicans awake!

Norma said...

What are the liberals so afraid of? A little fresh air wouldn't hurt.

Jon Voisey said...

What we realize is that the creationists are attempting to overthrow the definition of science (they've even stated this explicitly). They're wanting to revert to a definition more than 300 years old that was abandoned because it didn't work.

This isn't fresh air.