creationism

I'm intrigued by large families. In having raised only two kids, I know I've missed something. My parents raised three children. My brother and his wife, four. Sarah Palin, five. Leslie Fields, six.

For the Befuddled

Given the rise of the Childfree and One Child Only movements and my nearly weekly public encounters, I feel moved to post a reply—a moral, biblical, and political defense of the larger family, or at least some insights for those who are genuinely befuddled or even fearful. I can do this because I understand the concern and befuddlement. It took ten years of marriage before I ventured nervously into motherhood. Before that, high on education and world travel, I scanned the sidewalks and the public horizon searching for news and interest, visually bleeping over mothers with baby backpacks pushing strollers. Either I did not see mothers with children at all, or, if I did, I would count the children out of curiosity; as the numbers climbed, my estimation of the mothers usually sank. I had an impressive list of prejudices and stereotypes, many of which I now see on the Childfree websites.

I'm guessing The Family Fraudsters here in North Carolina are all atwitter today over a landmark ruling in California on the "science" of creationism.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

John Hood, Stage Manager at the Art Pope Puppetshow, today reports on a poll conducted by Harris (a reputable organization) for the Tax Foundation (a close-cousin to the Puppetshow) which underscores how ignorant Americans are when it comes to understanding the nature of taxes and the cost of government. Naturally, Hood is all over the conclusions, arguing that the conventional wisdom of the "common man" should prevail in establishing fiscal policy.

I wonder if Hood also agrees that the wisdom of the "common man" should prevail in the teaching of science and related public policy? A Gallup Poll released today shows that 7 out of 10 Republicans do not "believe" in evolution, with fully 66% of all Americans saying that god created humans in their current form in one fell swoop less than 10,000 years ago.

Scientific American has a succinct column this month that should put an end to the debate about intelligent design, assuming the creationists would actually read. The piece, by Skeptic-in-Chief Michael Shermer, starts with some statistics worth remembering:

According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian?