Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 312 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

1/2 of GOP Candidates for Governor of Maine Would Put Creationism in Public Schools

They say the Republican Party in Maine is pretty darned liberal. But what do the Republican Party candidates for Governor say for themselves? In a televised debate on May 27 2010, Maine Public Broadcasting Network’s Jennifer Rooks asked each of the GOP candidates for Governor of Maine the following question in the debate’s lightning round:

Do you believe in creationism, and do you think it should be taught in Maine public schools?

Read these candidates’ full responses:

Bruce Poliquin: I believe in being intellectually honest, and it’s very important that our schoolkids get both sides of the story. They should be exposed to all these different issues.

Paul LePage: I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes.

Bill Beardsley: I would teach creationism.

Is this a liberal position?

14 comments to 1/2 of GOP Candidates for Governor of Maine Would Put Creationism in Public Schools

  • It’s not a complete position, for one thing. Bruce Poliquin talks about “both” sides of the story, as if there are just TWO sides of the story. What about the Norse side of the story, which teaches that the world was created by the slaying of a cosmic giant? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster side of the story, which teaches that the world was created by noodly appendages?

    If you teach Christian Creationism, you have to teach EVERY explanation that’s ever been given for the creation of the world, no matter how little they’re based on actual evidence. It’s an absurd agenda.

  • Tom

    i’m with F.G.Fitzer on this: let’s introduce the kiddies to Greek and Roman mythology, Babylonian, Assyrian, Coptic, Druid, American Indian, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Satanist, Aboriginal Australian, Pacific Island, and any and all other native and modern (i’m sure Scientology has something to say here) explanations for the creation myth. That should cover about 5 to 10 years of their little lives and confuse the hell out of them. While we’re at it, let’s tuck the scientific cosmological explanation in there somewhere in their junior or senior high school year as a comparison (and an incomplete “work in progress” of human thought).

  • Jacob

    Lets just make it easy and teach nothing at all on the subject at all. This will be the parents responsibilty. Maybe if we do that we can devote time to other areas that the kids are all failing at like math and English

    • Jacob

      My response proves I could have used more english training…

    • How about this: When it comes to scientific matters, we only teach our children about theories for which it is possible to gather evidence to prove or disprove. Magic spaghetti monsters would be straight out. Theories of biological evolution by means of natural selection would be in, as massive amounts of evidence have been collected and evaluated.

      • Jacob

        Many would argue the existance of said evidence. For you to call it “massive amounts” is dishonest to say the least

        • Dishonest? Are you sure? Evidence to support the theory of biological evolution through natural selection has been collected for over 150 years by increasing numbers of scientists across the globe. The evidence exists.

          As for evidence that supports the claim, not even a theory, that life on Earth was created relatively recently by the supernatural divine being worshipped by Christians, well, not a single piece of scientific evidence has been collected to support that. It’s a non-verifiable claim.

          Do you understand the difference between a theory and non-verifiable claim?

          • Jacob

            neither claim is verifiable and I am not sure where the young/old earth argument came into play. What has been collected over the past 150 years that is lock down evidence of natural selection? The simple truth is the fossil record speaks noting of this. In fact, the fossil record only goes back so far and then it ubruptly stops (i believe its the Camrian era). This would line more up with creationists then evolutionists

            • Jacob

              Also, I never said Christian, I said parents should teach at home. If they want to teach the spagetti monster go for it

            • Jacob, the fossil record does not at all abruptly stop. That’s an old claim that’s based upon an old gap in the record that’s since been filled in somewhat. The fossil record rather fades in, just as you’d expect it to if life on earth wasn’t all created by some supernatural intervention.

              See there? Testable. You look at the evidence. You can’t do that with religious Creationism, because it’s a claim that’s based upon a universe that’s fundamentally arbitrary, without any regularity that can’t be overturned on a whim.

        • Jim

          No, it isn’t dishonest. There actually are huge masses of evidence that have been collected over the years showing evidence for the evolution of species.

          Here’s one good place for you to start, with links in to other sources of information:

          http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

          And here’s another good starting point:

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

        • Mark

          Jacob,
          Calling the amount of scientific evidence collected that supports the Theory of Evolution “massive” is indeed a legitimate measure of the evidence. One only has to look through modern scientific journals across the spectrum of scientific studies to find evidence of evolution. The only people who doubt the evidence favoring evolution and natural selection are either ignorant of the overwhelming body of scientific study, or have a religious agenda to disclaim the evidence.

  • Dave

    As a fiscally conservative Democrat, I was all set to vote GOP this election.

    But honestly, how can I vote for someone that doesn’t believe in dinosaurs?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>