Can someone explain to me how young earth creationists can even exist at high levels in our government? It just seems so embarrassing. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Because huge swaths of the population either agrees with them or agrees with their other political/economic/religious views.
Personally, what shocks me more than individuals getting elected, are the educated individuals who believe it. I work in an office filled with engineers. Amazingly, my first cubicle neighbor, and I've found he isn't an outlier, was a diehard young earth creationist. Electrical engineer, 4 year degree at a good school. Still somehow believes in a vast conspiracy by scientists in league with the devil to hide The Truth. At a previous company, another engineer, this one with a PhD, was not ashamed of the time he berated guides/curators at the Museum of Natural History for a display on dinosaurs.
Speaking as someone who grew up in Texas in conservative evangelical family, there are plenty of churches that are politically active (not all but there are a lot). So you basically have a voting block that takes marching orders from their spiritual leaders.
I attended such a church until my early 20's (I'm 32 now) and around elections there were many sermon reminders that they needed to go vote for people aligned with their conservative values. At my former church they wouldn't explicitly endorse candidates, but it was understood you voted Republican. If the Republican at least appeared to be an evangelical Christian, you would get more support. (I remember George W. Bush being called a "man of God" by several people.)
Moreover, if you had an inclination to, say, vote Democrat, then you better be quite about it. People would just about question how "true" of a Christian you were if you did that.
Disclaimer: I know that not every church in states like Texas are like this. I know because I went to less political churches too. (I don't go to church anymore for what it's worth.)
I too grew up [and reside in] Texas. I grew up in rural Texas and live in a large city now. I don't believe the religious zealotry is near as prevalent in the public (even the voting public) as it is in the representatives. I know stories like this don't make it seem so, but I find that many Texans vote based on fiscal policy instead of social policy. The unfortunate consequence is the politicians tend to be both fiscally and socially conservative putting voters in a quandary to prioritize if they don't side with all values.
Couple that with post-election apathy towards what's going on in Austin, and you get crackpots. Not saying that some people don't specifically vote for creationists, but my limited experience tells me most do not.
I certainly agree with what you're saying. There is a difference between fiscal and social conservatives, and the fiscal camp is larger. The religious right by themselves are not as powerful as some on the left make them out to be. But I still think the evangelicals have a certain power, because the fiscal camp needs them to vote. So the fiscal camp whips up concerns about the social issue du jour to get them to the polls.
Hacktivism project: attend services at these churches around election-time and document (audio and video if possible) any cases of them endorsing for or against specific candidates.
Churches can lose their tax-exempt status for doing that. It happened to a church in upstate NY during the first Clinton election. (They later had the ruling overturned on the basis that the IRS somehow singled them out for disproportionate treatment, but I'm hopeful that with more evidence of more churches doing it, simply getting caught wouldn't be legitimate grounds for crying "They're picking on me!" any more...)
I live in Texas. I've yet to see or hear of this really happening. I've seen churches directly involved in politics my whole life. Sure, they try not to mention names, but they don't need to.
Because leadership ability does not require critical thinking. Leadership is certainly better if it has it, but leading groups of people to achieve their objectives doesn't require it. So you get some excellent leaders who think the world is flat.
It is unfortunate that so many people still believe in fairy tale creation stories of the world, enough so that crazy public officials are elected into office. But I suppose the Human mind by default is irrational.
Not coincidentally, religious influence in government is one of the factors that has been slowly leading me to question the merits of democracy in general.
Texas Republicans are an embarrassment. Consider this excerpt published in their 2012 Party Platform. I know it's old news for some, but still worth remembering.
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging
the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
The Independent Lens blog mentions some (IMO) key points that are left out of the Ars piece:
1. "In 2011, the Texas Legislature shifted authority to order textbooks from the state to individual school districts with Senate Bill 6. The law deprived the board of its final say-so."
2. "Now, [textbook publishers] only have to meet 50 percent of the standards…Textbook publishers have a little more wiggle room."
Those details seem quite important for giving context to the TEA members' attempted or realized changes to the curriculum in terms of what actually threatens education vs. what ultimately comes down to grandstanding.
When this story first came out last year claiming that Thomas Jefferson was removed from the curriculum because he was an atheist (which he was not), I went and looked at the actual differences made to the state standards so I could have a laugh. As it turns out the claims in the story were false. This latest version at least gets right that he is not on the list of influential Enlightenment era authors. That's true. Not pointed out though is that he is more covered throughout the rest of the curriculum than just about any other figure. Also relevant and not mentioned in these articles is the simple fact that Jefferson's two books were both private projects which he didn't publish or intend to, his Jefferson Bible edit and the Farm Book detailing daily goings on at his farm. As these were not published in his era they are certainly not major Enlightenment era works. His biggest writing contribution is in the large number of personal letters he wrote to friends and colleagues, which were not published as a collection during his lifetime. That these establish him as a major enlightenment era writer is not something beyond doubt. We can reasonably include the Declaration of Independence as a product of Enlightenment thinking, and Jefferson was the author of this work which summarized the thoughts of himself and others who met at the time. But we must remember it is a single brief work and it is comprehensively covered in the curriculum, just not under the brief list of suggested Enlightenment authors.
As far as the claim that listing the middle names of Presidents is teaching children a false history, it is an absurd claim provided the middle names are accurate.
Regarding the discussion about creationism, creationism is not mentioned or included anywhere in the Texas curriculum standards.
A few years ago the media jumped on Kansas curriculum standards, and yet here we are and Kansas continues to do quite well compared to other states on things such as SAT and ACT scores, which unlike state achievement tests are comparable between states because the same test is given in all states. Because of this embarrassing fact that Kansas schools do quite well in impartial evaluations by respected outside parties, this genre of article has given up with the Kansas argument and moved on to Texas.
I recommend that anyone interested in whether the claims in the article are true download the Texas curriculum standards for themselves and check, in addition to refreshing their knowledge of history.
edit: It's always amusing when one posts facts that are so uncomfortable to propagandists and the uneducated that they not only downvote that post, but they go back and systematically downvote everything one has posted in the last week. Such actions show the failure of the propagandist to be able to form a coherent response in the face of reality.
(7) Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;
(B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;
(C) analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals;
(D) analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;
(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity in and among species;
(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination; and
(G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.
"Dunbar claims she's a "big fan" of Thomas Jefferson, but thinks a "secular humanistic ideology" has clouded current interpretations of his work. So she cuts him out of the standards on the Enlightenment and its influence on the US' founding documents, instead substituting in pre-enlightenment figures like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin."
From droithomme's comment:
"When this story first came out last year claiming that Thomas Jefferson was removed from the curriculum because he was an atheist (which he was not), I went and looked at the actual differences made to the state standards so I could have a laugh. [...]"
