John Kasich of Ohio: Creationist

THIS one is a quickie. In the Cleveland Jewish News we read: Candidate John Kasich seeks to phase-out state income tax. Here are a few excerpts, with bold added by us:

Former U.S. Rep. John Kasich is proud of the 10-year congressional plan that resulted in a balanced federal budget, an effort the Republican from Cincinnati led as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

[...]

Speaking last week to The City Club, Kasich, who announced in June that he is a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor – and likely to run against Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in 2010 …

That’s one part of the news. We like Kasich. We’ve always agreed with what we knew of his views. However, near the end of the article it says:

On social issues, Kasich said he supports teaching both evolution and “creation science” in Ohio biology classes.

Not even the closeted version of creationism that goes by the name of intelligent design. Kasich wants full-blown creation science in biology class!

That’s all we wanted to point out. There’s a lot more information in the article. If you’re interested in Kasich and the Ohio Governor’s race, click over to the article and read it all. But remember, Kasich is a creationist.

Why do we always end up with choices like this?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “John Kasich of Ohio: Creationist

  1. Curmudgeon wrote: “Kasich wants full-blown creation science in biology class!”

    Do you have any other information that indicates that he has a clue about the differences between “full blown creation science”, ID and the designer-free “strengths and weaknesses”? Since nearly every critic of anti-evolution activism insists on calling all of those approaches “creationism”, Kasich could be just thinking “critical analysis” (though undoubtedly clueless of the radical differences between a real one and the phony one that the activists peddle) and mindlessly calling it “creation science”?

    Beyond that does anyone know what he personally believes about biological history? Could he be one of the many who accepts evolution but has been fooled into thinking that it’s “fair” to “teach the controversy”?

  2. Frank J asks: “Do you have any other information that indicates that he has a clue …”

    No. This is the first time his name has popped up during one of my searches.

  3. The Curmudgeon groans:

    Why do we always end up with choices like this?

    I know, ain’t it a female canine?

    Short answer: because too much political discourse seems to have degenerated into a senseless form of ‘tribal warfare.’ It would seem now that both Right and Left advocate the use of governmental power in non-governmental arenas and seek enforceable legislation over matters in which governments should stay clear. This increasingly makes the distinction between Left and Right almost meaningless.

    Politics should be the art of managing power (to ensure efficient expenditure of effort and resources, and to protect the maximum possible liberties of the individual), not the current ‘culture war’ to promote the specific social agendas of narrow groups.

    Science is one of the most splendid arenas of human endeavour, open to anyone with curiosity about the natural world and the willingness to investigate and learn. One is also free, of course, to reject its methods and the knowledge they yield as a personal choice (and that I would regard such as a poor personal choice is neither here nor there). But one should not be free to curb the freedom and integrity of science and human enquiry as some groups (both Left and Right) clearly strive to do — but such is precisely the agenda of the ‘teach the controversy’ Creationists.

  4. Megalonyx wrote: “Science is one of the most splendid arenas of human endeavour, open to anyone with curiosity about the natural world and the willingness to investigate and learn.”

    The problem is that, while only a tiny minority are activists with a relentless agenda to misrepresent evolution, at least 70% of the public has fallen for some part of the scam. As recently as 1997 I was one of them – I accepted evolution but thought it was fair to “teach the controversy” in science class. And I was a chemist no less, so imagine a politician who (1) gets 99% of his science “education” from media sound bites, and (2) has to pander to an electorate with a very unhealthy attitude toward science.

    Anyway, of the possible presidential contenders, I think that only Jindal is in on the scam. The rest can be set straight. It’s certainly their responsibility to do that, not ours, but unless we “go the extra mile” – educate the public as well as the politicians – our complaints will be wasted.

  5. Great Claw says:

    But one should not be free to curb the freedom and integrity of science and human enquiry as some groups (both Left and Right) clearly strive to do — but such is precisely the agenda of the ‘teach the controversy’ Creationists.

    My gripe is that everything we got from the Enlightenment is good — reason, liberty, science, and free enterprise. The Founders were enthusiastic about all of it. Now, however, the political parties are divided over the Enlightenment. One party opposes free enterprise; the other favors it (somewhat), but they oppose science. Neither party really wants liberty, at least not from a libertarian point of view, but they’re split about what activities should be allowed.

    They’re all crazy! (Or maybe I am, but let’s not consider that possibility.)

  6. Frank J. notes:

    As recently as 1997 I was one of them – I accepted evolution but thought it was fair to “teach the controversy” in science class.

    I can understand that — the scam depends on that little word “fair.” The Discoveroids et. al. keep claiming there is a scientific “controversy” here to be addressed. And what is science if not a rational and ‘fair’ investigation of questions of controversy?

    But if the “controversy” here were a matter of science, it would be (and in fact, is) a straightforward empirical matter in the manner of all scientific controversies: a rigorous evaluation of data sets and the fit with contending explanations of the data.

    Apart from the obvious problem here for the Discoveroids (ToE wins the empircal debate hands down), their “controversy” isn’t actually about Darwin vs. ID (or whatever they want to call Creationism) but an entirely different “Empiricism vs. Mysticism” debate, or better, a “Rationalists vs. Theocrats” tussle. Their real objection is that science undermines the kind of priestly authority such folks seek to wield.

    If the Discoveroids (who are Theocrats masking their agenda behind a slogan of “academic freedom”) had an interest in a “fair” scientific controversy, they would be doing science: gathering data rather than soliciting donations, testing hypotheses rather than blogging polemics, and seeking new knowledge rather than promoting a repressive political agenda.

  7. The Curmudgeon confesses:

    They’re all crazy! (Or maybe I am, but let’s not consider that possibility.)

    The ever-cheerful Franz Kafka had an aphorism to the effect, “In the fight between you and the world — back the world.”

    And I think it was the deeply-sage Red Foxx who once noted, “One in every five Americans suffers from some form of mental illness. So if you have 4 weird friends — you’re the one!”

    But if it’s any consolation, I’ll join you in your craziness. The values of the Enlightenment (which I regard as a high-water mark in human civilisation) are indivisible: human liberty cannot thrive without freedom of enterprise (as the disasters of the Marxists demonstrates), nor can prosperity continue where knowledge is curtailed (as all authoritarian regimes of whatever political complexion inevitably find).

  8. Megalonyx wrote: “If the Discoveroids (who are Theocrats masking their agenda behind a slogan of “academic freedom”) had an interest in a “fair” scientific controversy, they would be doing science: gathering data rather than soliciting donations, testing hypotheses rather than blogging polemics, and seeking new knowledge rather than promoting a repressive political agenda.”

    Well put. It was a major “D’Oh! moment” for me back in ’97 when I realized that.

  9. longshadow

    Or maybe I am, but let’s not consider that possibility.

    At long last, the elephant in the room trumpets its existence …
    ;-)

  10. retiredsciguy

    The Great Claw speaks great truth, and very well-put at that.