Pearls ...

At the election party hosted by a friend of mine, after I had made my claim that Obama and McCain aren't very different in their policies and that either would make a fine president, another guest asked me why I voted for Obama. My response was: "Because she's a creationist."[***] A discussion ensued and I explained that although I have little problem with intelligent design as a metaphysics (not a science), creationism has been proven wrong. I didn't take the time to explain that, in science, falsification (proven wrong) is methodologically possible but "proven right" is impossible. I attribute my lack of rhetorical agility to the several pints of beer I'd had by that time.

In any case, the discussion proved to me that I was a bit guilty of the same ignorant premature conclusions committed by those who claim Obama is a Marxist. So, I had to do a little due diligence to see how premature my conclusions were.

Palin does seem to be a creationist. From FactCheck.org:

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

And that's pretty bad. But there's no evidence that she's actually a young earth creationist, which is what I thought in the early hours of November 4th. She may be. Yet she may not be.

Now, when looking at Scott's Creation/Evolution Continuum, I realize that in order to give creationists the respect they deserve, I have to identify the points on that continuum that are significant to me.

In general, I have 5 categories for people I talk to:

1. tolerate,
2. appreciate but can't sympathize,
3. peer,
4. appreciate but can't grok,
5. over my head.

I think I place my 5 categories on the evolution/creation continuum as follows:

1. progressive creationism - I can tolerate people who advocate this; but I have grave doubts about their ability to think and their motivations - e.g. planning for the rapture.
2. evolutionary creationism - I can have pretty in-depth conversations with people who advocate this; but I expect most spiritual or metaphysical conversations will end up in a fundamental disagreement.
3. theistic and agnostic evolutionism - I fit right in with these people. However, I'll probably find myself playing the Devil's advocate for materialist evolutionism.
4. materialist evolutionism - I can appreciate this position; but, ultimately, I will always have a sense of mystery, limits, horizon points, and the unknown. So, I'm either not smart enough to grok this position or too addicted to fantasy to give up my delusions.

In that context, if Ms. Palin turned out to be an evolutionary creationist, then it's possible I would not have regretted voting for McCain. But, it's not a risk I was willing to take. If I helped put a young earth creationist into the office of the President, I would regret it for the rest of my life. Luckily, I don't have to worry about that for awhile, now.

***I'm not actually a single issue voter; but this particular issue is canonical for several issues: McCain's impaired judgment for picking such a person as his running mate, denigration and ignorance of science in policy, McCain's age, the conflation of religion and governance, etc.