Creationism eruption in Cincinnati City Council race


Is there a miasma that spreads from the Creationism Museum of Ken Ham, that has finally gotten to Cincinnati?

The Daily Bellwether reports a Cincinnati City Councilman wants to put creationism into the schools. I hope that the schools are not governed by the City Council.

______________________

And — could you guess? — the guy’s an engineer:

Monzel, 39, is trying to hold onto a seat that the GOP appointed him to after he was voted out of office in 2005. He is an engineer and holds a masters degree in public policy from Harvard University. He was the valedictorian at parochial Moeller High School in 1986. He is a very intelligent fellow. He did not elaborate on the questionnaire exactly what it is that teachers should offer as contradicting Charles Darwin. Perhaps intelligent design, perhaps scientific creationism, perhaps Genesis or something from Greek mythology. Perhaps a script from Star Trek.

He was asked about “Alternatives to Evolution,” and the question reads:

“When lessons on the origins of life are taught in Ohio public schools, do you support or oppose requiring teachers to present the evidences (sic) both supportive and contradictory to the theory of evolution?” Monzel is in the supports box.

One Response to Creationism eruption in Cincinnati City Council race

  1. wintermute says:

    “When lessons on the origins of life are taught in Ohio public schools, do you support or oppose requiring teachers to present the evidences (sic) both supportive and contradictory to the theory of evolution?”

    OK, so do we know if he’s actually pro-Creationism, or is he just pro-evidence and not realise that there a controversy? After all, if there were no politics surrounding evolution, I’d answer that question with “hells yes, teach all the evidence you can find”.

    And it might sound unlikely, but it’s exactly the tactic used by people like the Discovery Institute, when they get get biologists to agree to the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” – after all, RM&NS do not account for all the complexity of life (there’s also things like random drift), and what scientist would ever suggest that evidence shouldn’t be carefully examined? So scientists who don’t understand how their agreement will be misrepresented sign up…

    Yes, this guy is probably a creationist, but can we find something more solid?

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: