The Denver mayoral race is close. Michael Hancock leads Chris Romer, 41-37, which is well within the margin of error.
Most of the recent movement has seemed to be in Hancock's direction. The Wellington Webb endorsement a week before the primary seemed to generate--or express--some momentum which carried him past James Meija in the first round. That momentum stalled when Meija turned around and endorsed Romer.
Now, Hancock has another problem on his hands. Does he really think creationism and intelligent design should be taught in Denver public schools? Asked that question directly at a recent debate, Hancock said "yes" and Romer said "no."
After the debate, Hancock issued a statement saying that he didn't mean what he had, in fact, just said. Upon further thought, it turned out he believed just the opposite:
"While I am a man of great faith, I believe Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious beliefs that have no place in a public school curriculum. The best place for religion to be taught is at home or a place of worship."
Creationism and intelligent design are religious beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have no place in the curriculum. It simply means they shouldn't be part of the science curriculum for the very good reason that they're not science.
Creationism could legitimately be taught in several other contexts, however. For example, the history of creationism well illustrates the social and psychological issues involved when worldviews change and clash. Paradigms shift, in other words, and this has an impact in peoples' lives. That's a legitimate object of study.
Creationism, of course, could be studied in the context of religion itself. Most cultures of the world have creation stories. Reflecting on origins and carrying on tribal memories was important to early people around the globe. This is a fascinating area of study, one that touches many disciplines.
Creationism would also be a proper subject in relation to current affairs and events. So-called "creationists" have been quite influential in public debate.
Creationism should also be properly defined and properly understood. In many cases, it is true that creationists are fundamentalists who take a literalistic view of the Genesis creation account and who see themselves in conflict with a scientific worldview that, they believe, diminishes or rejects God.
In many other cases, however, creationists are not fundamentalists. Technically speaking, I'm a creationist. I believe God created the heavens and the earth, and that God uses evolution as a process that sustains and builds that creation. ("Let the waters bring forth" and "let the earth bring forth" sounds quite a bit like evolution to me.)
My guess is that Michael Hancock believes something like that. Most Christians do. Most polls show that strong majorities of Christians of all stripes believe something along these lines. They don't fight science in the name of God. They affirm both. Yet, many simply assume that "creationist" means "fundamentalist"--it just ain't so.
Hancock probably just wanted to say he believed in God. When he found out how tricky and how controversial the whole subject really is, it looks like he decided to cut his losses and try to get himself out of something into which he had inadvertently stumbled.
In any case, what creationism has to do with the Office of Mayor of the Great City of Denver is anyone's guess. One doubts this will hurt Hancock's campaign much. The race looks increasingly like it's going to come down to the wire.
Comments