I'm very much in favor of situational ethics. In general, I believe that right and wrong is dictated as much by circumstances as it is by moral "absolutes." Let's take the Ten Commandments, some ethical notions which I generally like (excepting the purely religious "I am a jealous God" bits, of course). Thou shalt not kill is a pretty good notion, but if someone's got a gun to my head, I'm not going to lose sleep at night if somehow I end up killing him. Same goes for thou shalt not steal. If I'm hungry, and ripping off a loaf of bread is what it takes to gain some sustenance, well, I'm gonna go after the bread.

There are, however, a few things that should not be surrendered. Last week, Al Gore said that local school districts should be allowed to decide whether to teach evolution, creation "science" or whatever notion of human origins they please. He seemed to say that there is as much evidence for creation "science" as evolution. You might recall that the Kansas Board of Education said the same thing recently. Indeed, most Republican presidential hopefuls (including G.W. Himself) have also espoused this bizarre concept.

There's only one good word for such equivalency, and that's "bullshit." Or, used colloquially, "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!"

This is America, and any person is allowed to believe any damned fool thing they like. Sometimes, as in the theory of plate tectonics, that which seems completely bizarre and wrong can turn out to be correct. However, when it comes to teaching kids science, we ought to teach them the best guess of the world's top scientists. And right now, that includes evolution.

Evolution is a complicated theory. Many creation "scientists" have latched on to the official designation of "theory" to say that since scientists won't call evolution a law, it must be somewhat in dispute.

I would like to remind these folks that even scientific "laws" are tested regularly in laboratories, and that evolution has been revised and expanded so much over the years that Charles Darwin probably wouldn't recognize parts of his own, ahem, creation. Science is based on the notion of critical thinking, the idea that every "fact" can (and must) be questioned and tested rigorously and repeatedly. Evolution has survived more than a century's worth of examination, and it still holds up. Creation "science," on the other hand, can't pass even a first muster.

Like it or not, believe it or not, there's pretty damned good evidence that the universe is billions of years old. There are so many ways that this has been proven that it is silly to dispute. Now, the exact date is uncertain, but the age is definitely "billions," and not "thousands", of years. We have measured the speed of light, and astronomers every day are coming across light waves that must be (for reasons I can't fully explain) billions of years old. The Genesis story can't be taken as literal fact.

But all that is irrelevant. What we're talking about here is biology, not astrophysics. The earth is pretty damned old, much older than the 6,000 or 7,000 years claimed by literal adherents to the Judeo-Christian tradition (some Hasidic sects also claim a "young earth" theory). People were not created out of whole cloth Or clay, or a rib, for that matter. We evolved from apes. This isn't difficult to understand or believe. If you sit at a zoo and watch orangutans for more than a couple minutes, you will see a number of human-like activities. Same goes for chimpanzees. There's too much that we have in common to claim that we are not related, way way back sometime. And biologists (among others) have put together a solid record of research to support the notion of evolution.

It isn't hard to reconcile devout religious beliefs and evolution. My grandfather was a scientist. He was also conservative politically, a longtime member of his local school board and extremely religious. If he were alive, he would be appalled that religion was being used to take evolution out of the classroom. In fact, he would speak out on the matter, shaming people who did not or could not accept science as one of God's gifts to humanity. On a grander scale, Pope John Paul II, a fairly conservative guy in his own right, proclaimed the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution some years back.

In other words, kids in some religious schools will be taught evolution, while kids in some public schools will be taught Creation "science."

Al Gore had a chance to stand up and say, "Enough is enough. We will teach our children to the best of our ability, and that includes the theory of evolution." He could have done it. It wouldn't have hurt him in the polls. In fact, some folks (like me) would have been happy to see a little backbone in the guy. But he didn't do it.

You can't be all things to all people. And while an interpretive version of a Creation myth (I'm using that word with it's proper meaning, "A real or fictional story that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals," and not in any pejorative sense) can easily be reconciled with evolution, there is no way to make a literal reading of Genesis jibe with scientific knowledge. But most religious folks aren't so single-minded. The Pope creative enough to strike a balance between science and religion. The vast majority of religious people of all faiths can do so as well. Al Gore, who strikes me as a reasonably enlightened man, has probably done it himself. Why he couldn't challenge Americans to embrace science and reject literal-minded superstition is beyond me.

All I can say is that I'm hoping the Liberatarians are running someone interesting next year.

Jon Worley has been known to vote for Communist Workers Party candidates from time to time.