as it turns out,

"abstinence only" isn't "education."  it's preaching, and may or may not have a place in civil discourse, but its willful ignorance of what humans actually do no matter what they talk about is shameful and immoral because it makes people's lives materially worse.  and guess what else?  creationism isn't science.  if you are interested in actual science, evolution is not a debate or a controversy, in the same way that gravity is not a debate or controversy.  of course, bush II has no truck with science or materialism or facts or evidence, so why should a potential vice president be any different?