Education secretary has non-answer on creationism

In an interview in this weekend's NY Times Magazine, the secretary of education, Margarete Spellings, provides a non-answer on creationism:

What do you make of the current controversy in Kansas over whether creationism should be taught along with evolution?
I can tell you that in Texas we did go through this issue, when Bush was governor and I was working for him. We ended up -- the curriculum says basically that both points of view are taught from a factual basis.
How can creationism be taught from a factual basis? Are you implying that events in the Bible should be taught in the public schools as literal history?
I'm not implying anything. I'm just saying that my recollection from my Texas days is that both points of view were presented.

See that kids, don't imply anything. Just state the facts. I like the "both points of view" rhetoric. So there are no other versions of how the world came to be and got to be the way it is? Nope just two. The right answer and the one those secular, atheist scientists have been pushing on us for years. I think creationists should be pushing to include other religions' creation myths in the curriculum as well. If we're calling into doubt modern science, we shouldn't stop at one alternative.

Another interesting bit was this on "facts":

That's all true, but what do assessment tests really measure, other than an ability to memorize for tests?
You hear about that kind of thing. With respect to my own children, I do think people have to have a fluency with facts. You need to know what four times four is.

That four times four is sixteen is a fact? What a black and white way of looking at math.
I wonder if by "fluency with facts" she means "appreciation that facts are secondary to political goals."