McCain is blowing his election chances.

With him having one foot in the grave it is pretty irresponsible of him to choose someone as green as Obama for veep.

Oh my god, she's a Creationist? Holy crap, now I have to not only vote for Obama but go door to door convincing people to do the same. Just great.

I know....this is by far her biggest negative in my book.....by far......

yep, me too.

I guess there goes any argument about how the inheritance tax affects anyone since you think no one ever inherits enough money to have to pay it.

Because she thinks there is a God that might have created the earth, this is terrible, maporche? It may surprise you that lots of people might suspicion that somebody might have been behind this whole thing, that it didn't just happen out of thin air.

Is there a culture anywhere on the face of the earth that doesn't have a similar belief embedded into their culture from as far back as recorded history can determine?

And you think this is her biggest negative?

Sarah seems like a really bright lady and somehow I don't think she is really wanting Judeo/Christian Creationism taught side by side with Evolution in science class. I can see how somebody would phrase it the way she did in an extemporaneous exchange.

But yes, since billions of people on Earth do believe in Intelligent Design in some form, and many learned scholars have made very good arguments for that theory, it is absurd that at least acknowledgment of it as a widely believed concept not be included in the whole mix of a good education. Certainly the much smaller group of confirmed Atheists would howl if Creationism was taught and Evolution omitted from the curriculum entirely. (So would I and I believe in Intelligent Design. I also believe in Evolution and do not believe the two things need be mutually exclusive.)

I'm not in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in Science class, however, so I disagree with Sarah there. I don't think Intelligent Design can be taught scientifically at least at this time. I don't think it is appropriate for a science teacher to tell kids there is no such thing as Intelligent Design, however, since he can't back that up scientifically either.

I don't think the issue is at all sufficient to disqualify a candidate on either side.

Foxfyre, if you really look at this, anybody that wants to address how the earth came about must admit, we don't know, period. Yes, there are scientific theories, but when you deal with the subject of how we got here, it seems to me that religioius beliefs are impacted in some way, because it touches on the very core of our life philosophy and belief. To teach a scientific theory, to the exclusion of a possible creator, is essentally teaching something that few people actually believe. It seems far more logical to me that a creator should at least be mentioned as a factor in how all of us got here, not as a fact, but as a possibility. After all, scientific theories are not facts either, they are theories. And one does not have to exist to the exclusion of the other, and this should also be taught.

There should be nothing scary about this concept, after all, most cultures have religious beliefs that include a creator or God, or Gods, that influence the creation and how we got here. Teaching this does not require teaching any certain religion, but it could include some discussion of how different religions treat the subject, not in great depth because that should be for religious classes in college. But the subject should not be ignored, and that is I think the only point that Palin made.

Me, too.

'Troopergate' inquiry hangs over campaign
Inquiry: Ex-commissioner brings up undisclosed e-mails that he says mentioned trooper.
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510080.html

Apparently, one of the biggest horrors that anyone could imagine a candidate to think, and that is that there is a God, and just maybe he had something to do with the creation. That apparently is totally frightening to some people, and apparently it is very threatening to their fragile sense of well being.

My dear mother and dad believed it, and if I had known, I would have called social services. It must have been terrible, but I just didn't know it at the time.

And come to think of it, how come every single candidate says God bless America at the end of virtually every speech. Don't they know that is very very frightening and threatening to some people to suggest such a thing might be possible?

okie, do you think only atheists consider evolution to be a correct theory?

No. I think many people may think, including me, that the creator may have used evolution, and may still be using it, to one extent or another. Truth is, we don't really know all to be known, concerning how we got here. I think mentioning the possibilities in school is not a bad idea. Once you get into evolution, and how we all got here, you are touching on religious beliefs, no getting around it, and to ignore the religious ramifications is wrong, in my opinion. I would not spend a great deal of time on it in science class, I would instead move onto what we know about what is going on now, but in K-12, I see no harm in touching on all the possibilities, then move on. There is no basis to present evolution to the exclusion of a creator when talking about the creation. Any decent teacher would be considerate of the childen's parents beliefs. After all, they work for them, with their money.

I think the large majority of Christians, at least American Christians, share that point of view, Okie. We want Evolution to be taught as a scientific theory in science class because it would be absurd not to teach it and no science education would be complete without it. We don't want Creationism/Intelligent Design taught as science because it simply cannot be supported scientifically. But it would also produce a dishonest or incomplete education to deny that hundreds of millions or billions of people subscribe to some form of ID and/or other unproven theories that cannot be scientifically verified, but that could answer many questions that Evolution cannot. It would be inappropriate for the teacher's personal opinion or belief to enter into that, one way or the other.

Just because one is science and one is not does not mean that there isn't room for both within a person's understanding of his/her world and the universe.

Yeah, but because one is science and one is not is a very good reason for one to be taught in science courses and the other to be taught in Sunday School.

There are people that insist the world is flat, or that the moon landing was a hoax, too.

A great deal, probably most ID, has nothing to do with Christianity or Sunday School, however. Almost every human culture has some kind of concept of ID. It is entirely appropriate for an overall well balanced education to acknowledge that and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it being acknowledged in science class as well. I agree that it should not be taught as science, which I thought I had explained in some detail here. I do disagree with Sarah Palin on that point.

I also would have no problem with a teacher explaining that there is no known scientific basis to support ID, but I would strenuously object to a teacher telling his/her students that there was no such thing.

There is no known scientific basis either, Foxfyre, for how something was made out of nothing. To properly teach science, it should not be over-taught, to assume things that simply have not been established. When you get into that area, you enter the area of faith or religion. An acknowledgement of that does not seem unreasonable, then leave it at that.

I do beleive that the RNC has put the McCain campaign firmly back on track. It will remain a tight race for the next 2 months and after McCain's speech last night I am reaffirmed that he will make a good President.

The addition of Palin has been a smart strategic move. She will motivate the Republican base, many of whom have been felt left out by McCain. I will be interesting to continue watching as events unfold.

+1 !!

The debates are going to be very entertaining and eye opening.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows the beginning of John McCain’s convention bounce and the race is essentially back where it was before Barack Obama’s bounce. Obama now attracts 46% of the vote while McCain earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48%, McCain 46%"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Note, the statement says "the beginning of ...McCains.....bounce"

P.S. This thread needs to be kept alive right through the election, to demonstrate the irony of its title.