Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes

@rosborne979,

Actually, science does look for how life began; they just haven't found it yet.

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Actually, science does look for how life began; they just haven't found it yet.

Correct. And my post never implied that it didn't.

But the Creationists don't really care whether it's evolution or abiogenesis that describes the origin of life. The terminology is just a red-herring. The name of the particular field of science which describes the origin of life isn't important to them, it's the *idea* that life could have originated through natural processes which they don't like.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Agreed!

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

ros wrote-

Quote:

it's the *idea* that life could have originated through natural processes which they don't like.

How do you know that. I don't mind. I hardly think any of our lives originated through a natural process.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

OK, I'll bite.

How does teaching a theory conflict with our Constitution and how is it the same as "attacking the United States itself."?

It's not a theory. It's an untestable hypothesis.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

So is that it happened spontaneously.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote-

Quote:

Until then, the freaks f@ck off.

The "@" in that post is a measure of Wilso's Christian tweet quotient. Obviously a considerable force.

Hardly convincing from a scientist I must say.

Voluntary self-censorship. One might easily assume Wilso is uncomfortable discussing the periodicy of human female sexual receptivity in biology classes.

Which basically means that his stance on these issues is that of the rebel against authority and discipline. But not at any authority and discipline he has to deal with in real life.

He's using Christianity as a scapegoat to defuse the rage he must feel at authority and discipline closer to home which he is frightened of challeging.

0 Replies

http://mudflats.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wasilla.jpg

Down town Wasilla AK .... sound familiar?

2 Replies

@Gelisgesti,

That's as unDarwinian as the Beagle.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

If you had read the post I was replying to, you would have understood that I was quoting someone else.

0 Replies

Maybe, including it in science class is a good idea. We must give students the benefit of the doubt that they'll see right through the BS of creationism is voodoo science. Science is about "evidence."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well c.i. Sarah looks a bit Darwinian to me. It surprises me you can't see that. Are you only an itsy-bitsy Darwinian?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

ros quoted-

Quote:

RELIGION Keeping you in your place for thousands of years.

Are you recommending we not be in our places ros? Are you an anarchist? 300 million Yanks not in their place would be quite a spectacle I imagine.

You're a little babba ros.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

You have to be fair, Robert: I'm sure Palin has also given equal time to the flying spaghetti monster theory, the invisible pink unicorn theory, and the Phlogiston theory of fire.

Is that sort of dross still doing the business for your exciteable cells after all these years and constant repetition?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Quote:
In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

This canard that gives creationism parity with evolution is absurd. If people want creationism taught in science class it should be taught that it is an example of religious fundamentalism that fails on all counts as a scientific theory.

And now for the rest of the story...

Quote:

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

I think that leaving this part out of the story is a bit misleading, don't you? She said that she supported it being included, not that she wants it taqught in science class and she certainly would not seek to make it mandatory. She has an opinion. Opinion Not Equal

legislation.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I think that leaving this part out of the story is a bit misleading, don't you? She said that she supported it being included, not that she wants it taqught in science class and she certainly would not seek to make it mandatory. She has an opinion. Opinion legislation.

I think making it part of their platform to entice the votes, but then claiming they'd not actually push for it or that they don't campaign on it is misleading.

Quote:

The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

They campaign on this as much as they can get away with, but back off enough to not get charges of violating the separation of church and state. It's nice that they don't go all the way, but they still have the nonsense as a plank in their political platform.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

The conservatives want less government intrusion, but it's okay to intrude their religious beliefs in the classroom.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Quote:
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

I feel a little better knowing that she's not stupid enough to push this agenda, but the fact that it remains as a plank in the party platform means that someone is being disingenuous somewhere.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Robert Gentel (Post 3393843)
The conservatives want less government intrusion, but it's okay to intrude their religious beliefs in the classroom.

Conservatives seem to want less government intrusion along financial lines, but they want more intrusion in people's personal behavior and personal choices. They seem very focused on enforcing a particular view of morality.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I think that leaving this part out of the story is a bit misleading, don't you? She said that she supported it being included, not that she wants it taqught in science class and she certainly would not seek to make it mandatory. She has an opinion. Opinion legislation.

I think making it part of their platform to entice the votes, but then claiming they'd not actually push for it or that they don't campaign on it is misleading.

Quote:
The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

They campaign on this as much as they can get away with, but back off enough to not get charges of violating the separation of church and state. It's nice that they don't go all the way, but they still have the nonsense as a plank in their political platform.

Palin is not the Republican Party of Alaska. The thread title says "Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes", Not "Republican Party of Alaska wants creationism taught in science classes."

Political parties have lots of things in their platform. Something has to bring in the votes. I am sure you know of my opinion regarding ID Vs. Evolution, and it saddens me to see political parties try to make it an issue but that's what voters want.

Sarah is entitled to her opinion though so long as she does not try, and so far I have seen no evidence of her trying, to make her opinion law.

2 Replies

Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know