Whether this is true or false will be determined in a debate. All debate is healthy for childhood developmentld. It isn't for you and your atheistic fringe to decide what should and shouldn't be up for debate. Evolution is frequently discussed in religion classes, so why are science teachers afraid to discuss God?
I never said that creationism shouldn’t be mentioned at all. If creationism is going to be “taught” in some way in science class, then, for the discussion not to qualify as “anti-science”, then the teaching must make clear that there exists overwhelming scientific support for evolution, and none at all for creationism. I wouldn’t call that a “debate”, because the question is pretty settled in terms of scientific knowledge. The term “healthy debate”, which Palin used, connotes that she thinks both sides would be able to present solid support for their assertions. That is patently untrue, and the only way for it to “look” true is if it is presented in an anti-scientific manner, in which teachers – science teachers, to be specific – would ignore the vast amounts of scientific support for evolution and pretend that equivalent support exists for creationism. That is anti-scientific, because it betrays the basic foundation of what science is in the first place.
The fact that you're so adamant about it being excluded from debate only shows insecurity in your position. It seems to me that if you really thought it was a joke, then you would welcome the debate. That's the best way to win minds, after all. Make them too embarrassed to ever mention it again.
You are such a sloppy reader. I didn’t say creationism can’t be mentioned – I said you can’t call it a “healthy debate” when the issue is settled, in terms of scientific knowledge.
I would also not use the term “healthy debate” on peep-stones working for finding underground treasure in a science class. That doesn’t mean peep-stones can’t be mentioned. Of course they can. But they should be mentioned – in a science class – in terms that make it clear that there is no debate in the scientific community, the issue is already settled. If the discussion is presented to make it appear like a “healthy debate”, then it is anti-scientific.
Perhaps our disagreement lies in just what “healthy debate” connotes.
But you're not interested in winning minds via debate, you're only interested in indoctrination via lecture. In other words, you're just the flip side of the religion coin.
You are an extraordinarily sloppy reader. I never said creationism should never be mentioned – I said that it should be made clear that there is zero scientific support for creationism, while an abundance of scientific support exists for evolution. This should not be presented as a “healthy debate”, which implies that the scientific community is divided on the topic. It’s not.
Beastie previous:
LOL! Where did Palin clarify that she wants creationism to be mentioned along with the clarification that it has no scientific support and is a religious theory?
Dart
Why are you citing the entire paragraph when you know perfectly well it was the last statement that I was referring to?The issue, as you originally stated it, is whether or not Palin supports, "teaching creationism in school, as a theory just as legitimate as evolution." I said this is not true. Palin clarified that this is not her position. She never wanted it included it in the curriculum. She never suggested evolution not be taught as part of the curriculum. I proved this. This in and of itself proves she understands one to be legitimate science and the other not.
Earth to beastie?
Your sloppy reading is only exceeded by your arrogant and totally misplaced confidence. Here’s the “last statement”:
Sure, creationism should be "mentioned" in school, but only if this essential difference between the two is emphasized. You think that's what Palin had in mind?
Just exactly which “essential difference” was I referencing??? Yes, that’s right, the preceding sentences:
There is no "healthy debate" in terms of two scientifically supported theories being debated to see which one is stronger. There is one side that is fully supported by science - evolution - versus another side that has no scientific support and is a religious theory - creationism.
Honestly. It’s hard to know exactly what to say to someone who isn’t willing or able to read carefully enough to know exactly what he/she is agreeing to.
But now you want to move the goal posts and say she has to state unequivocally that, "one side that is fully supported by science - evolution - versus another side that has no scientific support and is a religious theory - creationism." Why would she be required to say that to prove you have already misrepresented her? Again, you said she wanted it taught as an equal with evolution, when in fact she rejected that idea.
There are many facets to creationism. I believe most Christians wouldn't even have a problem with rejecting creationism as it refers to the silly notion that God plopped all species on earth as they appear today. But most Christians, I believe, understand creationism to refer to the idea that God created the cosmos. Again, science is pointing in that direction the more we learn from it. Why should this be forbidden in classroom discussion?
I didn’t move the goalpost. The goalpost was explicit in my statement. You just chose to ignore it.
If creationism is simply the idea that God created the cosmos, then it has no place in science class at all. But creationism is NOT simply that idea. Of course, you may not actually realize that – it’s hard to say with your sloppy reading comprehension.
What a quacky excuse for your hatred of theism. Stop pretending you're spite towards all things religious has anything to do with a noble concern for the technological future. There is no evidence that technology has been impeded because of religious views in politics.
Technological advances are related to the quality of the scientific education we provide for our children. If our science teachers begin teaching creationism as if it were an equally viable theory as evolution, in the eyes of science, they are destroying the quality of scientific education in our country, because they have altered the foundation of science itself.
Beastie, previous
Again, LOL! According to this, McCain is as unqualified as Obama.
Dart
He might be, but there is nothing we can do about that. The debate is over experience for VP. Democrats have no room to complain about experience after nominating Obama for President, nor do they have room to claim interest in "change" after supporting an old school attack dog like Biden for VP.
There is no “might” be. Under this paradigm, he is every bit as unqualified as Obama.
See what has happened here? McCain and his supporters have been criticizing Obama’s lack of experience. In choosing Palin, McCain and his supporters will have to “shift the goalposts”, and now it’s “executive experience” that counts. But they can’t really use this argument, can they, because it then neuters their original argument that Obama doesn’t have the requisite experience! That’s why I think that this was probably a poor choice for McCain. I suspect he was leaning more towards Romney, but after the “I don’t know how many houses I own” gaffe, having another uber-rich candidate probably didn’t look like such a hot idea after all.
I never said he believed it was a mistake. I said it wasn't his idea, and he wasn't managing the war, and therefore cannot be blamed for anything having to do with it. But look at Obama and his failure to support the surge, which proved to be the best thing that has happened in Iraq since the war began. Obama is simply an idiot. Too young and too ignorant of foreign policy. He implies that he is willing to invade Pakistan to kill Osama bin Ladin. He says Iran is just a small country and when Russia invaded Georgia, when asked his opinion, he initially said both sides were at fault. He always speaks what he thinks he is is supposed to say, without ever knowing the facts. Being against war is always a safe bet as a politician, and he was just playing it safe by being against it.
Again, your poor reading is a real stumbling block in this conversation. My original point was that the primary difference between parties, on this issue, is whether or not we were ever justified in invading Iraq to begin with. You then told me I couldn’t “blame McCain”, which makes zero sense as a response to what I said in the first place. (of course, many of your responses make zero sense as a response to what I am actually saying, see all of the above) Obama has always maintained that invading Iraq was a mistake from the very beginning. Other democrats who initially supported the invasion now state that they were incorrect to do so. In contrast, Republicans believe that invading Iraq was a good idea, it a was just mishandled by the Bush crew. This is why a Republican who follows this party line will be more inclined to engage in preemptive military actions against other countries, like Iran. I do not believe our country can withstand another such action – economically, militarily, or globally.
bombbombbombbombiran
No, but we are talking about personal ambition here. Obama exploits his color for his own gain. In his short time in office he is already racking up with memorable, stupid comments that prove he is in no position to lead. All you have on Palin is your hatred for her religious belief.
And Palin is where she is not because she has exploited her gender for her personal gain. She has fought for what she believes in no matter if it meant fighting democrat or republican. She has a documented history of fighting off corruption, while Obama and Hillary have fed off of it.
Sure, all I have is “hatred for her religious beliefs”. In case you haven’t noticed, dart, the democrats wear their Christianity on their sleeves just as much as Republicans do, including Obama. So I don’t “hate” her religious beliefs – I just don’t want her ill-informed religious beliefs affecting our country’s interest, such as my interest in high-quality scientific education in this country.
So what evidence do you have that Obama is “exploiting his color for his own gain”, but Palin is not “exploiting her gender for her own gain”?
I can also make the argument that Obama has fought for what he believes in no matter if it meant fighting democrat or republican. Perhaps your memory fails you, but when he opposed the war in Iraq, most democrats were supporting Bush and the war. The climate in the country was not conducive to opposing the war, and the few that did, regardless of that climate, earned my respect (like Dennis Kucinich and Robert Byrd).
We should never have invaded Iraq. They did not attack us. Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator, but we support other cruel regimes. Saddam did a far better job keeping Islamic radical terrorists out of Iraq than the current regime has been able to. Controlling Islamic radical terrorists is what should concern us right now. He kept them out of his country far better than our big buddy, Saudi Arabia, has ever even pretended to do. Attacking Iraq was the sign of a malformed understanding of that part of the world, and a simplistic idea of how democracies work and “spread”, in my opinion. I believe that the Republican party has not accepted that reality, and their continued insistence that it was the right thing to do is, right now, the primary reason I would never vote for a Republican for president, unless they disavowed their party’s stance on that issue. I think that the refusal to disavow that stance indicates an unwillingness to learn painful lessons from our past history (NOT just Iraq), which indicates a higher likelihood that we will repeat those mistakes again.
Ok, I’m getting long-winded again. I have other things to do. Political discussions are worse than religious discussions in terms of impassible differences of opinions. I can tolerate long winded religious discussions more because religion has little potential of real impact on my life, whereas politics has potential of tremendous impact on my life. I will read any responses to my post, but can't guarantee I'll continue responding myself. I can only take so much of it.