Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_beastie]

Beastie, I don't want to speak for Dart, but my understanding would that the office of Governor is in the Executive branch of government like the Presidency is. One being federal and the other state. Obama has legislative experience at the state and federal level by being in the state and later federal Senate.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I am incorrect.

This is also my understanding. I was curious as to how Dart understood the term, because he was speaking inconsistently in his post. When he referred to Palin, he would stress "executive experience" in order to present her as more experienced than Obama. Yet, when I pointed out that McCain also has no executive experience, and, using that paradigm (ie, the paradigm of viewing only executive experience as valuable), is no more qualified than Obama, he flipped back to counting McCain's legislative experience. If you're going to count legislative experience as well, then Obama is far more experienced than Palin.

[_beastie]

Dart,
First I’m just going to respond to the creationism bit.

Well you just explained why you're so confused right there. You aren't even familiar with the basics of the controversy. Nobody has ever suggested creationism be "taught" in the sense you're referring to. You say you have no problem with creationism being "mentioned", but that is precisely what so many creationists want. They just want it "mentioned," not "taught" as true. And as far as Palin is concerned, she does not want teachers teaching creationism as fact. She said she doesn't even want it included in the curriculum. She only supports the idea that it be "mentioned" in the classroom and she supports the process of debate amongst students.

The devil is in the details, dart. She wants creationism “mentioned” in some “healthy debate”. See all of my previous responses above. You know as well as I do that she would not want creationism mentioned as an example of an alternate belief that has zero scientific support now, would she?

It doesn't matter what you want to call it. It is a debate whether you like it or not. You can't rewrite the English dictionary to suit your own atheistic agenda.

You can’t have it both ways. If creationism is going to be seriously debated, then it’s not just being “mentioned”.

Again, the question of God isn't settled at all. It depends on what version of creationism you're referring to.

I never said it was. Gee, your reading comprehension sucks.

The question that is settled is the “debate” between creationism and evolution, in terms of scientific support. Evolution has overwhelming scientific evidence and support; creationism has none.

That doesn't even come close to what Palin said or thinks. Now you're relying on psychoanalysis while ignoring what she has actually said to the contrary, just so you can maintain your resentment of her... but you do so on shaky ground because the one think you resent about her, isn't even true.

Just what the heck do you imagine this “debate” would look like? Unless the “debate” is anti-scientific, it will look like a joke and be over in thirty seconds… which would qualify as a “mention”, not a “healthy debate”.

You seem oblivious to the fact that most creationists just want it "mentioned" as an opposing argument. None of them want it "taught" as factual and very few of them, if any, want evolution done away with. Since you agree with this, you have to misrepresent their position by saying, Palin supports "teaching creationism in school, as a theory just as legitimate as evolution." This is patently false, and after several posts of correction, you still refuse to own up to it.

I am beginning to think you have as poor an understanding of the word “debate” as you do “executive experience”. So, help me out here. Just what do you envision happening in the classroom that would fit Palin’s idea of a “healthy debate”? Be specific, cuz right now you’re talking in circles.

beastie

Just exactly which “essential difference” was I referencing??? Yes, that’s right, the preceding sentences:

dart

As I said, Palin clearly had all of that in mind or else she never would have said she didn't want it as a part of the curriculum.

This is getting ridiculous, and I am beginning to suspect you don’t even READ my posts to which you are supposedly responding. The “essential difference is the fact that creationism has ZERO scientific support or evidence, while evolution has a HUGE amount of scientific support and evidence. The first time I made this statement:

beastie

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. 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?

You snipped it to:

Creationism should be "mentioned" in school, but only if this essential difference between the two is emphasized.

and agreed with:

Yes, that is what she said she asked to expound on it.

A response that, by the way, made me laugh out loud, so I asked:

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?

And you protested:

Why are you citing the entire paragraph when you know perfectly well it was the last statement that I was referring to?

So I pointed out to you that your sloppy reading had apparently led you to ignore the words this essential difference which obviously referred to the preceding sentence. So now you snip, again, the preceding sentences and quote me as saying:

Just exactly which “essential difference” was I referencing??? Yes, that’s right, the preceding sentences:

and you respond:

As I said, Palin clearly had all of that in mind or else she never would have said she didn't want it as a part of the curriculum.

WTH?????? Palin clearly had all of WHAT in mind???? The “essential difference between the two”??? What the heck are you talking about???? Honestly. You are making zero sense. Again.

Beastie:

If creationism is simply the idea that God created the cosmos, then it has no place in science class at all.

dart

Yes it does, since many former atheists are now understanding that science is telling us precisely that.

Again, WTH???? Are you seriously – I mean seriously – claiming that the existence of God should be taught in science classrooms because some former atheists think that science is telling us precisely that?

Now that is amazing. Utterly amazing. Scientific proving the existence of God. Write a book quick, you will make billions.

Beastie:

But creationism is NOT simply that idea.

Dart

I understand there to be various versions of it. I myself have argued for creationism, while strictly referring to the creation of the universe, and not of humanity. As we have already established, evolution in and of itself does nothing to hinder theism. It only undermines the silly Adam/Eve -7 days of creation as commonly interpreted from Genesis.

May I remind you of the context of this discussion? What is under discussion is what would be appropriate to teach in a science class. You are boiling creationism down to the bare bones: God existed and created the world. Is that what you’re really insisting is appropriate to be taught in science classes in the public school system? Good grief.

Antishock – are you reading this??? I gotta tell you, in my view, the republican party encourages this type of thinking with its current bedding of the religious right. You may agree with republicans on many other issues, but if I were you, I would think long and hard about encouraging this any further.

And no, dart, it’s not because I’m prejudiced against religion. The democrats are just as religious as the republicans, and kiss up to believers just as much as republicans do. But they do have enough sense to try and maintain the wall of separation between church and state.

[_beastie]

You're being too melodramatic, and you are doing it to color concern as genuine, when we both know it is all about your hatred of religion - that's it. I mean even if some teachers decided to teach creationism as "an equally viable theory as evolution," to say this is altering the "foundation of science itself" is just making me laugh. Do you even have kids in elementary school? I ask because it blows my mind how many childless atheists are out there complaining about students, who belong to religious families, are actually having a discussion about something they learned at home.

I've raised three children and they all went through the public school system. I am a school teacher in the public school system, as well. I have endured, without protest, all the myriads intrusion of religion into my children's and student's schooling, including assemblies with students from a local "born again" college who perform motivational assemblies (breaking bricks, that kind of stuff) that is heavily laced with references to Jesus and what a difference God makes in your life. I have endured, without protest, my children being given Bibles by folks who set up tables in the halls. I have endured, without protest, the religious Christmas carol assemblies in which Christian songs are supposed to be sung and enjoyed by everyone - including the few Muslim and Jewish students in our school. I have endured all this for decades, and have never once protested. I don't think it is that big of a deal, although it is annoying, and it is a violation of the separation of church and state. I view it with the same "eye roll" that I view hearing the words "indivisible, Under God" repeated every morning.

But I will not endure our science curriculum being polluted by "mentioning" creationism as scientifically viable alternative theory to evolution - because that does matter, and it matters for the reason I shared earlier which you dismissed, like you're some freaking mind-reader who "knows" I just hate religion, and am not truly concerned about the state of scientific education in our country. Do you know just how stupid Americans are in terms of scientific understanding, already???? We're already failing. Putting a stupid dollop of creationism on top of it might be the last nail in that coffin, because of how it violates the basic principles of science itself.

Now, if the "mention" of creationism explicitly includes a clear explanation of the fact that evolution has overwhelming scientific evidence and support, while creationism as no scientific evidence and support, then I'm fine with it. In fact, I'd strongly support it.

Stupid Americans

Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it. His findings are not encouraging.

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

I do not know how anyone can read this sort of information and not be extremely concerned about science education in the US.

[_EAllusion]

This thread has so many bizarro-world claims packed into it I'm speechless. My favorite is that Obama was picked just because he is black.

As for the creationism issue, since that is my favorite area of comment, Palin first clearly advocated teaching it. This is a direct quote from her, "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." How clear do you need it to be? She later backtracked on that position and claimed she just thinks that children in class should be allowed to bring it up to debate it if they want to.

[_moksha]

Being President would be a learning experience for both candidates. There really is no requisite preparation that would truly help, other than the native skills, temperment and learning ability each candidate brings with him to the Office of the Presidency.

Speaking of Creationism:

[_Ray A]

Stupid Americans

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

Surely this cannot be?????

Edit:

Four out of Five Americans Know Earth Revolves Around Sun
Probing a more universal measure of knowledge, Gallup also asked the following basic science question, which has been used to indicate the level of public knowledge in two European countries in recent years: "As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?" In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know.

New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels

[_richardMdBorn]

Wait just a minute. Whether or not you like Obama’s career as a lawyer and professor, he certainly was successful.

How was this manifested? Which law firm made him a partner? He was a adjunct lecturer not a professor at UC (I'm seen one of his final exams for a class and it's amateur hour).

[_beastie]

How was this manifested? Which law firm made him a partner? He was a adjunct lecturer not a professor at UC (I'm seen one of his final exams for a class and it's amateur hour).

Fact Check

Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?

His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

Still waiting for more insight regarding Palin's successful pre-political career.

[_beastie]

Surely this cannot be?????

Depressing, isn't it? I have good reason to fear the further deterioration of scientific education in the US, dart's worthless "mind reading" aside.

[_Ray A]

Depressing, isn't it? I have good reason to fear the further deterioration of scientific education in the US, dart's worthless "mind reading" aside.

Apparently Germans aren't far behind (see edit). I'm checking up on my own country with bated breath.