Palin for teaching creationism in schools ..

zod

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=TE69ajamamo

http://www.thelangreport.com/political-commentary/sarah-palin-creationism-god-and-country-pt2/

Oilrig

You know, for a supposedly (their projection) intelligent country... I wonder.

They can grapple with science when it comes to developing military hardware, yet deny it all in preference to creationism in their schools...?

I give up.

lostexpectation

cindy mccain was asked that last night and she thoughtfully said ' i think both sides should be thought'

sink

lostexpectation wrote: »

cindy mccain was asked that last night and she thoughtfully said ' i think both sides should be thought'

Yeah but I doubt she was talking about evolution in science classrooms and id in sunday school.

CivilServant

Come on now. A VP who believes in creationism..

You cannot be serious
/McEnroe

irish_bob

CivilServant wrote: »

Come on now. A VP who believes in creationism..

You cannot be serious
/McEnroe

its called reaching out to the base

the christian right are an integral part of the republican party , palin was chosen by mc cain so as to reach out to this demographic , a demographic that mc cain has never been popular with

Black Swan

If she thought it would get votes, Sarah Palin would claim that pigs could fly. Wait a minute, I was looking at her pic when she stepped off the plane...

33% God

lostexpectation wrote: »

cindy mccain was asked that last night and she thoughtfully said ' i think both sides should be thought'

I'm assuming she's gonna apply that logic to everything to avoid being a hypocrite.
Alchemy in chemistry classes. Flat earth theory in Geography class.

Ludo

erm...as someone who used to respect John McCain but has now lost it all in the last 8 months due to his sudden conversion to ultra-republicanism, why does it actually matter what Cindy McCain thinks about these things?

No-one is voting for her. I don't want McCain to win but surely there are more important issues than what his wife thinks about stuff like this.

To be honest, the only issue I would like to hear from Cincy McCain about is the one dealt with in this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/22/nation/na-hensley22

Lirange

CivilServant wrote: »

Come on now. A VP who believes in creationism..

You cannot be serious
/McEnroe

A VP? You're really shocked?

What do you think the current gimp in the White House believes?

Hobbes

Ludo wrote: »

No-one is voting for her. I don't want McCain to win but surely there are more important issues than what his wife thinks about stuff like this.

Your correct. But your comment would of made more sense if the Republicans hadn't of had a go previously.

CivilServant

Lirange wrote: »

A VP? You're really shocked?

What do you think the current gimp in the White House believes?

Anything that lines his pockets.

Ludo

Hobbes wrote: »

Your correct. But your comment would of made more sense if the Republicans hadn't of had a go previously.

Sorry? Don't really follow that comment.

Lirange

CivilServant wrote: »

Anything that lines his pockets.

He has personal conversations with God on policy.

He claimed to look into Putin's eyes and peer into his soul.

Spaceman Spiff

33% God wrote: »

I'm assuming she's gonna apply that logic to everything to avoid being a hypocrite.
Alchemy in chemistry classes. Flat earth theory in Geography class.

Hobbes

Ludo wrote: »

Sorry? Don't really follow that comment.

Well I agree with you. It shouldn't really matter at all. However the repubs had a go first with "baby mama" and "terrorist fist jab" so I don't see how they can then say Cindy is off limits. That isn't even precedence, I still remember the flack Mrs Clinton got when she was first lady.

Ludo

Ah right sorry...just wasn't sure what you meant. You are right, of course, but this woman really doesn't have a clue about policy stuff. Seems a bit of an airhead to me so why bother wasting time on it when there are actual candidates to rip apart.

zod

seems most if her best friends wont be voting for her!

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=GbxClZXzvDo

Lirange

Ludo wrote: »

Ah right sorry...just wasn't sure what you meant. You are right, of course, but this woman really doesn't have a clue about policy stuff. Seems a bit of an airhead to me so why bother wasting time on it when there are actual candidates to rip apart.

So I assume on that basis you ignored Bush Jr too? :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zod

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I assume you were told this in religion class and not taught in biology as being a valid competing scientific theory. Context is everything.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zod

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Palin is for teaching ID as a valid competing theory to evolution in biology. This is not similar to the parable stories told during catechism in primary and relegated to religion class in secondary in Ireland.

"When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."


Either way Palins stance should be condemned irrespective of Irelands or any other countries state curriculum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lemming

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Erm ..... here's an interesting idea that I'm going to just ... throw out there.

Creationism. Isn't. A. Science.

What is it kiddies? It's religious belief.

And we alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll know that belief != fact.

All Palin seems to be suggesting is that educators should be allowed to use their best judgment and to have a reasonable discussion of the issue if it comes up. I don't see the harm in that, personally. Do we really want judges and politicians deciding what teachers can and cannot teach?

No, what Palin is doing is trying to push the thin edge of the wedge into the classroom. The US education system has separated church and education. Now you want to reverse that?

The question of intelligent design—did the universe and life just evolve randomly, or was there some form of intelligence behind it all—is an interesting philosophical thing to debate, at very least, even if it is in no way a scientific question. I don't see the point in declaring it off-limits just to please the hard-line secularists who bristle at the very mention of the word "God."

Erm ... That's all very contradictory. I've highlighted the bits that are absurdly at odds here. So first of all, you want to see ecclesiastical debate introduced into scientific education. Then you try to tar people who see the danger in this as hard-line whilst ignoring the fact that the general demographic all for creationism begin taught in schools would appear to be generally right-wing religious fundamentalists.

On top of deriding secular education whilst slagging off an obsolete (thankfully) system of religious education that was in place in Ireland until the mid 90s.

Make up your mind for the love of sanity!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FionnMatthew

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Let's stop excluding the middle. Theoretical physics has a different factual status to evolutionary biology.

Does it contravene the Establishment Clause to make children aware of post-Darwinian debates and conflicts between proponents of evolution and advocates of creationism?

It's sort of generous to call the disagreements between evolutionary scientists debates.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be aware of them. But making up your own mind from the sort of intemperate arm waving (on both sides of the putatively obvious fence) that goes on in this "debate" isn't, probably, the best way to go. It doesn't really amount to discourse at all. Either side doesn't recognize the argumentative ground of the other. There's nothing much intelligent going on on either side.

No, I want to see teachers be free to address questions raised by students who might be confused as to how creationism and science interrelate.

As in... they don't?

Seriously, though. How are teachers NOT free to address such questions? Granted, Palin isn't advocating putting Creationism on the curriculum. But that aside - it not being on the curriculum - that doesn't rule out its being addressible in class. Addressable in an open-minded, ecumenical and eventually inevitably science-leaning manner.

I also want to see students educated in the full historical sweep of Western scientific, religious, and imaginative thought, rather than in whitewashed revisionist ones designed to suit the narrow agendas of liberal secularists.

Since when was this suggested?

Anyone who sees any "danger" in intellectual debate should consider himself extraordinarily parochial. What exactly are you afraid of?

Which is forgetting one thing. There's nothing intellectual about repetetive automatic gainsaying. The creationism controversy is the sort of debate that gives you brain damage. It polarizes you - obliterates the possibility of thinking in a nuanced way. It's just a gathering point for opposed extremisms.

Everyone should forget about the debate, leave science curricula to scientific theories (because you're not supposed to get the full historical sweep of western religious and imaginative thought in your science class - and neither, frankly, are you supposed to be having intellectual debates in science class. You're just supposed to be memorizing the established "facts" of the prevailing paradigm) and leave creationist accounts of the Genesis to Bible school and family and clergy, and let everyone knock themselves out.

I am about as far from a right-wing religious fundamentalist as you can get. And yet I think the best way to deal with fundamentalist religious ideas is to discuss them openly, subject them to debate and scrutiny, and give children a rounded, informed idea of the issues at play.



And where did I deride secular education? I have stated that secular education is misguided only insofar as it wants to negate all trace of religion from Western thought, ignoring the complex interplay between science, faith, philosophy, literature, art, music, and countless other disciplines that has given us the world as it is today.

I hear you on this count. I'm no lover of the Richard Dawkins school of amateurish sociology of religion. Frankly, I think that movement is a force for bad in the world. But it does offend me the thought that state power could be deployed to censor the teaching of science in schools just because certain people "disagree" with evolution.

There are already perfectly good spheres for both of these issues to live. This whole "debate" stems from the attempted invasion of one by the other, and vice versa.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, you don't seem familiar with the scientific definition of facts.

A fact is the small piece of data that does not provide explanation e.g. throw a rock in the air and it will fall to the ground, facts do not explain anything. Explanations are called theories e.g. the theory of gravity. Theories have to correlate with many independently verified facts through scientific experimentation and observation. Untested theories are called hypotheses although depending on the scientific field theories and hypotheses are interchangeable. All scientific theories and hypotheses have to be based upon the scientific method and must be falsifiable. Mathematics is not technically science although a lot of maths and science are interchangeable and theoretical physics straddles the border between the two. For instance superstring theory is purely maths at this stage until a scientific experiment can observe and verify it as scientific theory.

Creationism has been proven to be false through radiological dating, the fossil records etc and should not be allowed in the science classroom any more than astrology or alchemy. The ID 'hypotheses' is not really science as you cannot apply the scientific method t and it is not falsifiable and therefore does not belong in the science classroom any more than existentialism.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You can make them aware of the debate in a class on philosophy, civics or religion but not in a science class as that obfuscates what science is.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They are free to answer them in a scientific context which would be that there is no scientific evidence to support them and that they do not belong to the scientific field.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are as much of a liberal secularist as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. You've made your political views quiet well known in the thread on Irish conservatism and they are as fiscally conservative as you can get. Now you are also demonstrating that you are socially conservative.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't have a problem with children being taught about creationism as a religious belief in a secularist way, but not in a science classroom. That will just confuse children as to what science is and as you've pointed out elsewhere science education is bad enough as it is.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. Secularist education in Ireland at least does teach religion in schools, but does it in a balanced way where all religions are given equal treatment and no religion is treated as dogma. Science attempts to exist in a vacuum and the only thing that should influence science is the scientific method and mathematics. Science can impact religion, faith, philosophy, literature, art and music but they should have limited to no impact on science.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would have thought it obvious that I am referring to your assertion that science teachers should be allowed to address creationism and ID outside the context of science in a science classroom. I never attributed you as a believer in either.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You claimed to be a 'liberal secularist' and liberal secularism involves fiscal policy and your fiscal views are conservative which most definitely rules you out of being liberal. Liberal secularists generally maintain that creationism and ID should be kept out of science classrooms completely. You might be a 'conservative secularist' more commonly known as a 'secular conservative' but so far you don't appear very 'secular'.

Both 'liberal secularism' and 'secular conservatism' clearly separate religion from politics and science as opposed to 'liberal fundamentalism' and 'conservative fundamentalism' which combine their religious beliefs 'Christianity', 'Astrology', 'Environmentalism ' with their political beliefs conservative or liberal.

Overheal

Im constantly baffled why they cant just accept that God intelligently designed Evolution as a process of life.

brendansmith

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Otacon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't see anyone having any issue with Creationism being discussed in a classroom, so long as it does not, in any way, start being taught alongside science. I know most of us understand the difference between Creationism and Science, however, children do not.

IMO we have a responsibility to teach children in a way that is science-based, fact-based, allowing for them to join the workforce as educated individuals. Science should be taught in schools. Creationism should be taught in the Church.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good question.

What if another kid beside them insists that they're both wrong and the earth and the universe are infinite in age, and that man has existed on earth in his current form for millions of years (i.e. the Hindu view of creationism) ???

What if a third kid then decides that they don't hold to any religious view, but believe that the world is a computer simulation, which was only turned on minutes ago, but with a persistent "back story" to artificially create memory?

Is the third kid's view less or more worthy of debate because its not religiously based? Are the second and third kids' views less worthy because they're not Christian?

Can a teacher decide that some student is trolling, and making up a belief for whatever reason, or has *every* idea to be taken seriously?

Should the teacher not simply explain that such stances are not scientific and therefore have no place in the science classroom, perhaps also suggesting that the class should discuss (at a later date) what science is and is not, seperate from any "hotbed" issues?

It's utterly anti-intellectual to try to make sure a priori that certain kinds of discussions do not take place.

You are creating a false distinction between the taking place of discussions, and where those discussions take place. The US system says that religious topics are not for school...not that they are not for anywhere. They do not prohibit the faith vs science issue, merely say that school is not the forum for it.

Do we really want judges and politicians deciding what teachers can and cannot teach?

I want school boards to make that decision, and I want them to make it in line with what is legal. Would you have an objection to an inner-city teacher deciding to teach his kids how to jack cars, or pimp for hookers? Or perhaps a white supremacist teacher deciding to teach his all-white class about the evils of the black man? Maybe a sexist male teaching his class that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

The question of intelligent design—did the universe and life just evolve randomly, or was there some form of intelligence behind it all—is an interesting philosophical thing to debate, at very least, even if it is in no way a scientific question.

Exactly. It is no no way a scientific question, and therefore has no place in the science classroom.

Personally, I believe a science teacher should be allowed to teach why Creationism / ID is not science...but they should not be allowed to open some sort of debate in the science classroom between such a point of view and the scientific perspective.

I don't see the point in declaring it off-limits just to please the hard-line secularists who bristle at the very mention of the word "God."

Ascribing irrational fear as the reason for suport of a position you don't agree with...it adds so much to your argument.

bonkey

Otacon wrote: »

I can't see anyone having any issue with Creationism being discussed in a classroom,

Depends on the classroom

Do I think it should be discussed in (say) mathematics? No, I don't?
Economics? Also no. Geography? Nu-uh.

Science? No. Its no more scientific then it is mathematic, economic or geographic.

You find the subject that its suitable to, and I'll have no issue that it should be allowed for discussion there.

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

...so long as it does not, in any way, start being taught alongside science. I know most of us understand the difference between Creationism and Science, however, children do not.

bonkey wrote: »

Depends on the classroom

Do I think it should be discussed in (say) mathematics? No, I don't?
Economics? Also no. Geography? Nu-uh.

Science? No. Its no more scientific then it is mathematic, economic or geographic.

You find the subject that its suitable to, and I'll have no issue that it should be allowed for discussion there.

OK, you should really read all of the sentence and the entire post to get the meaning and a clearer understanding of my stance.

I said I was for discussion in the classroom and it not being a science class. I am opposed to it being taught. I hope you can see the difference.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, but you must recognise that calling yourself a Liberal these days and most will identify you as a new-Liberal which is very different from classical Liberalism. Today classical Liberalism has evolved into minarchist Libertarianism which seems closer to your political beliefs than new-liberalism, so why don't you call yourself a libertarian and avoid confusion?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed, I just got confused when you claimed to be a Liberal.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That seems like a reasonable position. It depends on how you define a careful, respectful, and professional way. In a science classroom imo that can only be from the scientific perspective which would be along the lines of 'Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not supported by scientific evidence, evolution does not rule out a creators hand in shaping life on earth nor does it support it. Evolution is accepted as fact in biological sciences and this rules out a literal interpretation of creation in the bible'. If a teacher brings in their own personal beliefs on creationism that moves the class away from science and children will get confused about whether or not creationism is science.

My main concern surrounding creationism is that proponents purposely obfuscate what science is and attempt to educate children that creationism is science when it has no scientific basis. This lessens societies scientific literacy which is bad enough already. Scientific literacy is essential for everyone in a democratic society as science impacts politics everyday and citizens are required to make decisions which impact policy towards science.

toiletduck

Overheal wrote: »

Im constantly baffled why they cant just accept that God intelligently designed Evolution as a process of life.

It conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's essentially what it comes down to for these people.

bonkey

Otacon wrote: »

OK, you should really read all of the sentence and the entire post to get the meaning and a clearer understanding of my stance.

I did, thanks. I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I didn't misinterpret what you said.

I said I was for discussion in the classroom and it not being a science class.

You said it was fine for discussion in the classroom, as long as it was not taught alongside science.

The implication of this is that discussion in the science classroom may be fine by you.

If thats what you were implying, then I didn't misundertand you. If its not what you were implying, then I think we've both misunderstood each other.

The point I was making is that while I agree it can be discussed in the classroom, I would be much more stringent in terms of which class is suitable for discussing it in. From my perspective, the science classroom is no more a suitable venue for such a discussion then the geography class.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

toiletduck wrote: »

It conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's essentially what it comes down to for these people.

I never read through and never tried to interpret the Bible so forgive me, how does this conflict with the literal interpretation?

sink

Overheal wrote: »

I never read through and never tried to interpret the Bible so forgive me, how does this conflict with the literal interpretation?

The literal interpretation of the bible is that man was created out of nothing in one day and woman was created in one day from the rib of man. This took place approximately 6000-10000 years ago. All other creatures were also created instantly around the same time. Snakes also talk!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Overheal wrote:

Im constantly baffled why they cant just accept that God intelligently designed Evolution as a process of life.

It wouldn't say much for their faith if people started back-tracking on thousands of years of their long-held beliefs just to stick with the times.

In saying that, it also doesn't say much for their intelligence if they continue spouting crap in the face of what is essentially certain scientific fact.

toiletduck

Overheal wrote:

I never read through and never tried to interpret the Bible so forgive me, how does this conflict with the literal interpretation?

Read the thread here

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its nothing to do with my logical faculties.

You asked if judges should be allowed decide what teachers can and cannot teach. You suggested that it is wrong that they do so. I merely chose examples where I was certain you'd have no issue with the law holding teachers to task for choosing to exercise academic freedom in teaching.

It seems impossible to argue for a reasonable position on the issue when people respond with such inane analogies.

I am reminded of the story of the man who asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars, and she agrees. He then asks if she would sleep with him for twenty dollars, to which she expresses outrage and asks what kind of woman he thinks she is. "Madam", he replies, "we have already established that. Now we are merely negotiating price".

We've established that you fully support that teachers be prevented from teaching certain subjects. Now we are merely negotiating price.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Academic freedom really only come into play at third level (when students are mature enough not to be easily influenced by a 'teacher'), and even then absolute professionalism and integrity is always expected among academic peers.

You will not find a professor of science who will preach creationism to students. You'd be hard pushed to find a lecturer who would.

Before third level, I think some level of protection must be in place to stop children being maniupulated. School is primarily a place of academic learning, and to be frank, creationism doesn't command much respect in academic circles.