Palin wants creationism taught in schools

[midcan5]

You dumb ass--she wants BOTH evolution and creationism taught. For the purpose of healthy debate.

I think they need to add Tea Leaf Reading, Astrology, Rain Dance Theory, Witch Doctoring, and Wishful Thinking Theory for a real healthy debate. LOL

And you thought Nancy's astrologer was off the wall.



A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

And now with the addition of Palin:

A vote for John McCain is a vote against Polar Bears too.

 

[DiamondDave]

On the one hand we have a scientific theory


On the other we have a religious explination

Now, which one belongs in a science class?

The big bang as well as the singularity... all leaps of faith by science with no proof or reason behind them except that they are needed to use in proof for the other theories

 

[SwingVoter]

A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Please explain how Obama's plan to tax the hell out of wealth we earn privately will allow us to lead our lives without gov't interfering.

 

[Jon]

I think they need to add Tea Leaf Reading, Astrology, Rain Dance Theory, Witch Doctoring, and Wishful Thinking Theory for a real healthy debate. LOL

Then send your kids to Hogwarts.

 

[SwingVoter]

ID does not make any testable predictions, therefore it is not science. It can be taught in religious education, philosophy, literature, or a wide range of other subjects.

I agree, as do many reasonable Christian leaders. But then what about all the global cooling/global warming prognostications "scientists" have made over the last 30 years that haven't come close to being true? Still should be taught in grade school regardless?

 

[Sunni Man]

"Singularity" is the scientific term used by scientists to describe the very first event in the universe that got everything statred.

In layman's terms, it means: "we don't have a clue!!"

 

[DeadCanDance]

You dumb ass--she wants BOTH evolution and creationism taught. For the purpose of healthy debate.

I want both modern chemistry and medieval alchemy taught in high school chemistry classes. It's only fair to present both sides of the issue for the purpose of healthy debate.

 

[Sunni Man]

I want both modern chemistry and medieval alchemy taught in high school chemistry classes. It's only fair to present both sides of the issue for the purpose of healthy debate.

Modern chemistry came out of Medieval alchemy. So it is already taught.

 

[SwingVoter]

I want both modern chemistry and medieval alchemy taught in high school chemistry classes. It's only fair to present both sides of the issue for the purpose of healthy debate.

I agree, I'd also like to see schools let students compare 1970s Global Cooling "scare" predictions to 2000s Global Warming "scare" predictions.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Modern chemistry came out of Medieval alchemy. So it is already taught.

Clearly you and I went to very different school systems.

I took by high school chemistry and college chemistry.

Medieval alchemy was mentioned as a historical curiosity. It was important in a historical sense. But the medieval alchemists were wrong about so many things, that modern chemistry replaced it in the 18th and 19th century.

Alchemy is most certainly NOT taught alongside modern chemistry as an equally valid scientific concept.

Which is what wingnuts want to do with creationism - put it alongside biological evolution on equal footing.

 

[SwingVoter]

Which is what wingnuts want to do with creationism - put it alongside biological evolution on equal footing.

The left has opened the door for the "wingnuts" by presenting wild speculation on the climate as hard science to 3rd graders. Either you're for nonsense and silly prognostications being taught in public schools, or you're not.

 

[Ravi]

Evolution does not posit that God did not create the universe. In fact, there is no scientific consensus on the question of how life began.

 

[Inferno]

Things like that are saved for collegiate level learning. It's hard to teach evolving science in a classroom of kids who don't give a shit.

That's why schools are so horse shit. They need to do some inovative and creative learning and teaching in schools. You can't keep a child who knows how to add and subtract when he gets to school interested in that when you teach fifteen other kids how to count.

If a child can show mastery of a topic or subject move them along.

 

[Caligirl]

I agree, as do many reasonable Christian leaders. But then what about all the global cooling/global warming prognostications "scientists" have made over the last 30 years that haven't come close to being true? Still should be taught in grade school regardless?

Are these things taught in your schools? My kids aren't being taught any of that. They learn the hydrologic cycle etc but no mention of global warming or cooling.

 

[Caligirl]

The left has opened the door for the "wingnuts" by presenting wild speculation on the climate as hard science to 3rd graders. Either you're for nonsense and silly prognostications being taught in public schools, or you're not.

My sixth grader did not get that in third grade, and my third grader has not been exposed to it.

Where is GW being taught to third graders? <puzzled>

 

[nia588]

Creationism is not science. It can be taught in school under a wide range of areas, but it ain't science. It makes no testable predictions, end of story.

Teach it in science and it opens the door to teach anything anyone wants, in science, like that the flood created the grand canyon or that tectonic plates don't really move or that the big bang never happened or that the world was created while Vishnu was contemplating the lotus emerging from his navel.

no where in my post did i say teach creationism in science class. my point was that children are being taught evolution in school, why not teach creationism as well?

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't think it's fair that an atheist idea like evolution is propagated in school, but if anyone teaches anything that is related to God it's look down upon.

i think it's only fair that they teach both in school. so children can be exposed to both ideas

 

[Caligirl]

I was raised Catholic and I certainly don't see evolution as an atheist position, in fact the idea of a God that could create through evolution is inspiring and elegant.

I don't mind kids being exposed to creationism as long as it isn't in science. Ideally if the schools went that route I would want a lot of the creation stories taught side by side. And none of it next to evolution, as evolution is a scientific theory.

 

[Inferno]

From a purely atheistic point of view. I don't want to see creationism tought in schools. It is higher power based and I have no use for that being taught in a school. It is a waste of time as I see it.

That should be taught at home or in a church along with the Noah stories and all the rest of it.

I have no problem with people having faith. None at all. I don't even run from the topic. I just don't see that it has a point in a public school education.

 

[Caligirl]

Certainly the greek gods are taught in school. Should that be removed?

 

[DiveCon]

modern Chemistry Came Out Of Medieval Alchemy. So It Is Already Taught.

Bingo