[Hutch]

Originally Posted by JohnP

I agree. She is (so far) more appealing than Sen. McCain himself. Mostly I think because Palin, unlike Sen. McCain or Obama makes it clear where she stands,regardless of whether one agrees with her, doesn't tolerate corruption from *either* party, is unafraid to rock the boat, and finally, is a true conservative. Something we've not had since Reagan. Unfortunately, she's not the one at the TOP of the ticket. McCain has too often (IMHO) "Reached across the aisle" something that is Washington-speak for "betrayed those who elected him, by doing what the guy who they didn't elect would have done"
Just my opinion. Washington is full of people tainted in this way. So far, Mrs. Palin doesn't seem to be, and it is refreshing.

I disagree with the idea that the "smartest" or most articulate person should be our leader however. I think those have little to do with leadership. They are good qualities, but not the ones I would vote based on.
Stalin was quite intelligent, after all.

I also see no reason to fault Gov. Palin for having creationism taught in school. If schools are to teach one theory, why not another.
Otherwise instead of schools they become an indoctrination center.


John P.

So smart equals evil totalitarian dictator, so its safer to have an idiot as a leader.

The main reason is Creationism shouldn't be taught is it's a religious belief not really a theory with any scientific proof.
If Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught then hey lets include Aliens too.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by Hutch

So smart equals evil totalitarian dictator, so its safer to have an idiot as a leader.

The main reason is Creationism shouldn't be taught is it's a religious belief not really a theory with any scientific proof.
If Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught then hey lets include Aliens too.

Well wrt the first point, I did not make that connection, you did that on your own. I was merely saying that intelligence has nothing to do with how someone will lead the country. Stalin was simply an example of one such.
And to be honest, how do you know there is scientific proof for evolution? Sure, it's feasible, but so are creation and intelligent design. Just because science shows that something *could* happen or *could have* doesn't mean it DID. So in my estimation, the theory of evolution does not trump creationism. Students should be given the opportunity to look at what we know about each and make their own decisions. We're here. If you want to argue over how we arrived, be my guest.
Until one theory is proven as fact (which it has not) or the other completely disproved which it has not, teaching only one to the exclusion of the other does not make any sense.
FWIW they already DO discuss Aliens, in science classes, life on other planets that sort of thing...so you were saying?



John P.

[Nord Jim]

Originally Posted by JohnP

Well wrt the first point, I did not make that connection, you did that on your own. I was merely saying that intelligence has nothing to do with how someone will lead the country. Stalin was simply an example of one such.
And to be honest, how do you know there is scientific proof for evolution? Sure, it's feasible, but so are creation and intelligent design. Just because science shows that something *could* happen or *could have* doesn't mean it DID. So in my estimation, the theory of evolution does not trump creationism. Students should be given the opportunity to look at what we know about each and make their own decisions. We're here. If you want to argue over how we arrived, be my guest.
Until one theory is proven as fact (which it has not) or the other completely disproved which it has not, teaching only one to the exclusion of the other does not make any sense.
FWIW they already DO discuss Aliens, in science classes, life on other planets that sort of thing...so you were saying?



John P.

We should start a new thread for this -- with great trepidation, as this is a religious discussion, and people often become heated. But if people can remain civil and discuss this, it might be interesting. The amount of scientific evidence for evolution alone should keep it out of this thread.

j

[Bruno]

Ok I split off the creationism debate.
Keep it civil. Remember that this is a discussion and not a challenge or contest.

[LX_Emergency]

From what I understand the whole idea about science is that no fact is absolutely certain....even when proven in labaratory conditions, it is supposedly encouraged to "think outside of the box".

If this is the case then why can't creationism be taught as an alternative theory to evolution? Even if it's simply an exircise in thought.

I understand that a lot of people claim that it's not science so it should't be taught.....but on the other hand even if you don't teach it in science classes, why not teach it in history classes as a stream of thought? Or a worldview class? Or religions of the world class? I fail to see the harm in that.

[Milton Man]

I never wade into these discussions, but here I go with great trepidation.

I believe the reason that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools is that schools (at least where I come from) are state run, and as such, should not be biased towards one religion or the other. In fact, I believe in the total separation of church and state, so there's my bias immediately.

If creationism should be taught in schools, then so should the religious origin theories from other religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Wicanism, Taoism, etc. Why privilege one religion over another in a publicly run school? It's the slippery slope that leads me to believe that no religious origin theories should be taught.

Just my $0.02...FWIW

Mark

[uofi1963]

Mark,

You just made my argument.

Creationism can be taught in schools as part of a class on comparative religion along with creation dogma from other religions. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Joel, the old Joel

[jockeys]

milton man-> +1

right on the money.

fyi, Wiccans follow a practice known as Wicca.

[chief]

Originally Posted by Milton Man

I never wade into these discussions, but here I go with great trepidation.

I believe the reason that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools is that schools (at least where I come from) are state run, and as such, should not be biased towards one religion or the other. In fact, I believe in the total separation of church and state, so there's my bias immediately.

If creationism should be taught in schools, then so should the religious origin theories from other religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Wicanism, Taoism, etc. Why privilege one religion over another in a publicly run school? It's the slippery slope that leads me to believe that no religious origin theories should be taught.

Just my $0.02...FWIW

Mark

I absolutely agree.
IMHO religion shouldn't be sold as being science, because that's what's happening in these creationist teachings at school.

[LX_Emergency]

Originally Posted by Milton Man

I never wade into these discussions, but here I go with great trepidation.

I believe the reason that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools is that schools (at least where I come from) are state run, and as such, should not be biased towards one religion or the other. In fact, I believe in the total separation of church and state, so there's my bias immediately.

If creationism should be taught in schools, then so should the religious origin theories from other religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Wicanism, Taoism, etc. Why privilege one religion over another in a publicly run school? It's the slippery slope that leads me to believe that no religious origin theories should be taught.

Just my $0.02...FWIW

Mark

Made my point as well. I think they should indeed ALL be taught. It's good for people to know what someone else believes. There's no need for bias to be involved. I had comparative religion classes in my school. It was very usefull.

Besides....you can't really teach much about creationism now can you? it's pretty much summed up by the following:

"Some people believe that the creation of the world was not done because of a random event but because of the interference of a creator" lesson done.

There...I taught you all about creationism.....are you offended now?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

From what I understand the whole idea about science is that no fact is absolutely certain....even when proven in labaratory conditions, it is supposedly encouraged to "think outside of the box".

The whole principle of science is to have a theory based on facts and observations, with the ability to make predictions about the outcome of a predefined situation.
The predictions are what determine if a theory is valid or not.

Relativity and QT were both declared to be ludicrous when they came out. Albert Einstein did not get a nobel prize for his theory because it was too controversial at the time.
Instead they gave him one for his work on the photo electric effect.

Creationsim -and any religious inspired idea- is not science because
a) it cannot be tested.
b) it can make no predictions
c) there are no facts
d) there are hundreds of religions, most of which are mutually incompatible, and all with the previous 3 failings. So even if we allow religion in science, there was no way to know which one to pick.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If this is the case then why can't creationism be taught as an alternative theory to evolution? Even if it's simply an exircise in thought.

I understand that a lot of people claim that it's not science so it should't be taught.....but on the other hand even if you don't teach it in science classes, why not teach it in history classes as a stream of thought? Or a worldview class? Or religions of the world class? I fail to see the harm in that.

I have no problem with creationism in religious classes. I learnt genesis in high school in the course on religion. I also learnt about other religions, and some of the other creation myths.

But I would object to creationism being called science because it isn't.

Evolution is a theory (describing a process) which is based on facts, can make predictions and can be tested.
It may not explain everything yet, and the details may be subject to change. but on the whole it is the best scientific theory we have right now.

And evolution does not have to be incompatible with science, if you can believe that God(s) created the fundamental laws of physics / chemistry and biology in a way that allows evolution to happen.

[sicboater]

I find it very interesting that the proponents of creationism tout that *not* teaching it in science classes is being close minded to the act of learning. This is interesting because, by and large, creationism's proponents tend to be folks who are of religious faiths that believe in a strict interpretation of religious texts. (I am not attempting to speak in absolutes as you can see.) That is somewhat at odds with the initial argument. Why could you not be open to interpret the text in any other way? Is it wise to assume that there is only one way to interpret anything like a religious text? Particularly one that has been filtered through translations and altered to the benefit of whoever sees a need?

I myself went to a parochial school and was taught both sides of the coin in different classes. I was also taught the cosmology of other religions. The best part is that it is a choice my parents made to have me taught this way. They weren't forced to pay taxes to support an educational system that violated the separation of church and state in any way. Nor did they ask the government for help in teaching such personal things to their children.

As conservatives, they didn't want the government's help for anything. They taught us that the choices we made were more important than what the law said we were allowed to do. They took responsibility for teaching us about the faith in which we were raised and that we practice. I, personally, don't intend to rely wholly on the government for anything so important as teaching my children how to think. Inching us closer to a state religion would, in fact, be going the opposite direction of expanding knowledge IMHO.

That is all.

-Rob

[hoglahoo]

Originally Posted by Hutch

The main reason is Creationism shouldn't be taught is it's a religious belief not really a theory with any scientific proof.
If Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught then hey lets include Aliens too.

If Creationism is true it should be taught

Rob, what's interesting to me about what you said is (speaking of your parents): "As conservatives, they didn't want the government's help for anything."
And yet they sent you to public school - curriculum will be a sore point for every taxpayer who strongly disagrees with what is or isn't being taught because they have to pay for it. I don't know what the best solution is, but if a parent wants their kid to learn creationism, they are free to teach them outside of public school. Although like I mentioned above I think ideally whatever is true is what ought to be taught. The problem is that the people who make the rules disagree on what's true

[kevint]

It seems when one looks at contemporary evolutionary theory in detail its faith based tenets are quite striking. Their best hope is the general possibility that there were vast stretches of "time" when no one was watching and the idea that anything is possible.

There is no good reason to present the Biblical version of creation exclusively. A comparative view of different creation myths is interesting, but there may be enough counter evolution science to present a balanced class that delves in to the mystery of how we began. The more we learn about DNA, genes, mutation etc. the more ignorant evolution as a viable explanation of how we began becomes imho.

I do believe in a Creator, however, I also believe that all religion is mythology trying to make the unknowable understandable. Popularized explanations of quantum physics, string theory and all thatl really sound quite mystical to a mathematical dimwit such as myself

[Hutch]

John in response, I agree intelligence in and of itself does not guarantee a good leader, but by the same token lack of intelligence guarantees a poor leader.

If Creationism is true, I agree that it should be taught in science class, but as others have pointed out there is no proof that it is true, so thus it has no place in science class.

Science is based on facts that undergo peer review, scientific theories are always being challenge, but they don't have this emotional baggage attached to them. There are scientific theories that have been elevated beyond theory they are called Laws, one such law is gravity.

I too have no problem with Creationism being taught in religious classes that explore other religions and their beliefs. I myself took such a course and found it very interesting, not only did it confirm my spirituality but its also confirmed my disdain for organized religions.

Religion and spirituality are two different things, one of my favorite writers on the subject was Thomas Payne.

Age of Reason Introduction

by Thomas Paine
TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

[jnich67]

Originally Posted by kevint

....

I do believe in a Creator, however, I also believe that all religion is mythology trying to make the unknowable understandable. Popularized explanations of quantum physics, string theory and all thatl really sound quite mystical to a mathematical dimwit such as myself

I agree. This is an important point. One problem, and I'm saying this from a broad social perspective, is that most of the organized religions come from a time long before modern science. It will be interesting to see if we come up with new myths that can accommodate what science has shown us over the past few centuries.

Jordan

[jockeys]

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If Creationism is true it should be taught

absolutely. but it can't EVER be proved or disproven. If I say that my invisible pal up in the sky got bored one day and made existence, but that my invisible pal is omnipotent and unobservable, then there's really no room for discussion, is there?

Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for more information on why this premise cannot be argued one way or the other logically.

if it bides no logical discussion, experimentation, etc. then it really doesn't belong in a science class. philosophy maybe. but not science. if i want to do some hard and fast lab experiments and observe the results (which is science) i can do something like this:
Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which may or may not be instructive. how do you design a lab experiment around creationism?

you just can't. whether it's true or not, i don't know. but it's NOT science, or even remotely scientific, and thus isn't something that should be addressed in a science class. it's like doing sonnets in PE.