Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

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