Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Very nice Mr. Wizzard.

Panspermia and exogenesis are oft overlooked theories in these discussions, thanks for that "outside" perspective.

It's also worth noting that I really do believe in the futility of actually trying to determine what happended,. But for the purpose of advancing our knowledge via the scientific method, I believe that we must maintain a strict definition of the term "science", which means assuming that a natural pathway is at work.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likewise as to your last statement, the same experiments some claim support evolution (or more correctly, the autogenesis of life theory, as evolution itself does not contradict creation in a pure sense..) could also be said to support creation...hence a double edged sword..

No, not the autogenesis of life theory, not at all. Evolution describes how life changes, not how life came to be. We don't have a great model for the genesis of life, but we're not going to teach a fairy tale about it in a science class. If someone asks, we can say "we don't know".

Native American Myths of Creation - Crystalinks

Which ones of these should be taught as a science??

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

You've referred to "the atheist religion" around a dozen times in your various posts, which underlines your own lack of reading on the basis of it being an oxymoron.

The point being raised about atheism as a "religion" (I agree that is not the correct terminology for it ), is that it does try and come at things from a certain philosophical point of view, if not atheist, then at least secular humanist. Which the evolutionary concept of creation supports, it is pretty much their crown jewel. Mankind, humans, are the pinnacle of evolution. We are the top dogs, unnacountable to any higher power

My view is that it isn't the scientists that raise a ruccous when the idea of teaching creationism in the classroom is raised, it is the secular humanists.


I will state again, that I am not in favor of teaching creationism in schools, vis a vis separation of church and state and respect for individual beiliefs/faiths. But I do think that evolution as the basis for life and where humans came from needs to be taught as being a THEORY, not a fact. As I have said before, 30 years ago it was always refered to as "the theory of evolution", now it is just refered to as "evolution", perhaps not a big deal, then again maybe so...

Originally Posted by ScottS

Native American Myths of Creation - Crystalinks

Which ones of these should be taught as a science??

Nobody says it should be taught as science. But science is not the end-all be-all of education.

Art, philosophy, foriegn language are part of curriculums and may not live up to the bar set by "Science", does that mean they should be excluded from a meaningful education?

In the spirit of the topic of this thread, does Palin want creationism taught as science?

This is the only quote I've seen from her so far, so I don't know. It appears on the surface at least from this quote that she wants them taught side by side so that debate could occur

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. - Sarah Palin, the hot VP candidate

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

In the spirit of the topic of this thread, does Palin want creationism taught as science?

This is the only quote I've seen from her so far, so I don't know. It appears on the surface at least from this quote that she wants them taught side by side so that debate could occur

My opinion, to teach both as a science would dilute the spirit of science. Science is supposed to be based on evidence, which supports theory. If no actual evidence of something exists that points in a direction, how can a scientific theory even be formulated to test?

Based on that statement, creationism should not be taught in a scientific setting. If, someday, more evidence is uncovered that would support creation, then by all means. This isn't to say that creation doesn't have its proper place, I just don't believe that place is in a scientific setting.

That being said, the subject of whether or not it should be taught in public schools is a completely separate argument, in my opinion anyway. That more or less violates the separation of Church and State.

EDIT: Let me re-state something. I don't believe religion and/or creationism should be taught in public school as part of a required curriculum. I wouldn't have much of an issue with it being taught as a non-required elective, however. I think that it would be beneficial in rounding out a student's education, serving a similar purpose as art and philosophy do. It would expand the knowledge of both the religious and non-religious alike. The caveat to this, however, is that it explores all religions, not just one in favor of another.

Originally Posted by ScottS

No, not the autogenesis of life theory, not at all. Evolution describes how life changes, not how life came to be. We don't have a great model for the genesis of life, but we're not going to teach a fairy tale about it in a science class. If someone asks, we can say "we don't know".

As far as I remember there was mention made in science class back at school about the old
primordial soup and lightning bolt, possibly UV radiation, mumble...mumble...amino acids forming in a beaker, mumble, mumble...it somehow came to be...

In other words, it is not taught as a "fairy tale" but rather as science fiction, with no supportive evidence.

The natural selection portion of evolution does have soem supportive evidence, and as such can be taught as science. But when it comes to the origns of it all, it fares no better than creation stories.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

As far as I remember there was mention made in science class back at school about the old
primordial soup and lightning bolt, possibly UV radiation, mumble...mumble...amino acids forming in a beaker, mumble, mumble...it somehow came to be....

I remember the same lesson in school, but I distinctly remember my science teacher prefacing the conversation with "We're not sure, however is the current line of thought..." Gee, that was back in the late 70's early 80's too.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Mankind, humans, are the pinnacle of evolution. We are the top dogs, unnacountable to any higher power

This is true, but it shouldn't imply that we aren't accountable for what we do and say, in fact it's my belief that being the top dog means having the most accountability of all, "the buck stops here" in a way. It would be recklessly selfish to possess the cognitive prowess that that we do and not feel the need to be in utter control of ourselves at all times.

As for the atheist religion, one can imply a sinister connection 'til the cows come home, but scientists define their work as the search for natural causes to natural phenomenon through the scientific method, it wasn't forced on them by a group of secularists that wanted to really muck things up for everyone else.