Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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