Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[Keystone Phil]

It's a bad thing to most normal Americans.

Remind me to leave America when you are the voice for "normal" Americans.

Oh yeah Santorum is just adored by normal Americans eh? Is that why he lost by 20 points in PA? Oh wait that's because of "casey". I would bet anything even bugsy Rendell would have beat him by at least 10-15 points.

No where in my post did I say that he was adored by normal Americans.

New deal democrat said that normal americans are put off by Santorum and you seemed to disagree with him. As you can see from election results in your own state, only conservatives like Santorum while most liberals and moderates detest him.

Take away the 2006 atmosphere and might have still lost but not by nearly as much. This is a man who had an approval rating in the mid 50s for most of his time in the Senate. He really wasn't hated as much as people think but whatever.

[J. J.]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

[Sbane]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

Edit: Thinking back to my High school days I remember we didn't even talk about this debate in intro bio. We did try and debate it in my AP bio class but there was nobody to debate the other side. So we just ended up just skipping class and playing poker. Good times.

[Daniel Adams]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

But you've got to admit when you read what Palin actually said it sounds much less alarming. Hers is the position of most conservatives. I don't agree with it, but it hadly makes her a far-right nutjob.

[Sbane]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

But you've got to admit when you read what Palin actually said it sounds much less alarming. Hers is the position of most conservatives. I don't agree with it, but it hadly makes her a far-right nutjob.

Yes regarding Palin I have already said she is extremely ignorant of the subject, but that is nothing new among conservatives. I do not think she would actually try and promote creationism so I guess she is "acceptable".

[MODU]

Yes regarding Palin I have already said she is extremely ignorant of the subject, ...

And you are an expert?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

[Daniel Adams]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

Clearly believing students should be exposed to both sides of a debate makes her hate-worthy.

[Alcon]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

Clearly believing students should be exposed to both sides of a debate makes her hate-worthy.

Again, I would like someone to explain to me why an idea, lacking scientific evidence, should get more credence in a science class, just because lots of people believe it in a culture.

[MODU]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

Ummmm ... ok.  

[Daniel Adams]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

Clearly believing students should be exposed to both sides of a debate makes her hate-worthy.

Again, I would like someone to explain to me why an idea, lacking scientific evidence, should get more credence in a science class, just because lots of people believe it in a culture.

It shouldn't, of course. Except she didn't say that. What she said was, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." No where does she say creationism should get more credence than evolution in a science class, or even that it would be taught per se.

[ChrisFromNJ]

She does not respect other religions. My mom took me out of class when that happend. So many people will object to it. I hate her.

Clearly believing students should be exposed to both sides of a debate makes her hate-worthy.

Again, I would like someone to explain to me why an idea, lacking scientific evidence, should get more credence in a science class, just because lots of people believe it in a culture.

It shouldn't, of course. Except she didn't say that. What she said was, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." No where does she say creationism should get more credence than evolution in a science class, or even that it would be taught per se.

Does that mean we should start teaching Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories in history class?

That is debate, is it not?

[MODU]

Does that mean we should start teaching Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories in history class?

That is debate, is it not?

Sure.  Allow those debates.  They are easily proven wrong.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Does that mean we should start teaching Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories in history class?

That is debate, is it not?

Sure.  Allow those debates.  They are easily proven wrong.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Teach creationism where it belongs... in a religious studies class. Don't teach religious studies..... tough.

[Sbane]

Yes regarding Palin I have already said she is extremely ignorant of the subject, ...

And you are an expert?

I only learn what I am taught. And I have no reason to believe there is some huge liberal conspiracy out there to try and stop creationism from being taught in schools. In reality the debate about creationism and ID does not belong in the science classroom mainly because it cannot be tested scientifically. In fact the whole concept of god is not scientific. In my lab writing class we were taught how to identify what is a scientifically testable hypothesis. My professor asked is the question " was the universe created by a flying spaghetti monster?" a scientific question. The answer of course is no, because it cannot be tested. Now does that mean the universe was not created by a flying spaghetti monster? Of course not, but it just cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Similarly ID pretends to show how god had a hand in the creation of the universe and the creatures in it but their argument is basically " since the universe is so complex there must be a hand of god/creator". This may or may not be true but it is not to be debated in a science classroom but rather in a religion/philosophy classroom. Whether or not god is our creator it is pretty obvious that evolution is how creatures change and adapt on our planet. Perhaps god is the one who came up with "evolution", perhaps not, but it just cannot be tested scientifically and thus that debate must occur outside the science classroom.

[MODU]

Teach creationism where it belongs... in a religious studies class. Don't teach religious studies..... tough.

It can also be taught in history or english classes along with other world religions.

[MODU]

Yes regarding Palin I have already said she is extremely ignorant of the subject, ...

And you are an expert?

I only learn what I am taught. And I have no reason to believe there is some huge liberal conspiracy out there to try and stop creationism from being taught in schools. In reality the debate about creationism and ID does not belong in the science classroom mainly because it cannot be tested scientifically. In fact the whole concept of god is not scientific. In my lab writing class we were taught how to identify what is a scientifically testable hypothesis. My professor asked is the question " was the universe created by a flying spaghetti monster?" a scientific question. The answer of course is no, because it cannot be tested. Now does that mean the universe was not created by a flying spaghetti monster? Of course not, but it just cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Similarly ID pretends to show how god had a hand in the creation of the universe and the creatures in it but their argument is basically " since the universe is so complex there must be a hand of god/creator". This may or may not be true but it is not to be debated in a science classroom but rather in a religion/philosophy classroom. Whether or not god is our creator it is pretty obvious that evolution is how creatures change and adapt on our planet. Perhaps god is the one who came up with "evolution", perhaps not, but it just cannot be tested scientifically and thus that debate must occur outside the science classroom.

Which is why I have no problems with micro-evolution being taught in Science class, since it can be observed. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Teach creationism where it belongs... in a religious studies class. Don't teach religious studies..... tough.

It can also be taught in history or english classes along with other world religions.

It could - but in context as a device or antiquated theory. Since you know.... people once thought the world was flat.

Yeah, creation myths are in all religions.

[Sbane]

Yes regarding Palin I have already said she is extremely ignorant of the subject, ...

And you are an expert?

I only learn what I am taught. And I have no reason to believe there is some huge liberal conspiracy out there to try and stop creationism from being taught in schools. In reality the debate about creationism and ID does not belong in the science classroom mainly because it cannot be tested scientifically. In fact the whole concept of god is not scientific. In my lab writing class we were taught how to identify what is a scientifically testable hypothesis. My professor asked is the question " was the universe created by a flying spaghetti monster?" a scientific question. The answer of course is no, because it cannot be tested. Now does that mean the universe was not created by a flying spaghetti monster? Of course not, but it just cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Similarly ID pretends to show how god had a hand in the creation of the universe and the creatures in it but their argument is basically " since the universe is so complex there must be a hand of god/creator". This may or may not be true but it is not to be debated in a science classroom but rather in a religion/philosophy classroom. Whether or not god is our creator it is pretty obvious that evolution is how creatures change and adapt on our planet. Perhaps god is the one who came up with "evolution", perhaps not, but it just cannot be tested scientifically and thus that debate must occur outside the science classroom.

Which is why I have no problems with micro-evolution being taught in Science class, since it can be observed. 

Problem is that it is really too complex and unnecessary to be taught in an intro bio course in high school. Of course they could do that to shut up the creationists but that is not really the point of education.

[J. J.]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how narrow minded liberals really are.

I had a chemistry teacher in HS who was convinced that the fact that we had liquid water proved (and it did to her) that God existed.  I didn't agree with her logic, BTW.

I had a geology instructor in college who always said that he'd look at other viewpoints.  I know he believed that a supreme being was involved in the universe.  We talked about it after class, at his invitation.  I know I cannot look at the ridges outside of Altoona with thinking of the 200 million years of upfolding and erosion that got them there, just as he taught.

I went to public high school and Penn State, not religious schools.  

I want to to really thank you, sincerely, for showing how really intolerant some of Obama's supporters really are.

[Sbane]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how narrow minded liberals really are.

I had a chemistry teacher in HS who was convinced that the fact that we had liquid water proved (and it did to her) that God existed.  I didn't agree with her logic, BTW.

I had a geology instructor in college who always said that he'd look at other viewpoints.  I know he believed that a supreme being was involved in the universe.  We talked about it after class, at his invitation.  I know I cannot look at the ridges outside of Altoona with thinking of the 200 million years of upfolding and erosion that got them there, just as he taught.

I went to public high school and Penn State, not religious schools. 

I want to to really thank you, sincerely, for showing how really intolerant some of Obama's supporters really are.

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

[muon2]

Yes regarding Palin I have already said she is extremely ignorant of the subject, ...

And you are an expert?

I only learn what I am taught. And I have no reason to believe there is some huge liberal conspiracy out there to try and stop creationism from being taught in schools. In reality the debate about creationism and ID does not belong in the science classroom mainly because it cannot be tested scientifically. In fact the whole concept of god is not scientific. In my lab writing class we were taught how to identify what is a scientifically testable hypothesis. My professor asked is the question " was the universe created by a flying spaghetti monster?" a scientific question. The answer of course is no, because it cannot be tested. Now does that mean the universe was not created by a flying spaghetti monster? Of course not, but it just cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Similarly ID pretends to show how god had a hand in the creation of the universe and the creatures in it but their argument is basically " since the universe is so complex there must be a hand of god/creator". This may or may not be true but it is not to be debated in a science classroom but rather in a religion/philosophy classroom. Whether or not god is our creator it is pretty obvious that evolution is how creatures change and adapt on our planet. Perhaps god is the one who came up with "evolution", perhaps not, but it just cannot be tested scientifically and thus that debate must occur outside the science classroom.

With all due respect to your professor, scientific questions are not merely of the sort that can be tested with a definitive true/false result. There are a number of examples in the theoretical and experimental domains.

Mathematics is the backbone of scientific inquiry and consistent application of mathematical logic a hallmark of well-reasoned science. Yet, Godel's theorems on incompleteness prove that within any consistent mathematical framework there are meaningful propositions that cannot be either proved or disproved. To theoretical science this means that any self-consistent model of nature can face meaningful scientific questions that cannot be resolved. For instance, legitimate questions about measurements in quantum mechanics can be unknowable.

In the more earthy world of experimental science, certainty is not a given. I would expect that your lab stresses not just measurement, but the inherent uncertainty in those measurements.  Most experimental papers that I encounter make no affirmative or negative claim, but use statistics to describe the likelihood of a particular hypothesis. This is much fuzzier than the clean true or false that I feel society sometimes expects of science. I think much of the misinformation in the global warming debate stems from attempts to interpret statistical result towards an extreme of truth or falsehood.

In the context of ID, I don't find its methods particularly useful to include in a science classroom, where there are specific skills and relationships that need to be taught. However, using ID with some detailed sources from that view, might be useful for developing critical thinking. There is wisdom in learning one's limitations, and that can apply to knowledge as well.

[Sensei]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to take muon's word for it before my head explodes, and this is coming from someone who aced AP Physics C.

[J. J.]

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

You'll note that I've just said that I don't agree with my old science teacher who thought liquid water proved God existed.  Some of the debate, as it crept in, gave me the ability to realize that her logic was wrong.  I was better able to evaluate an argument, because I was exposed to one.

Since you said, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."  My next question is "Okay, where did that bacteria come from?"

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.