Republican VP Nom Palin thinks creationism should be taught in Schools

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bigdavediode, Aug 29, 2008.

  1. "The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor’s race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms."
  2. wjk


    Hi Big dave. How's it going?

    If I read this correctly, both would be taught. I don't see a problem, providing one concept is not given more time over the other. Wouldn't that satisfy both sides?
  3. Well,

    it's not easy to disprove creationism - when it's constantly evolved into including whatever is discovered in Universe. That is the philosophical "intelligent design" creationism... The biblical creationism is total bullshit of course, and everyone sane do know this. She will no doubt be a hit with some Christian religious fundamentalists (and there are a lot of religious fundamentalists in USA), while those who think women should stay at home will be dismayed by seeing a total hockey-mom MILF taking charge.

    Abiogenesis is getting close to disproving creationism, though - and scientifically the modern evolution synthesis is pretty rock solid for now.
  4. Hi wjk -- pretty good, I guess. Hope things are good with you.

    Yes, it would be fine to teach creationism in science class if creationism was a scientific theory. Until the day that it is disprovable by locating certain evidence, like all scientific theories, it isn't science and therefore shouldn't be taught in science class.

    Religion class would be fine, though. Or math. Nobody pays attention in math anyway.
  5. Well sure, but it's still a theory like gravity.
  6. I think for Palin to say that she thinks creationism should be taught in schools is mostly just a political move in attempts to gain further support from traditional thinking Christians. However, I don't necessarily disagree with her either. I think for creationism to be taught in schools though, it should not be more than a mention in the science classes. I am taking a couse in college right now about the many debates between science and religion and I think to have a section of some high school course on that would be beneficial to high school students, both religious and non-religious, on learning to think outside of what they were taught to believe by their teachers or parents. Why wait till college to have students begin to debate issues in their own minds and come to reach conclusions on their own rather than just going with what they've been told growing up.
  7. How about teaching neither as an answer to the unknowable...

    You can teach known biological process and known mechanics of adaptation and evolution without pushing pre-conclusions of origin of living existence quite nicely...

    We would do best to teach kids how to think, not what to think or which conclusion they should reach on their own.

  8. " Or math. Nobody pays attention in math anyway."

    Apparently this has been true for quite some time, as McBush can't even count the number of homes he owns...

  9. chilling..... to think the possible direction this country will go...... back to the dark ages
  10. So she's not actually stupid, she's just acting stupid. Somehow I'm not reassured.

    Well that's philosophy, religion, or even social studies. But science class (up until now) has been entirely about science.

    On a scientific basis it is as bizarre as teaching children that flat screen tv's could have been made in factories, or could have been created directly by God without the factory, and no one really can be sure.
    #10     Sep 10, 2008