Scylla said:
As soon as you figure out what creation theory is, you let us know. 'K?
Bush no more said that evolution is wrong than Gore said he invented the internet. He seems to be specifically saying that he dosn’t see evolution as being incompatible with religious belief. He sounds like he’s somewhat less convinced of the truth of evolution than I would expect of someone who has actually studied the subject, but we’re not electing him to actually be a science teacher. Being knowledgeable on the current status of evolution theory is not exactly a prerequisite for elected office.
As I noted earlier, what I think is most important is that he “thinks” creationism should be taught in science class.
Considering that he’s running, in large part, on an education platform, this makes me rather ill.
Pardon me for disagreeing with the general attitude, but I didn’t see Gore as “not giving a straight answer.” He did just that, and probably forfeited what little support he might have gotten from Biblical literalists in doing so. More importantly, he said what he believed, regardless of what people thought of it. And my respect for him has risen quite a bit for being forthright. He was not weaseling but defining a complex bit of scriptural interpretation in an interview-response answer. And doing a passable job.
Ask David B. or Joe Fundy their views on Biblical creation, and they’ll be able to state them succinctly. Ask me and you’ll get nine paragraphs – not because my views are complex, but because they don’t fit the “yes/no” format of the questions. Apparently Al agrees with me.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
science
SYLLABICATION: sci·ence
PRONUNCIATION: s´ns
NOUN :
- a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry
or study. - Methodological activity, discipline, or study: “I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.”
- An activity that appears to require study and method: “the science of purchasing.”
- Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
- Science Christian Science.
Five is of course interesting, but before diving into the boiling oil of adversity that assuredly will await me should I attempt to define Creationism as a science, would ye of opposition offer an acceptable definition of science that I will subsequently attempt to prove to or shall we take this outside, to another thread. I’m sure you have had far more experience in debating this issue than I, but I have failed to find a recent thread specifically dedicated to debating this issue. One refers alot of insults to the Pizza Parlor, the other asked what proof Creationists required to believe the theory of evolution, which, despite it’s hijack, isn’t really about Creationism as a science.
They way I see it, he was catering to the religious vote…but not wanting to piss everyone else off.
The big problem with this quote is that it shows he’s an idiot and doesn’t have a clue as to what he is talking about.
He first says, “on the issue of evolution,” which obviously means he’s talking about the theory of Evolution but then goes onto say, “the verdict is still out on how God created the earth”. What does the creation of the earth (IE: The Big Bang et al.) have to do with evolution? They are two completely separate theories!
If I was to vote…it definatly wouldn’t be for this guy…
Creation Science could be taught alongside evolution as a negative example, an object lesson in human fallibility, and the desire to skew results to support false but attractive conclusions.
Science itself is about a process of impartiality and rigorous testing to avoid this failing.
“The earth is flat,” and “The sun goes around the earth” are two other examples of false belief clung to despite evidence to the contrary. Both are taught as negative examples. Why not throw creation science vs. evolution into the mix as well?
DavidB:
I vote for Bush because he is what he is. He believes the states should decide what is taught. He may prefer creationsim to be taught alongside evolution. That is his personal opinion. Just as it is his personal opinion which I share, that abortion is wrong. This doesn’t mean that I think it should be outlawed, nor do I think it means Bush will seek to overturn R vs. W.
I have no idea what Gore believes. I think he’s a smarmy rat, and am deeply offended by his rhetoric. I don’t want the President to “give” us anything. It’s already ours. This language of his suggests a deep misunderstanding of the role of Government. A president is not a king who bequeaths gifts to his loyal serfs. He is their servant. Whatever he’s giving, I ain’t taking.
BTW. Subscribed to Skeptical Enquirer yesterday.
This would make sence, but it would need to be made clear to the students that “Creation Science” is not science at all.
Bush is obviously an idiout if he feels that the state should deside what they teach.
Check this page out in regards to the Board of Education in Kansas.
I know Kansas sucks. I don’t think this kind of extremism is sustainable though. Once parents realize that their kids will have a tough time getting into College after getting straight As by writing “God did it.” as the answer to all the science questions on the admissions test, things will swing the other way.
That’s assuming Kansas simply ignores SOCAC, which they can’t. Teaching creationism as valid is simply against SOCAC. Legally, I don’t think they can do it. The Supreme court should stop it without any Federal prorams necessary. I just don’t want to see this issue used as an excuse to get the Federal Government involved any more than it is in schools.
I agree, but here’s the problem. The American Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"
So by this, I would take it that the Fed legally pas a law prohibiting it. (I may be misinterprating it though…I am just a Canadian 
)
Dope…What I ment to say was:
So by this, I would take it that the Feds could NOT legally pass a law prohibiting it. (I may be misinterprating it though…I am just a Canadian )
Scylla: *Creation Science could be taught alongside evolution as a negative example, an object lesson in human fallibility, and the desire to skew results to support false but attractive conclusions. *
And you would sell this approach to the local school boards that advocate teaching creationism—how, exactly? “Folks, I completely agree with your intention to teach doctrines that you firmly believe to be unimpeachably true both theologically and scientifically, as long as we teach them as an object lesson in human fallibility.” Or would you just go along with their recommendation to teach creationism “straight,” and then try to subvert it at the classroom level and hope that the parents and school board will be too dumb to notice? I see no way such a scheme could be implemented so as to serve any useful purpose at all; like Bush’s proposal of leaving decisions about teaching creationism up to individual schools, it merely attempts to get out from under a controversial issue by accepting an unworkable “compromise” that other people will have to struggle with.
Kimstu:
You’re right, of course.
Scylla: What? Hey! No fair agreeing with me! This is Great Debates! 
Sorry, I’ll try not to be so reasonable in the future.
My idea is nice, but it’s neither practical nor politically expedient. What can I say?
I see it as a way to let the Creationists have their tripe taught in schools, but you’d be hard pressed to get it taught as a ‘what not to do’ example.
It’s a nice thought thouhg
The easiest way to do away with the Creationist nonsense is to teach students about the basic scientific meathod and how to think logicly.
Once that is done, they will hear things like, “God is the creator. He created all things at the one time. He is infallable.” and actually think about it in stead of jsut agreewith with it at face value.
(You know that students are doing this when they think, “If God did all this, and at one time, why can’t a penguin fly? With this evidence, God must be a pretty poor engineer.”
I used to believe in God and all that stuff many years ago…but as I got through college, I realised that I din’t believe in God for the reasons ‘they’ said to…I believed because I was afraid NOT to… (“Going to Hell” and all that jazz.)
Just a hint for people posting nytimes links.
Whil the NYTimes is into reader tracking, they also like to keep their partner/ad revenue.
simply replace “www” with “partners” in any NYTimes link.
Granted, they may eventually change that, just as they’ve been systematically filtering out accounts with false data, or that have had their passwords freely fiven out online; but it works for now.
Doubleclick said:
Yes, but the thing is that PUBLIC schools are not establishments of religion. There is supposed to be seperation of church and state, so I do not have a clue why creationism is taught. Instead of teaching evolution, like the schools should, most schools don’t teach anything, instead of risking having some religious conservative and complain. So the kids just don’t learn anything about it. This is bullshit. I’m so serious when I say that Bush would be terrible for this country. It’s not worth “sticking it to the man” by voting for a third party and risking at least 4 years of Bush.
I think I just hijacked my own thread?
When Bush says, “I think the jury is still out on how God created the Earth”, I take that to mean that he thinks perhaps a belief in God is not incompatible with evolution. In other words, perhaps evolution is the mechanism God chose.
I’ve used that same argument against Biblical literists, who think that evolution somehow demands an exclusion of God. They aren’t incompatible, because they exist in different realms. Evolution is no more or less incompatible with a belief in God than, say, the Theory of Relativity.
Agreed. Someone can go along with the ToE and believe in God. Nothing wrong with that.
The issue is arguing agains physical facts and observations with “The bible says so…”.
(But in regards to the ToR, the theory says nothing can go faster than light, so how can God be in all places at the same time? Please!!! This is just a joke!!! Let’s not get into THAT discusion!!!)