I have very definite memories otherwise in several discussions. For example, you haven’t yet admitted that you’re wrong here.
No, that is not what I am doing. I am using his own quotes and quotes from his spokespeople. I am also using his (and the GOP’s, in general) association with the “religious right” who continue to make this an issue. I am using the facts at my disposal.
I never said they were. In fact, you were the one using the extremists as if they represented all those who merely want evolution taught in school, remember?
OK. So what? Remember, it’s my position that such holidays shouldn’t be mentioned at all in school. Similarly, religious beliefs about creation shouldn’t be mentioned at all. I don’t want a science teacher to stand up and scream, “The Bible is false!” I just want him to present science.
Oh, give me a break. In that case, teaching that the Earth is round is “tricky,” too. Teaching that you shouldn’t go out and stone witches to death on a whim goes against it as well.
The schools should not be held hostage to what somebody’s book says. They should teach science in an objective fashion. Period.
And if it comes up, the teacher should direct the student to talk to his parents/priest/whatever and explain that they are talking about science, not religion.
Bullshit. Leaving religion out of the classroom is not an endorsement of atheism any more than leaving the Purple Faeries out is an endorsment of a-faeryism.
[quote]
**
And if it comes up, the teacher should direct the student to talk to his parents/priest/whatever and explain that they are talking about
science, not religion.
[quote]
**
That certainly sounds reasonable.
How would you say a teacher respond to a question allong these lines.
“Excuse me, Mr. B? Brother Arduous says that the Bible says God made the earth in 7 days, and created all the animals as they are, and created man seperate and superior from the animals. Is that right, or did man really evolve from other animals? Who’s right, you or Brother Arduous?”
“There are some religions who do, in fact, believe this. However, this is a science class, and, as such, we can only deal with the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence leads us to the conclusion that I have explained. It is certainly possible to have religious beliefs that contradict what I have said, but you’ll have to discuss that with your parents and/or Brother Arduous.”
Well, if he really said that, then he’s a genius. The events that created the Earth, like the internet, and it’s conditions to substain it are, well … incomprehensible (sp)… and he had the sense to say he didn’t know! Jeez, at least he didn’t say he created the Earth in 5 to 7 days …
Well, it seemed like a simple tolerance issue that should be able to be clarified in a post or two, but it didn’t work out that way. Hence the apology.
Back to the O.P.
I think we have established that Bush would like to see creationism taught alongside evolution in the schools, and perhaps “other theories” as well. I think we’ve also established that this is not a good thing.
What we’ve failed to establish is what “creationism” theory Bush is talking about, and how it should be taught.
What we’ve also failed to establish is how Bush intends to act on this beleif if elected President.
He seems to be squarely on the side of state’s self-determination on this issue. In general, less Federal interference is usually a good thing. In the particular of teaching Creationism this is clearly unconstitutional.
Gore on the other hand comes down more in favor of Federal interference with schools, and their’s the possibility that an issue like this could be used to mandate more Federal control of school curriculums in general.
In reality, I would think that both candidates would tend to stay pretty clear of actually doing anything on this issue as it would mess up reelection chances.
The real issue as far as this is concerned relates to the potential for new Supreme court justices in the next 4-8 years. One might guess that Bush would tend to nominate candidates that were softer on SOCAC then Gore do to his seemingly sincere religious affiliations.
What is the likelihood that the next President will make lasting and sweeping changes to the makeup of the Supreme court?
Appears he said he doesn’t have the knowledge to answer this question … how evolution actually ocurred? He could have, however, said he helped in the creation of the Earth.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, four days, 4 hours, 35 minutes and 19 seconds.
8327 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,040.95.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 21 hours, 55 minutes.
I don’t think so. Unless you count enforcement of court decisions as “federal control.”
Would it? I don’t think so.
Now, I’m not talking about supporting a change to the Constitution that allows for the teaching of creationism – I don’t think Bush would do something like that (nor would it matter, as the pres. is not needed for an Amendment). I’m talking more along the lines of appointing both Supreme Court and other lower-court justices. I’m talking about using the office as a soapbox to say such things are okay. Stuff like that. I’m talking about doing more to turn over issues of schools to “local control” with a wink and a nod, knowing what will happen with creationism in certain areas.
We’ve gone over this in some detail in other threads. I think the possibility is definitely there. Obviously, we can’t know for sure who might die or be forced to retire, but some of these folks are getting mighty old. One (liberal) has been in a recent fight with cancer. And some of these decisions have only been made by a vote or two.
So, I think the next president is likely to affect the way the Court goes for the next decade or two, at the very least.
It’s a valid question. Does Dubya insist on a hardcore fundamentalist “Earth and creatures in 7 days 7000 years ago the fossils are a lie” sort of approach, does he advocate a “evolution directed by God with intelligent design aspects,” or does he advocate a kind of “God as the initial cause, but don’t interpret the Bible literally” kind of approach?
Does the form of creationism Bush wishes to teach reconciliatory with evolution or in direct opposition. Is he looking to generate a synthesis, or looking to present to diametrically opposed ideas with “equal” cedibility and allow the children to interpret for themselves?
If you are going to teach any of this crap you would have to teach all its variations, so as to not upset any believers.
A candidate for the worlds’ most powerful position, should have at least some general knowledge. That there is a candidate in the 21st century who would even contemplate the teaching of creatioism as science is mind-boggling.
Is there something wrong with the electoral system if Bush and Gore are the best presidential candidates that can be found?
I think the degree of wrongness in what he is proposing (if he’s actually proposing anything, instead of just stating an opinion,) is very germaine.
Much less valid distinctions were drawn by Bill CLinton when he had an unpaid White House intern come to his office to fellate him, yet claimed he never had sex with her. Or, all hose times he “never inhaled.”
The degree of wrongdoing in Whitewater with the Clintons, and in campaign funds with Gore is also an issue.
Why is this issue a total indictment of Bush without regard to degree?
We’re trying to measure a wrong which “might” happen. So far Bush hasn’t done anything more than state an opinion.
Because the issue is a black and white one. Either he is in favor of violating SOCAS or he is against it. He has already indicated that he is in favor of it. So I don’t really care if he is an old earth creationist or a young earth creationist or a Native American creationist. He wants creationism – religion – taught next to evolution in the public schools. That’s what matters.
Cos it shows he is really dumb!!. Creationism has no place in the science classroom. Not creationism type A, not creationism type B, not creationism type C etc. None of the flavours has a scrap of evidence to support it.
On this issue Bush displays his ignorance for the world to see.
It makes a lot of us very nervous indeed.
A minor point in the context of the argument, but what exactly would be “taught” anyway? To educate kids in evolution is a lengthy topic and the science can go as far as you wish. To teach creation is… what? 5 minutes? “Er God created everything and he did it in seven days and it all happened about 7000 years ago. And… er… that’s it. Any questions?” Hardly good examinable material.
regards,
pan
ps speaking as a Brit I was somewhat flabberghasted that this is still even an issue over there. Y’all are serious? Your candidates consider creationism delicate enough to skirt around? I think that even our fence-sitting politicians would have laughed out loud at this question.
