There’s evidence disputing the theory?
Hasn’t it been scientifically established that part of our brain is reptilian? What do the “Hell, I ain’t come from no ape!” posse think about that then? I can’t imagine they are very pleased.
How important is this stance of hers, that she apparently hasn’t really done anything about, in regard to her VP candidacy?
Should we be asking her point blank, “Who you promote teaching creationism in school?” She’ll say “no, but I don’t see any reason it can’t be discussed”
Why should it be discussed in a science class when it has nothing to do with science? Let’s take that term, Creationism Science and point out that there is no such thing. Religious beliefs are not science. Period.
“Teach both” is A pretty strong recomendation IMO. Yeah it’s not part of the curriculum as in “Creationism 101” but it appears you do want it taught. Should we point out that not even all Christians believe that. Should we encourage the teachings from other religions about how life began as well? Will it still be a science class after that?
Have a class on world religions and discuss it there, but not in science class.
Creationism Science??? What’s that?
On a slight tangent.
It’s been a long time since high school. Can someone suggest some reading about the development of the science of evolution in the past 20 years or so. How much of what science says about our origins and the earths, is still theory?
We know that evolution is a reality but how much do we really know about how it all began?
This is the thing that is disturbing me recently. This is Great Debates. People should not come in and make patently untrue statements that are the diametric opposite of the truth. There seems little point debating if people treat it like the forum name is the Lie Straight to Your Face So Long As I Win Forum.
Plant two more right wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court.
That’s what I’m counting on!
Only in theory.
False (I can’t believe you’ve thought this through). Plenty of people who believe in evolution are also religious. It would be relatively accurate to say that “evolutionists” believe that God should not be a part of the science curriculum.
As for Palin not appearing to be sufficiently activist in promoting a change in laws re abortion, teaching creationism in schools etc., it’s bad enough that she’s encouraging bad policy in these areas. And holding multiple “discussions” with your town librarian (whom you subsequently fire and then rehire under pressure) about book-banning strikes me as an obvious attempt to put pressure on the librarian to be pliable about yanking books from the library.
I expect better from our leaders.
Science is not about what you like or do not like. It’s about empirical evidence. We don’t teach physics based on what we would like electrons to do, we teach it based on what we have observed.
God can be considered by scientific-thinking people (and a healthy percentage of scientists believe in God), but it’s not something that should be included in scientific theories or teachings unless there is evidence.
You, me, scientists and everyone else can believe anything we want, it’s a free world, but science is only concerned with the beliefs that can be observed or tested directly or indirectly.
Maybe not exactly what you are looking for but it might be a good start.
Check out the site for the NOVA program Intelligent Design on Trial. It details a town’s effort to get ID in the school and the court case that ensued from it. In there they discuss such questions as evolution as a “theory” and ID as not a “scientific” theory. Further the biologists resoundingly answer some of the supposedly glaring gaps in evolution claimed by ID types. While Evolution is still a theory it is an interesting watch to realize that they really have an exceptionally strong case for it and not just that it kinda looks good.
You left one word out of my quote that alters the meaning. I did not say “Evolutionists insist”. I said “Some Evolutionists insist”. And some do.
Dawkins is one example.
As to “plenty of people who believe in evolution are also religious”. YEAH- I’m one of them!
I’ve actually been going over in my head what I think the best policy should be on this in the form of an opening statement I would like to hear from a science teacher of any persuasion. It’s far from complete so I don’t want to get into it yet, except to say that I’m working on it.
Her policy on abortion is definitely more extreme than mine, but to the extent that it is, has no chance of being enforced as is. I’m counting on it to be modified by the political dialectic, even as George “Dad” Bush’s pro-choice position changed.
Her “banning books” talks were stupid & the work of an over-zealous novice who appears to have modified. I’m still working on my position in the Evolution &/or
Creation debate except to say that I’m not happy with either side as popularly presented.
That’s why you’re so scary.
Out of interest, FT, what is the difference between your and Palin’s stances on abortion?
I think what you have to understand is that scientists do not say that God must be “out of the equation,” or that it “can’t be considered.” What they’re saying is that the question of God cannot be addressed by scientific method. There is no statement, even by Dawkins, that God absolutely cannot exist, only that there is no way to scientifically test for it.
Actually, that is the essence of the “Science talk” I’m mulling over.
Kalhoun: Boo.
Revenant: I call myself 95% anti-abortion, since only 5% seems to involve life/physical health of mother, rape, incest or fetal deformity. I think those reasons do need to be kept legally open. I also have little/no problem with contraceptive devices which prevent implantation of a fertilized egg or “morning after” pills.
Well hell, that’s what Ronald Reagan and both Bushes thought. I think we’ve faired very well since 1980.
What the President thinks about evoloution is a non-factor.
An interesting answer. Thanks - when you figure out your stance on the evolution/creationism debate, i’d be interested in hearing it.
Actually, yeah- what a President thinks about education itself, except that it’s a good thing, should really be a non-factor. It is not a Constitutionally-authorized concern for the national gov’t.
Back to Revenant: I recently read this re abortion and it comes close to how I regard things, tho I’ll have to re-read it for details.
There is a vast, vast difference between “it doesn’t need to be part of the curriculum,” which is a weaselly dodge and which implies that the plan is to sneak it in by providing opportunities to discuss it without actually writing anything down that could be produced in court, and “it should not be part of the curriculum,” which is the right fucking answer.