2008 Republican Convention Thread

[quote name='thrustbucket']

Imo, there is as much "evidence" for intelligent design as their is for big bang theory. Not creationism, intelligent design.[/QUOTE]

Really?

Well, there is actually good scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory:

For example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601889.html.

American scientists John C. Mather and George F. Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Physics Prize for their work on the Big Bang theory on the origin of the universe. Have any "ID" pseudo-scientists been similarly recognized by their peers?

Put simply, the major support is that we can detect the expanded and cooled photons
from the earliest history of the universe. The temperature of this background
agrees with the calculation of the big bang. Now, will the theory be modified as more scientific evidence is brought to bear? You bet.

Where is there equally accepted SCIENTIFIC evidence for ID?
 
[quote name='sgs89']Really?

Well, there is actually good scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory:

For example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601889.html.

American scientists John C. Mather and George F. Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Physics Prize for their work on the Big Bang theory on the origin of the universe. Have any "ID" pseudo-scientists been similarly recognized by their peers?

Put simply, the major support is that we can detect the expanded and cooled photons
from the earliest history of the universe. The temperature of this background
agrees with the calculation of the big bang. Now, will the theory be modified as more scientific evidence is brought to bear? You bet.
[/QUOTE]

The theory as you describe it with your link and scientists is simply proving that you can observe the universe to be moving in a direction that is most likely to be an expanse. Expansive universe theory, is as you point out, observable fact. But taking that observation to the assumption that the whole universe must have "popped" out of a single "super atom" (the term used last I read up on it) isn't much more than a guess.

In other words, the portions of the big bang theory you are citing are fine, because it's observed as happening as we speak. Postulating how the universe came to be from that theory is a guess. Not even a glorified guess. It's a guess.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The theory as you describe it with your link and scientists is simply proving that you can observe the universe to be moving in a direction that is most likely to be an expanse. Expansive universe theory, is as you point out, observable fact. But taking that observation to the assumption that the whole universe must have "popped" out of a single "super atom" (the term used last I read up on it) isn't much more than a guess.

In other words, the portions of the big bang theory you are citing are fine, because it's observed as happening as we speak. Postulating how the universe came to be from that theory is a guess. Not even a glorified guess. It's a guess.[/QUOTE]

That is not correct. The observable phenomena are consistent with what the theory predicts. Therefore, they support the theory.

I note that you did not list any scientific "evidence" in support of ID nor did you show that such theories are in general acceptance among scientists that study the origins of the universe (physicists, astronomers, etc.). Not surprising, because no one could argue that, at least among scientists, ID theories are anywhere near as well-regarded as Big Bang-related theories are. The simple fact is that one is based on science and the other is not.

(To be sure, there are "scientists" who adhere to ID theories, just as there are "scientists" who believe that global warming is a fraud, but they are in the distinct minority.)

To your bigger point, whether ID should be taught in school, I would say no. It is one thing (and totally legitimate) to question the Big Bang theory in school, probe its underpinnings, cast doubt on it. That should be done and is a legitimate part of the scientific process. It is quite another thing to teach ID -- a theory that has virtually no scientific basis and very little support in the serious scientific community -- in school as "science."
 
sgs89,
I take issue with the whole idea of forming our reality and educational system around the "consensus" of people we think and hope are smart in the first place. So there is little point in discussing this further if I can't get past that.

That's also why I didn't attempt to offer you any "proof" you would try to shoot down anyway. I'm not interested in hijacking this thread with lists of links and points that you already have decided are wrong.

So to your last post I reply: Ok. If you say so.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's the only thing that needs to be asked of ID: is it empirically testable?[/QUOTE]

In a way that's provable to others in a lab setting? Not yet.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']sgs89,
I take issue with the whole idea of forming our reality and educational system around the "consensus" of people we think and hope are smart in the first place. So there is little point in discussing this further if I can't get past that.

That's also why I didn't attempt to offer you any "proof" you would try to shoot down anyway. I'm not interested in hijacking this thread with lists of links and points that you already have decided are wrong.

So to your last post I reply: Ok. If you say so.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I must say that is the standard response from someone advocating teaching ID in school. "Scientific support? What does that matter? I believe it, so it should be taught. Consensus? Who cares what people who actually study the subject think! My faith is all I need!"

And I'm not sure you can hijack this thread anymore than it already is.

Thanks for playing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's the only thing that needs to be asked of ID: is it empirically testable?[/QUOTE]

Man, what happened to the people itching for a fight? Too much apathy around here...
 
[quote name='sgs89']Fair enough, but I must say that is the standard response from someone advocating teaching ID in school. "Scientific support? What does that matter? I believe it, so it should be taught. Consensus? Who cares what people who actually study the subject think! My faith is all I need!"

And I'm not sure you can hijack this thread anymore than it already is.

Thanks for playing.[/QUOTE]

I never advocated ID being TAUGHT in school. Show me where I did.

When I brought up ID, I simply said that IN MY OPINION (as in TO ME) it's as valid a theory as ID, for reasons that are my own. But I never took it to the next step of saying that also means it should be taught in school.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I never advocated ID being TAUGHT in school. Show me where I did.

When I brought up ID, I simply said that IN MY OPINION (as in TO ME) it's as valid a theory as ID, for reasons that are my own. But I never took it to the next step of saying that also means it should be taught in school.[/QUOTE]

Fair point, you did not advocate that. My mistake. You did bring it up in the context of only teaching "facts" in school and then said that, in your view, there was as much evidence for ID as there was for the Big Bang theory. I made the leap that you were, therefore, advocating teaching ID in school since the Big Bang is routinely taught in school. Perhaps I was wrong about your view.

So, do you think ID SHOULD be taught in school?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In a way that's provable to others in a lab setting? Not yet.[/QUOTE]

Well, then, why should we entertain the idea of teaching it in schools?

I don't advocate banning anything, as topics shouldn't be taboo in the classroom. But that said, there's no room in any science course for something, like ID, that simply fails to meet any criteria of what science is.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Saying she doesn't want creationism barred is just a roundabout way of saying she would like it to be/thinks it should be taught. That's politics.
And, like MSI Magnus said, it should be kept far far away from schools (at least public.)[/QUOTE]

No -- it's not. Her stance is that it should not be mandatory, it should not be part of the official curriculum, but that teachers should not be barred from discussing it if the issue arises. The issue was that some people wanted discussion of creationism banned from public schools, and that's dumb. It shouldn't be part of the curriculum nor should the topic be taboo, which is what Palin said. Even though I hate her as a VP nominee I'm not going to twist her political stances, nor will I stand idly by while others do.

To those who disagreed with my statement that creationism belongs in a science class: I've gone into great detail about it here in vs. before -- if you're really curious, search for those posts of mine.
 
[quote name='HowStern']^^Religious endorsement is a lot of what Palin is about (creationism taught in school, abstinence only sex ed., outlaw gay marriage) There's no reasoning behind these laws/ideas aside from religious beliefs and it is absolutely unconstitutional. But it's what some people, like Palin, want.
[/QUOTE]

Except for Palin is for none of those things. She never advocated creationism on the curriculum, never pushed abstinence-only sex ed (look it up, and her children attend public school too), and vetoed a bill outlawing benefits to same-sex partners on the grounds it was unconstitutional. I urge you and everyone else to learn the facts before believing the outrageous slander out there about her.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
To those who disagreed with my statement that creationism belongs in a science class: I've gone into great detail about it here in vs. before -- if you're really curious, search for those posts of mine.[/QUOTE]

Link?
 
[quote name='Koggit']Here's one: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4798482&postcount=138

There are others.. that was the first to come up when I searched my posts for "creationism".[/QUOTE]

Interesting. And I agree that it is important to teach children -- indeed, students of all ages -- to think critically.

But, I think your linked post answers the question of whether creationism should be taught in school:

They need to be taught that some people believe this, other people believe that, but regardless of beliefs it's important that conclusions be reached based on evidence, not predetermined and considered confirmed by a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Conclusions must be reached based on evidence. There is no "evidence" for creationism. Therefore, it should not be taught in school.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Interesting. And I agree that it is important to teach children -- indeed, students of all ages -- to think critically.

But, I think your linked post answers the question of whether creationism should be taught in school:



Conclusions must be reached based on evidence. There is no "evidence" for creationism. Therefore, it should not be taught in school.[/QUOTE]

I think you're confusing education with the memorization of facts. The excerpt you quoted is precisely why faith needs to be addressed.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I think you're confusing education with the memorization of facts. The excerpt you quoted is precisely why faith needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think so. Education (particularly science) should be about reaching conclusions based on facts, evidence. On that, we agree. Creationism is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, it should not be taught in science classes. If you want it to be discussed in a philosophy or religion class, fine. Science? Get real.
 
I still feel like you're focusing on the rejection of faith as science, and my point is that it doesn't have to be science -- the goal is not to focus on the belief of creationism and exhaustively explain what their belief entails, but rather to confront belief and explain what science is. Creationism is a great opportunity to explain science -- to explain that everything we "know" is just a belief, just a conclusion, and the scientific method clarifies how likely a belief is to be "true."

The discussion that needs to take place is...

"When it comes to life, evolutionary scientists believe ___ because of ___. Creationists believe ___ because of ___. However, it is important for everyone to consider all evidence and all views they are presented with, and form their own conclusions based on what they feel is most likely to be true. The same is true of every explanation for every phenomenon, even those as fundamental as why your feet stay on the ground."

The goal is for students, both faith-based and science-based, to understand that they are never presented with absolute fact that they must believe -- neither by their pastors nor their professors. Sculpting an inquisitive, skeptic mind should be the ultimate goal of any primary science class. Too often they're taught no differently than history or language...
 
anways, anyone know if McCain has talked at all about Net Neutrality and what he thinks of that? Is he still against it?
 
[quote name='Koggit']No -- it's not. Her stance is that it should not be mandatory, it should not be part of the official curriculum, but that teachers should not be barred from discussing it if the issue arises. The issue was that some people wanted discussion of creationism banned from public schools, and that's dumb. It shouldn't be part of the curriculum nor should the topic be taboo, which is what Palin said. Even though I hate her as a VP nominee I'm not going to twist her political stances, nor will I stand idly by while others do.

To those who disagreed with my statement that creationism belongs in a science class: I've gone into great detail about it here in vs. before -- if you're really curious, search for those posts of mine.[/quote]


Well, like I said, in a "roundabout" way it is. If she didn't think it should be taught then she wouldn't say it shouldn't be barred.
It's like if someone says "such and such shouldn't be illegal" , they are basically saying "such and such should be legal". The option shouldn't even be there.

As for creationism being scientific, it just doesn't hold up well enough.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

As for whoever said Palin used her veto on a bill denying same-sex benefits, this is true. But she still OPPOSES same-sex marriage. You are confused about the details of the bill she vetoed.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm
 
[quote name='HowStern']Well, like I said, in a "roundabout" way it is. If she didn't think it should be taught then she wouldn't say it shouldn't be barred.
It's like if someone says "such and such shouldn't be illegal" , they are basically saying "such and such should be legal". The option shouldn't even be there.

As for creationism being scientific, it just doesn't hold up well enough.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

As for whoever said Palin used her veto on a bill denying same-sex benefits, this is true. But she still OPPOSES same-sex marriage. You are confused about the details of the bill she vetoed.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm[/QUOTE]

*hugs HowStern*

Completely agree. And I don't understand how there is such a growing movement to teach creationism in school nor why religion is receiving a big bounce back in its followers recently. Even as a little kid I could see through Christianity and wondered why anyone would follow it(this made things interesting as I went to a Baptist school for 3 years). I can remember being like 14 and feeling like I could at least take comfort in the fact that it was a dying belief system and as man modernized it would be followed less and socially conservative values would die out. However in the last 10 years or so it seems like its just resurging at an insane and scary rate.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Well, like I said, in a "roundabout" way it is. If she didn't think it should be taught then she wouldn't say it shouldn't be barred.
It's like if someone says "such and such shouldn't be illegal" , they are basically saying "such and such should be legal". The option shouldn't even be there.

As for creationism being scientific, it just doesn't hold up well enough.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

As for whoever said Palin used her veto on a bill denying same-sex benefits, this is true. But she still OPPOSES same-sex marriage. You are confused about the details of the bill she vetoed.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm[/QUOTE]


1. I don't think creationism should be part of the curriculum (I'm agnostic) yet neither do I support barring its discussion from public schools. You can't sit there and tell me she's contradicting herself when I share her stance.

2. I never said creationism is science, but that doesn't mean the discussion doesn't belong in science class. The goal isn't to inform every child of every detail of what creationists believe, the goal is to inform the children that we don't know anything, nobody can tell them any scientific truths, ever, there's no such thing as a scientific truth, and for that reason they must be skeptical of everything they're told, be it evolution, creationism, gravitation, whatever. The absolute most important aspect of science is skepticism, and by making creationism a taboo you're not only taking away a golden opportunity to open the discussion of critical thought but you're also limiting their exposure to conflicting schools of belief. You're degrading science into history. "We know this because of this. We know this because of this. This happened. This is true. This is how this is because of this." That's bullshit, that's not science. Creationism should not be barred from science classrooms. It doesn't have to be taught, but to ban it is lunacy. That's as if we banned conflicting theories of gravity, just because general relativity is currently the most accepted. That is not science. You never rule anything out, and you never treat anything as a certainty.

We need to raise the kind of children who, when presented with a new calculus formula, seek to prove it to themselves rather than memorize. We need the kind of children who, when told we have enough oil in America to last for 160 years, look up the facts and decide for themselves. We need the kind of children who, when told string theory is crap, pick up a book and work through the anomalies first hand.
 
[quote name='Koggit']1. I don't think creationism should be part of the curriculum (I'm agnostic) yet neither do I support barring its discussion from public schools. You can't sit there and tell me she's contradicting herself when I share her stance.

2. I never said creationism is science, but that doesn't mean the discussion doesn't belong in science class. The goal isn't to inform every child of every detail of what creationists believe, the goal is to inform the children that we don't know anything, nobody can tell them any scientific truths, ever, there's no such thing as a scientific truth, and for that reason they must be skeptical of everything they're told, be it evolution, creationism, gravitation, whatever. The absolute most important aspect of science is skepticism, and by making creationism a taboo you're not only taking away a golden opportunity to open the discussion of critical thought but you're also limiting their exposure to conflicting schools of belief. You're degrading science into history. "We know this because of this. We know this because of this. This happened. This is true. This is how this is because of this." That's bullshit, that's not science. Creationism should not be barred from science classrooms. It doesn't have to be taught, but to ban it is lunacy. That's as if we banned conflicting theories of gravity, just because general relativity is currently the most accepted. That is not science. You never rule anything out, and you never treat anything as a certainty.

We need to raise the kind of children who, when presented with a new calculus formula, seek to prove it to themselves rather than memorize. We need the kind of children who, when told we have enough oil in America to last for 160 years, look up the facts and decide for themselves. We need the kind of children who, when told string theory is crap, pick up a book and work through the anomalies first hand.[/QUOTE]

1. That very well could be the case but its doubtfull. Id bet a million vs your single dollar that she thinks creationism has a place in schools. Same bet for the fact that most others voting in this manor would probally hold similar views.

2. Skepticism is important in science. But nothing is more important then data! I dont think that things like evolution, the big bang theory or global warming should be taught in the sense of these things are absolute facts. I think they should be taught in the sense of we may not know for 100% certain that this is what happened......but following the scientific method and looking at all our data this is what is highly likely to be true or at least what science points us in the direction of. Creationism has absolutely zero data or science behind it. Its nothing but a belief system. If a child brings it up in the classroom I think there is then a reason to discuss it ad I think the teacher should tell the child that there is no reason he shouldn't believe in creationism and explain how creationism can fit in with evolution or other data driven forms of science. But it has no place being brought up by a teacher.

Again yes we never rule anything out, but you never teach something that doesnt have some sort of scientific worth to it. Creationism lacks that, it may be able to fit into a scientific debate....but so could the theory that humans were created by aliens or that we are nothing but a dream....doesnt mean these things should be taught.
 
*sigh*

This is going nowhere, obviously. You're still focusing on the information behind the belief, which should not be the focus at all. It's far more important to shape the way a student thinks rather than to just load then up with information.

How about we agree to leave what's taught in science class to the scientists? Surely they know what belongs in a science class and what doesn't.
 
[quote name='Koggit']*sigh*

This is going nowhere, obviously. You're still focusing on the information behind the belief, which should not be the focus at all. It's far more important to shape the way a student thinks rather than to just load then up with information.

How about we agree to leave what's taught in science class to the scientists? Surely they know what belongs in a science class and what doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Yes and guess what scientists do.....they take data and information and try to figure out whats real and whats make believe. So my guess is that most scientist are going to say exactly what I just freaking said. Hell every time iv watched a debate on the issue or read something(and I get both Popular Science and Discover Magazine)on the issue its came out the same....the scientist is against it and the people for it are far right Christians. Seriously these are the same people that deny Dinosaurs and claim fossils were put here by Satan to fool man into believing evolution. This is why I had issue with thrust, because iv got no problem with the issues being questioned......but we never see good science or scientists being the ones against them. Everything I find is some crazy nut or if it actually impresses me as thrusts one link on Global warming did.....I get to the bottom of the page and instantly find anti liberal, anti scientific messages which makes you question if their using real science or just saying things that sound scientific.

Im agnostic, I lean towards a disbelief in God but I wont say God doesnt exist because I cant know for certain. I tend to take this same attitude with things like evolution so if major break throughs happan and we start finding things that make creationism seem even remotly real id be happy for it to be taught and even possibly believe in it myself. But as iv said this isnt the case.

Out of curiosity are your Christian or at least religious?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Out of curiosity are your Christian or at least religious?[/QUOTE]

Two posts up, one you quoted...

[quote name='Koggit']I'm agnostic[/QUOTE]

Also, as I've said, I'm a physics major. Six quarters away from holding a B.S. in physics. I wouldn't classify myself as a scientist, by trade, but I'm certainly a man of science, not faith.

That should not have any impact on the topic at hand, but I hope it helps you see my point a little more objectively. I still feel like you're dismissing it as the view of someone who wants our children to know all about what creationists believe, and that's very, very far removed from the point.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Two posts up, one you quoted...



Also, as I've said, I'm a physics major. Six quarters away from holding a B.S. in physics. I wouldn't classify myself as a scientist, by trade, but I'm certainly a man of science, not faith.

That should not have any impact on the topic at hand, but I hope it helps you see my point a little more objectively. I still feel like you're dismissing it as the view of someone who wants our children to know all about what creationists believe, and that's very, very far removed from the point.[/QUOTE]

Mad respect and props for your accomplishments. Actually no, I was thinking you might be religious but probably were more libertarian in your views and thats why you were coming from where you are. I understand your point, I just strongly disagree with it. As iv stated creationism has no place in schools because there is no scientific basis to it. Maybe it could be discussed in philisophy class or debate....but in science class it cant stand on its own legs so it has no reason to be mentioned.
 
The thing is science class shouldn't be (and rarely is) just the presentation of data. That's how history, english, etc are taught.

Math and science should not be taught that way. Math should be taught as exploration & derivation, science should be taught as skepticism and criticism, because that's which each of those fields are respectively.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Yes and guess what scientists do.....they take data and information and try to figure out whats real and whats make believe. So my guess is that most scientist are going to say exactly what I just freaking said. Hell every time iv watched a debate on the issue or read something(and I get both Popular Science and Discover Magazine)on the issue its came out the same....the scientist is against it and the people for it are far right Christians. Seriously these are the same people that deny Dinosaurs and claim fossils were put here by Satan to fool man into believing evolution. This is why I had issue with thrust, because iv got no problem with the issues being questioned......but we never see good science or scientists being the ones against them. Everything I find is some crazy nut or if it actually impresses me as thrusts one link on Global warming did.....I get to the bottom of the page and instantly find anti liberal, anti scientific messages which makes you question if their using real science or just saying things that sound scientific.

Im agnostic, I lean towards a disbelief in God but I wont say God doesnt exist because I cant know for certain. I tend to take this same attitude with things like evolution so if major break throughs happan and we start finding things that make creationism seem even remotly real id be happy for it to be taught and even possibly believe in it myself. But as iv said this isnt the case.

Out of curiosity are your Christian or at least religious?[/QUOTE]I've tried to be silent because I'm sure I'll get piled on, but I must say that you obviously know some pretty crazy, whacked out, back-woods creationists. I consider myself quite conservative on may issues, with a splash of libertarianism thrown in too. I believe in God and I know that life evolves. I believe in "creationism", yet I believe in evolution. Why must they be separate and exclusive ideas? I believe in dinosaurs and the fossil record even shows evidence of "cavemen". So? It doesn't offend my religion. I don't believe in a God of mysticism and wizardry who defies natural laws. I believe in a God who uses natural laws and processes to accomplish His designs. I don't think the earth was created in six 24-hour periods. I think the six "days" taken are periods of time unnumbered to man. Indeed, Genesis doesn't purport to teach the "how", but only the "who", "what" and to some extent "why". I believe it took many eons for God to create the earth and bring it to a point appropriate to sustain life. I think that idea agrees with science. I think creatures and life in general evolved. I also know that we don't know how everything works. But I believe that eventually we will know how to achieve many things that aren't even imaginable today. Not only do I think that this doesn't violate God's plan, but I think that it is actually part of His plan for us.

I believe in evolution. And I believe in God and creationism. And it's not a contradiction.

And I agree with Koggit. I don't think that creationism should be taught as factual. I don't even think it should be taught as fact in religious school science classes. What's the point? Everyone in a religious school already knows all about it? I attend Brigham Young University and I haven't had a Chemistry or Biology or even Physics course that hasn't involved discussing the Big Bang. Nor have I had a Biology class that hasn't discussed evolution. And these classes are taught by LDS professors. Sometimes someone will bring creationism into the discussion, but it usually doesn't stay there long. And this is in a school privately owned and operated by the LDS church.

I don't see why it couldn't (or shouldn't) be the same in any other educational setting. Present the "opposing" views (as one would do on any other issue). Then present the evidence of the "facts". And build from there, teaching people of the difference between the scientific method and belief systems. It's really not that hard and it doesn't lead to indoctrination. Quite the opposite, it teaches people to think analytically and then decide for themselves rather than making them memorize what you want them to learn, as Koggit suggested would happen otherwise.

I know that people can believe in creationism and evolution. I also know that such people can believe that ideas shouldn't be banned, yet they don't need to be necessarily taught. It takes someone twisting words and meaning quite severely to suggest otherwise.
 
MorPhiend, he's referring to "creationism" as the idea actually put forth as "Intelligent Design," (currently) which is an opposition to evolution that its proponents have argued should be taught in schools rather than/alongside evolution. That's the problem. Positing that there's a God that started evolution is quite different and wouldn't be in opposition to the science.

A lot of those people are that crazy. And they gain ground in conservative areas.
 
[quote name='SpazX']MorPhiend, he's referring to "creationism" as the idea actually put forth as "Intelligent Design," (currently) which is an opposition to evolution that its proponents have argued should be taught in schools rather than/alongside evolution. That's the problem. Positing that there's a God that started evolution is quite different and wouldn't be in opposition to the science.[/quote]
'Cept maybe abiogenesis, depending on how ya wanna run with that.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']'Cept maybe abiogenesis, depending on how ya wanna run with that.[/quote]

Well yeah, but if you've got no problem with evolution I dunno how hard it would be to just say God did that too.

Btw, on an even less related note - I got a chick tract from some dude passing them out on campus yesterday. The classic one "This Was Your Life," with the guy who dies and goes to hell and then it shows how he should've been all into Jesus and then he would've gone to heaven. They were probably passing them out cuz of the Hitchens/Turek debate (that I didn't go to).
 
[quote name='HowStern']Well, like I said, in a "roundabout" way it is. If she didn't think it should be taught then she wouldn't say it shouldn't be barred.
It's like if someone says "such and such shouldn't be illegal" , they are basically saying "such and such should be legal". The option shouldn't even be there.[/quote]

Except for you are deliberately mischaracterizing her position. She specifically said it didn't need to be part of the curriculum, but she wouldn't want to ban it even being discussed in schools if brought up.


[quote name='HowStern']As for whoever said Palin used her veto on a bill denying same-sex benefits, this is true. But she still OPPOSES same-sex marriage. You are confused about the details of the bill she vetoed.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm[/QUOTE]

I know she opposes same-sex marriage. I am not confused about the details of the bill vetoed; in fact, I said specifically that it was vetoed as unconstitutional. As I think states should have the right to recognize marriages as they see fit (note that this is not "banning" gay marriage), I don't have a problem if the people of Alaska want to modify the way they recognize marriages.
 
[quote name='SpazX']MorPhiend, he's referring to "creationism" as the idea actually put forth as "Intelligent Design," (currently) which is an opposition to evolution that its proponents have argued should be taught in schools rather than/alongside evolution. That's the problem. Positing that there's a God that started evolution is quite different and wouldn't be in opposition to the science.

A lot of those people are that crazy. And they gain ground in conservative areas.[/QUOTE]I guess I am trying to say that it is possible to be a conservative Christian and not have the (apparently) stereotypical beliefs and motives. So, if she says that creationism ought not to be all together banned, maybe that is exactly what she means, not that it needs to be taught alongside or in place of evolution. Furthermore, until she says that she believes that evolution is phony, I'm not going to assume that she believes it.

[quote name='The Crotch']'Cept maybe abiogenesis, depending on how ya wanna run with that.[/QUOTE]Like I said, God does not do magic shows. He works within natural, eternal laws. Life had to start somewhere, but I don't pretend to know how. This is a possibility of how it may have occurred.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well yeah, but if you've got no problem with evolution I dunno how hard it would be to just say God did that too.

Btw, on an even less related note - I got a chick tract from some dude passing them out on campus yesterday. The classic one "This Was Your Life," with the guy who dies and goes to hell and then it shows how he should have been all into Jesus and then he would've gone to heaven. They were probably passing them out cuz of the Hitchens/Turek debate (that I didn't go to).[/QUOTE]

Actually no again I am saying creationism in any form should not be taught. It doesn't matter if its the typical God created man and woman/garden of eden sort of way or the more logical and scientific he just gave the first spark of life and evolution took over from there point of view. Evolution is taught in school because even if we cant 100% prove it we can show in many many different ways that there is reason to believe in it. There is no real science behind creationism in any form. I don't understand how you guys can say it has a place or should be mentioned in class. Yes it is a scientific theory but it lacks any real grounding. If we want to have ID be taught in schools then we might as well add teaching that aliens are the intelligent designer as well, or that we are just a computer simulation of a more advanced civilization. There are 15 million theories out there and if we start teaching 1 without much scientific backing we should have to teach them all. Like it or not ID fits into that category....a theory without any scientific backing
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Actually no again I am saying creationism in any form should not be taught. It doesn't matter if its the typical God created man and woman/garden of eden sort of way or the more logical and scientific he just gave the first spark of life and evolution took over from there point of view. Evolution is taught in school because even if we cant 100% prove it we can show in many many different ways that there is reason to believe in it. There is no real science behind creationism in any form. I don't understand how you guys can say it has a place or should be mentioned in class. Yes it is a scientific theory but it lacks any real grounding. If we want to have ID be taught in schools then we might as well add teaching that aliens are the intelligent designer as well, or that we are just a computer simulation of a more advanced civilization. There are 15 million theories out there and if we start teaching 1 without much scientific backing we should have to teach them all. Like it or not ID fits into that category....a theory without any scientific backing[/quote]

I think you quoted the wrong post of mine. Maybe. Anyway, I never advocated actually teaching in science class that maybe God was behind all of it. I was just saying that someone who believes that God acts through nature and science is a legitimate way to understand nature isn't the person who is against teaching evolution or thinks anything else should be taught alongside it.

And to MorPhiend - I see what you're saying, and I probably shouldn't assume that she's anti-evolution. If one believes that God acts through nature and science is man's best way to understand nature then I don't really see how anything in the class would change other than saying "Maybe God did this, but science only observes nature, and here's nature..."

That being said though, "debate" in the classroom is one of the avenues that ID proponents use to attempt to get ID into classrooms without seeming like they're doing something that isn't based on science. The problem being that whether or not evidence for/against evolution is sufficient isn't something that can be decided by some high schoolers in a classroom. I'd have no problem with a class explaining why it is that the evidence for evolution is found to be acceptable by scientists and how the scientific method works, etc., that should be at the top of the list of things to teach kids anyway, but honestly how much time do you think is usually dedicated to evolution in a high school biology class? I didn't learn dick about it when I was in high school.
 
You're right SpaX.

The key issue here is, I don't think anyone is saying we should teach or even bring up creationism, ID, or any other belief system in SCIENCE class. Science class is for science, and as MSI Magus keeps pointing out, those theories don't fit in science very well, yet.

But those theories can and do belong in other classes. They should not be banned from school all together. We have all kinds of philosophy, mythology, and culture classes being taught at school that those beliefs and theories would fit into just fine.
 
[quote name='Koggit']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RALnyUSj_gY

James Carville rules, Michelle Bachmann drools[/QUOTE]

I feel bad for the handfull of smart Republican women out there. There are some like that Gretta chick and the other Rep that was considered for a McCain VP slot(cant think of her name right now she is old and a Senator)but by and large the parties woman are made up of smiling stepford wives. Seriously just watch Fox News.....every last freaking Republican woman is a young prettty woman(usually blonde)whose face looks freaking super imposed in the smiling position.....worse yet they somehow seem to be even more ignorant then the damned men.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Except for you are deliberately mischaracterizing her position. She specifically said it didn't need to be part of the curriculum, but she wouldn't want to ban it even being discussed in schools if brought up.




I know she opposes same-sex marriage. I am not confused about the details of the bill vetoed; in fact, I said specifically that it was vetoed as unconstitutional. As I think states should have the right to recognize marriages as they see fit (note that this is not "banning" gay marriage), I don't have a problem if the people of Alaska want to modify the way they recognize marriages.[/quote]

The same-sex bill was for employment benefits. It would not allow same-sex couples the same benefits by their employers as married couples.
I said she is against gay marriage and you told me I was wrong because she vetoed that bill. Makes no sense. She still supports the ban on gay marriage like I said...Look at the link I posted.

Creationism should be saved for college and/or private school. There are far too many religions to teach young kids that only one of them may be a theory and not delve into all of them equally.

The lady's nuts.
 
Why do Republicans keep calling Democrats sexist when they've supported phone lines that told women to stay at home as long as possible?

The hypocrisy on both sides of this election is getting prepostorous. Republicans are calling every attack against Palin's credentials sexist but Democrats can't wait to play the race card.

It looks like the only way to fix this mess is to have another Constitutional Congress and throw all these Washington cats out by force. Power to the people.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Why do Republicans keep calling Democrats sexist when they've supported phone lines that told women to stay at home as long as possible?

The hypocrisy on both sides of this election is getting prepostorous. Republicans are calling every attack against Palin's credentials sexist but Democrats can't wait to play the race card.

It looks like the only way to fix this mess is to have another Constitutional Congress and throw all these Washington cats out by force. Power to the people.[/QUOTE]

You could always vote for Bob Barr.
 
[quote name='sgs89']You could always vote for Bob Barr.[/quote]


Libertarian?

Hell, I agree with George Washington that parties and cliques have no place in politics. The course of our country should be decided by more than a political ideology that doesn't really fit the world at large. I like most of the Democrats ideas like pro-choice but I'm with the Republicans when it comes to a strong defense.
 
At its root, I think our problem is that we've developed a professional political class. The vast majority of our politicians -- certainly federal and, to a lesser extent, state and local -- are professionals in that politics is their career.

That was never meant to be the case. We were supposed to have a government of citizens who served and then, when done, went back to private life. The idea was that if you were only part of the government for a short period, you wouldn't have the incentive to make government invasive in ordinary citizens' lives (because you would be rejoining that citizenry shortly) and there would not be as much draw toward self-dealing.

We need to return to that idea.
 
I agree with the citizen politician. The President is there for the emergencies and we can always call Congress if there's a need to declare war on someone. Funny thing is, we're fighting two wars without ever declaring it in the first place.

I also want stricter term limits. Give those guys two terms and let fresh blood come in every couple years.

Also, I agree with the core Republican idea of a strong defense. It's been twisted to mean a strong offense will keep us safe and that's really preposterous but I agree that we should have a military that's ready to go whoop some ass when it's needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top