In 2006, Sarah Palin advocated for creationism in science class!

[DeadPoolX 9]

Who wants the 'religion' of global warming taught in the classroom? Global warming is a scientific theory with a plethora of scientific data that is being used to evaluate the theory. It's not a theory that is using a book written by man 2000 years ago and counting to evaluate the theory.

There are theories presenting data that global warning is occurring; not occurring; entirely man-made; entirely a natural cycle, or some combination of the two. Theories don't amount to much, I'm sorry to say. If one is proven and becomes a Law, however, then that's something to talk about. Until such time, everything else is mere conjecture.

[Peikko 1,575]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

[HAL 9000 96]

at least she didn't want it exclusively.

So, as long as she allows science to be taught, it doesn't matter if we allow a little drivel to be brought into science classes? How about we allow schools to teach the earth is flat too? After all, we might all be suffereing from a devil induced mass delusion when we get in aeroplanes and fly around the globe so you know, lets allow those who believe that to have their say?

not too accepting of other beliefs, are you?

Religion has no place in the science classroom public education.

There, fixxored.

Wrong sister Len... it can be taught as what it is... Religion.

Who wants the 'religion' of global warming taught in the classroom? Global warming is a scientific theory with a plethora of scientific data that is being used to evaluate the theory. It's not a theory that is using a book written by man 2000 years ago and counting to evaluate the theory.

I see your a devotee of the religion. The two ideas (creationism and man made global warming) have about the same basis in facts.

Oh brother... Well, you get a for the effort.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Accepting someone's belief system and allowing someone to preach their belief system to children in the guise of 'science' are rather different things.

Why not? A lot of people want the religion of global warming taught also.

word!!!! welcome back Gary!!

[HAL 9000 96]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

It just doesn't belong in a science classroom since its [hint] not science. As for GW well, either way- man-made or natural... its study IS science.

[IAMX 3,055]

Not that I'm voting for her anyways, but someone who disrespects separation of church from state, and supports teaching the nonsense of creationism/religion anywhere in public school, to children, with public funds, should be thrown off the ballot. There's no way this makes any sense at all. And unlike creationism, global warming has entirely to do with science, sans the inept who want to focus on Al Gore as a "climatologist" to make their denial seem rational.

[Peikko 1,575]

Word? Crikey, here we go with the fantasy syndrome. I don't know anyone who is promoting the idea of teaching global warming as fact in schools. There are many people, including Sarah who promote the idea that it's a good idea to teach creationism in schools. Now, if that's not unenlightented I don't know what is.

[GaryC 7]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

It just doesn't belong in a science classroom since its [hint] not science. As for GW well, either way- man-made or natural... its study IS science.

True, and exploring the theory is worthwhile. However, many classrooms are teaching it as fact, which it isn't. So I see teaching GW in the classroom as the same as teaching creationism. Both are unsubstantiated theories.

[IAMX 3,055]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

It just doesn't belong in a science classroom since its [hint] not science. As for GW well, either way- man-made or natural... its study IS science.

True, and exploring the theory is worthwhile. However, many classrooms are teaching it as fact, which it isn't. So I see teaching GW in the classroom as the same as teaching creationism. Both are unsubstantiated theories.

Uh, hello? Climate models use actual scientific climate data (as in, it can be observed!). The teaching of a god uses what scientific data? There is none. Not the same.

Edited August 29, 2008 by SRVT

[DeadPoolX 9]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

I'd agree with you, but I'd like to think people would be given the opportunity to make their own choices.

I don't think evolution, creationism, global warming, etc., should be taught in schools (except, perhaps, universities). At the college level, students have the ability to choose which classes they want to take, so if one student wants to take a class on creationism, they may and if another wants to go ahead on evolution, it's their choice. It won't be the school system forcing it on them. If anyone complains, the college can fallback on, "Our students are adults and free to make their own choices about which classes they attend." The same cannot be said about high school students and below.

[Dan J 277]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

I'd agree with you, but I'd like to think people would be given the opportunity to make their own choices.

I don't think evolution, creationism, global warming, etc., should be taught in schools (except, perhaps, universities). At the college level, students have the ability to choose which classes they want to take, so if one student wants to take a class on creationism, they may and if another wants to go ahead on evolution, it's their choice. It won't be the school system forcing it on them. If anyone complains, the college can fallback on, "Our students are adults and free to make their own choices about which classes they attend." The same cannot be said about high school students and below.

Evolution is a pretty strong foundation to other science. Not teaching it would basically mean not teaching biology.

[HAL 9000 96]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

It just doesn't belong in a science classroom since its [hint] not science. As for GW well, either way- man-made or natural... its study IS science.

True, and exploring the theory is worthwhile. However, many classrooms are teaching it as fact, which it isn't. So I see teaching GW in the classroom as the same as teaching creationism. Both are unsubstantiated theories.

Perhaps. Pedagogy is many a times subjective to the interpretations of whom is disseminating information. What isn't is the definition. Creationism is not science nor scientific. Within the realm of science, only one has verifiable and methodological aspects... and it ain't Creationism. You gotta take a religion course for that. Its all about the subject matter.

[IAMX 3,055]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

I'd agree with you, but I'd like to think people would be given the opportunity to make their own choices.

I don't think evolution, creationism, global warming, etc., should be taught in schools (except, perhaps, universities). At the college level, students have the ability to choose which classes they want to take, so if one student wants to take a class on creationism, they may and if another wants to go ahead on evolution, it's their choice. It won't be the school system forcing it on them. If anyone complains, the college can fallback on, "Our students are adults and free to make their own choices about which classes they attend." The same cannot be said about high school students and below.

So I suppose we should also consider not teaching people about dinosaurs or prehistoric animals, and pretend the bones were made up, and carbon-14 dating is really just a belief even though substantiated and accurately used for almost 70 years? Let them believe in dinosaurs if they wish.

Good lord, we need a facepalm emoticon.

[HAL 9000 96]

How am I a devotee? I have nothing against promoting scientific theories and trying to explain the natural world using them. Whether the theory of global warming currently has enough data to make this a predictable phenomen is highly unlikely, and as such I am not rushing to have it taught as a "fact" in schools but that doesn't make it an unstuitable subject for discussion.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific data to even put it in the ball park of a theory.

I'd agree with you, but I'd like to think people would be given the opportunity to make their own choices.

I don't think evolution, creationism, global warming, etc., should be taught in schools (except, perhaps, universities). At the college level, students have the ability to choose which classes they want to take, so if one student wants to take a class on creationism, they may and if another wants to go ahead on evolution, it's their choice. It won't be the school system forcing it on them. If anyone complains, the college can fallback on, "Our students are adults and free to make their own choices about which classes they attend." The same cannot be said about high school students and below.

There it is- make your choice by registering for religion electives. To taylor it to High School you can easily hire a religion teacher and cover in what could be a quite interesting course... one or more religions. I know since I actually took two religion courses in high school. A public school.

[Ban Hammer 12,830]

no religion in science? zomg someone better go tell these guys!

link

link

Edited August 29, 2008 by charles!