Jump to content
w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

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

 Share

73 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

link

link

Are you suggesting that creationism is somehow valid because the Vatican has an observatory? I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

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

link

link

Guilt payment for offing Galileo Galilei.... -_-

:rofl:

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
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.

Some teachers would be better off attempting to teach biology without going over evolution, since so many of them get it wrong. Maybe the average person wouldn't have such a corrupted idea of what "survival of the fittest" actually means if biology teachers could actually set students straight. :rolleyes:

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.

You read into things that aren't there. We have medication to help that now. :yes:

Edited by DeadPoolX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
no religion in science? zomg someone better go tell these guys!

link

link

Are you suggesting that creationism is somehow valid because the Vatican has an observatory? I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

refer to post #9 ;)

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country:
Timeline
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.

Some teachers would be better off attempting to teach biology without going over evolution, since so many of them get it wrong. Maybe the average person wouldn't have such a corrupted idea of what "survival of the fittest" actually means if biology teachers could actually set students straight. :rolleyes:

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.

You read into things that aren't there. We have medication to help that now. :yes:

Sorry, don't believe in medication, and we should give the option to children to learn about medication along side of other beliefs.

Some teachers would be better off attempting to teach biology without going over evolution, since so many of them get it wrong. Maybe the average person wouldn't have such a corrupted idea of what "survival of the fittest" actually means if biology teachers could actually set students straight.

Which part do they get wrong?

Edited by SRVT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
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.

Essentially then schools should not only eschew from teaching religion but science as well?

I'm not sure I understand the value of a class purely on creationism or evolutionary theory. Omitting or ignoring the context of those subjects is the whole reason that we have these false debates about the equivalence of very ideologically different ideas. The context is crucial - science should always and only ever teach Evolution because that it current state of thinking in that particular branch of the Life Sciences. If you want to take a Philosophy class then there might be a place for Creationism, but probably only within a strictly Christian religious viewpoint.

The problem is that the religious establishment has for years been trying to push Creationism (or its more politically correct sounding alter-ego - "Intelligent Design") upon the public as a perfectly valid scientifically based alternative to Evolution. It just isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

link

link

Are you suggesting that creationism is somehow valid because the Vatican has an observatory? I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

refer to post #9 ;)

Religion has no place in the science class room that's a very sound point. That the Vatican has an observatory rather puts the science class room within a religious institution not the other way around.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Sorry, don't believe in medication, and we should give the option to children to learn about medication along side of other beliefs.

I agree. Many meds can do wonders, but they all have side-effects.

Which part do they get wrong?

Using "survival of the fittest" again as the example, most people think it means "the strongest survive." That's not what Darwin was talking about when he wrote about that. He only was only talking keeping your genetic code alive.

There are two types of "fitness" and they are "direct fitness" and "indirect fitness." You're more "directly fit" than your neighbor if you have three children and they have none or one or two. Why? Because you have a greater chance of keeping your genes alive through your offspring. You can be "indirectly fit" if you assist in raising someone related to you, but isn't your son or daughter, such as a niece or nephew. They'll share some of your genetic code (although less of it than your children would) and by making sure they survive, you've continued some of your line through indirect means.

That's all "survival of the fittest" actually means. It has nothing to do with the biggest, toughest, strongest guy on the block, flexing his muscles and beating down everyone else to attract the super-hot chicks. It's certainly not about exercising, which I've heard people believe too.

So maybe if some biology teachers were doing their jobs right, more people wouldn't think these incorrect (and sometimes completely ludicrous) ideas about this concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
no religion in science? zomg someone better go tell these guys!

link

link

Are you suggesting that creationism is somehow valid because the Vatican has an observatory? I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

refer to post #9 ;)

Religion has no place in the science class room that's a very sound point. That the Vatican has an observatory rather puts the science class room within a religious institution not the other way around.

slice it however you want :whistle:

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country:
Timeline
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.

Essentially then schools should not only eschew from teaching religion but science as well?

I'm not sure I understand the value of a class purely on creationism or evolutionary theory. Omitting or ignoring the context of those subjects is the whole reason that we have these false debates about the equivalence of very ideologically different ideas. The context is crucial - science should always and only ever teach Evolution because that it current state of thinking in that particular branch of the Life Sciences. If you want to take a Philosophy class then there might be a place for Creationism, but probably only within a strictly Christian religious viewpoint.

The problem is that the religious establishment has for years been trying to push Creationism (or its more politically correct sounding alter-ego - "Intelligent Design") upon the public as a perfectly valid scientifically based alternative to Evolution. It just isn't the case.

If there is a scientific basis for God, then let's debate it. However, there is none, and I'm placing my bets that there will never be any. However, I won't argue if evidence is brought up, as all evidence should be weighed equally. Not beliefs.

There are innumerable scientific basis' for evolution, both in archaeology, used in the study of prehistoric animals using carbon 14 isotopes, or microbiology/genetics, the latter to see evolution with your own eyes, with the help of a microscope. The evolution of cellular bodies on a microscopic level happen significantly faster than macro-evolution. The problem is, most people are uneducated, or find a "convenience" basis for their beliefs as a way of justifying their existence, as "evolution" doesn't provide enough substance for living.

Which is why I have no problem living side by side with religion (although I have more respect for unitarians and free thinking religious people), as long as people understand it's a belief, not a science, and has no place in public schools. Send your kid to private school where they can give the single-perspective of life all they want, disregarding science, and cherrypicking beliefs just like they do with their bible.

As for "survival of the fittest", that's not science, that's a metaphor.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5629/52

Evolutionary biologists customarily employ the metaphor "survival of the fittest," which has a precise meaning in the context of mathematical population genetics, as a shorthand expression when describing evolutionary processes. Yet, outside of the shared interpretative context of evolutionary biology, the same metaphor has been employed to argue that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Natural Selection, the argument goes, leads to a survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Ergo, natural selection describes the survival of the survivors. Thus one of the core concepts of evolutionary theory is a tautology. While it is easy to see how such an argument represents a deliberate misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, it also alerts us to some problems inherent to the use of metaphors in science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

link

link

Are you suggesting that creationism is somehow valid because the Vatican has an observatory? I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

refer to post #9 ;)

Religion has no place in the science class room that's a very sound point. That the Vatican has an observatory rather puts the science class room within a religious institution not the other way around.

slice it however you want :whistle:

I am not 'slicing it' to my advantage, that's the reality. The vatican has an observatory but that doesn't mean that the persona of the vatican have produced theories based on their observatory observations to bolster the non theory of creationism or any other religious doctrine or if they have, they are keeping very tight lipped about it. Silly me, that's it, the catholics believe in creationism based on their heavenly observations through their scope.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
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.

Essentially then schools should not only eschew from teaching religion but science as well?

I'm not sure I understand the value of a class purely on creationism or evolutionary theory. Omitting or ignoring the context of those subjects is the whole reason that we have these false debates about the equivalence of very ideologically different ideas. The context is crucial - science should always and only ever teach Evolution because that it current state of thinking in that particular branch of the Life Sciences. If you want to take a Philosophy class then there might be a place for Creationism, but probably only within a strictly Christian religious viewpoint.

The problem is that the religious establishment has for years been trying to push Creationism (or its more politically correct sounding alter-ego - "Intelligent Design") upon the public as a perfectly valid scientifically based alternative to Evolution. It just isn't the case.

If there is a scientific basis for God, then let's debate it. However, there is none, and I'm placing my bets that there will never be any. However, I won't argue if evidence is brought up, as all evidence should be weighed equally. Not beliefs.

There are innumerable scientific basis' for evolution, both in archaeology, used in the study of prehistoric animals using carbon 14 isotopes, or microbiology/genetics, the latter to see evolution with your own eyes, with the help of a microscope. The evolution of cellular bodies on a microscopic level happen significantly faster than macro-evolution. The problem is, most people are uneducated, or find a "convenience" basis for their beliefs as a way of justifying their existence, as "evolution" doesn't provide enough substance for living.

Which is why I have no problem living side by side with religion (although I have more respect for unitarians and free thinking religious people), as long as people understand it's a belief, not a science, and has no place in public schools. Send your kid to private school where they can give the single-perspective of life all they want, disregarding science, and cherrypicking beliefs just like they do with their bible.

Well there isn't any scientific proof for God - there can't be. Its irrelevant anyway because faith doesn't require it - so the act of looking for it suggests a degree of insecurity at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country:
Timeline
Well there isn't any scientific proof for God - there can't be. Its irrelevant anyway because faith doesn't require it - so the act of looking for it suggests a degree of insecurity at work.

The only semi-logical assertion that it can be taught in schools is under the guise of "creationism"/"intelligent design" in attempt to make it a science. Schools have no place teaching "faith", as that's for the home, or private school, or simply somewhere else. Insecurity has nothing to do with it, as someone who's grown up in "Christian" (Eastern Orthodox primarily, mom's side) and "Roman Catholic" (dad's side) family and was forced into this hair-brained nonsense, I was well versed into both types of Christianity. In my last relationship, I had no problem going into a SDA church even though being agnostic, as religion was part of my ex's life. Didn't make a fuss, got along with people. As mentioned in the post you quoted (yet still somehow suggested insecurity), I can live side by side with religion no problem. It's the idiots who wish to force their religion on others, and try to overtly decree by their actions that their religion has some sort of dominion over others, who I won't live with. Again, there is no place in public school for religion to be taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Colombia
Timeline
no religion in science? zomg someone better go tell these guys!

link

link

Are you suggesting that creationism is somehow valid because the Vatican has an observatory? I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make.

refer to post #9 ;)

Religion has no place in the science class room that's a very sound point. That the Vatican has an observatory rather puts the science class room within a religious institution not the other way around.

One of my early idols was Gregor Mendel- a monk.

Science is not religion and religion is not science.

Wishing you ten-fold that which you wish upon all others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Hong Kong
Timeline

Question:

When creationism is being discussed here, what ideas are in mind? Humor me for a moment and assume I've never heard of it.

Scott - So. California, Lai - Hong Kong

3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fagm.gif3dflagsdotcom_chchk_2fagm.gif

Our timeline:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showuser=1032

Our Photos

http://www.amazon.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=7mj8fg...=0&y=x7fhak

http://www.amazon.ofoto.com/BrowsePhotos.j...z8zadq&Ux=1

Optimist: "The glass is half full."

Pessimist: "The glass is half empty."

Scott: "I didn't order this!!!"

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." - Ruth 1:16

"Losing faith in Humanity, one person at a time."

"Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save." - Ps 146:3

cool.gif

IMG_6283c.jpg

Vicky >^..^< She came, she loved, and was loved. 1989-07/07/2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...