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

[GaryC 7]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

[symbiosis 0]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

No, please. DON'T let it pass. C'mon. I dare you to single-handedly deny the bulk of peer-reviewed scientific literature. We all know you're smart, Gary!

[HAL 9000 96]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

Gary... that petition has been discussed beyond a dead horse here. And been found to be quite deficient in the point and scope it was trying to get across due in part, to the questionable sources and signatures on it.

As for having a clue, I do believe symbiosis is spot on with his quote. AAAS is not what I would call a fringe organization.

[GaryC 7]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

Gary... that petition has been discussed beyond a dead horse here. And been found to be quite deficient in the point and scope it was trying to get across due in part, to the questionable sources and signatures on it.

As for having a clue, I do believe symbiosis is spot on with his quote. AAAS is not what I would call a fringe organization.

Sorry, I will let it go. Discussing GW is like discussing religion. There isn't any point.

[symbiosis 0]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

Gary... that petition has been discussed beyond a dead horse here. And been found to be quite deficient in the point and scope it was trying to get across due in part, to the questionable sources and signatures on it.

As for having a clue, I do believe symbiosis is spot on with his quote. AAAS is not what I would call a fringe organization.

Sorry, I will let it go. Discussing GW is like discussing religion. There isn't any point.

It is pointless, of course, since the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

[GaryC 7]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

Gary... that petition has been discussed beyond a dead horse here. And been found to be quite deficient in the point and scope it was trying to get across due in part, to the questionable sources and signatures on it.

As for having a clue, I do believe symbiosis is spot on with his quote. AAAS is not what I would call a fringe organization.

Sorry, I will let it go. Discussing GW is like discussing religion. There isn't any point.

It is pointless, of course, since the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Egg on dude. I wouldn't dream of putting down your religion.

[IAMX 3,055]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

There are plenty of religious people involved in science. Thankfully most understand that religion keeps it's dirty mitts off our public education, as teaching subjective beliefs is entirely against the objective nature of science, and against the secularism the founding fathers created to escape religious persecution. In this country's history, Christians have been the persecutors. Against Blacks, Women, Arabs/Muslims, Gays, Agnostics/Atheists.. and the list goes on and on. Then, of course, they made sure to institute their god into the currency and national anthem well after this country was established. So in the ever small bit of sympathy I might have possibly garnered to even think it might be objectively taught in school is diminished by this country's inability to separate church from state.

[symbiosis 0]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

There are plenty of religious people involved in science. Thankfully most understand that religion keeps it's dirty mitts off our public education, as teaching subjective beliefs is entirely against the objective nature of science, and against the secularism the founding fathers created to escape religious persecution. In this country's history, Christians have been the persecutors. Against Blacks, Women, Arabs/Muslims, Gays, Agnostics/Atheists.. and the list goes on and on. Then, of course, they made sure to institute their god into the currency and national anthem well after this country was established. So in the ever small bit of sympathy I might have possibly garnered to even think it might be objectively taught in school is diminished by this country's inability to separate church from state.

Spot on, there!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I think you might have misread what I wrote - I wasn't talking about you being insecure, but rather the people that promote Intelligent Design Creationism needing to find tangible proof of something in order to validate their own beliefs. If they were secure in their religious beliefs - there would surely be no need to do this. They wouldn't need proof to justify their faith in God.

As to classrooms - I agree that classrooms have no business teaching faith, and certainly this idea of Intelligent Design Creation fits into that category. Its particularly dishonest because its presented as a viable scientific theory and the proponents of it (who essentially made this a news story) have tried to get it inserted in high-school science curriculums.

Its also strange that ID proponents would apparently rather that the universe came about by magic, rather than by an observable set of physical laws.

[pedroh 21]

well despite GW being real or not, the fact is that it can be tested.. whatever the results and interpretations are, it CAN be tested with scientific methods... intelligent design or creationism.. can't..

[IAMX 3,055]

well despite GW being real or not

It's merely scientific data with a theory attached due to consistent behavior patterns in climate change, based upon previous changes coupled with archaeological evidence. Suggesting whether or not it's "real" is pretty effing stupid. And unlike religion, if the data suggests otherwise, through peer-reviewed tests which it went through before, it will be corrected. I don't see religion changing. Again, wonder why some latch onto the "GW is a religion" BS. Probably to justify their own ridiculous beliefs.

Edit: Btw, I don't see Christianity talking about the new revelations about the gospel of Mary Magdalene. I think the canon who writes and revises the bible is still soiling themselves on how to deal with it. Or content with suppressing it entirely.

Edited September 2, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well despite GW being real or not, the fact is that it can be tested.. whatever the results and interpretations are, it CAN be tested with scientific methods... intelligent design or creationism.. can't..

This has something to do with the blurring of boundaries since the internet took off in a big way. Plenty of books out there on this - basically that rather than provide enlightenment through greater access to factual information, digital mediums facilitate in fact provide greater access to self-delusion. If you want to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example - there's any number of hack websites and articles that you can go to and cite to validate your beliefs. Same thing with any of these topics - Creationism or GW.

What scientific thinking actually is on different topics has been gradually obscured by a huge tide of B/S. The problem is that most lay people don't have the specific knowledge to refute a lot of this stuff - so it becomes canon in these debates largely out of political correctness (because we must respect everyone's beliefs), especially because a lot of the pseudoscience can be quite convincing to people who don't work in that field or operate in those circles.

The scientific establishment needs to find ways to counteract this and prevent distortions of their work finding its way into the public conciousness and from there - to legislators.

[HAL 9000 96]

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Oh man, you have no clue. For the continued enjoyment of others I will let that pass. But really, you don't have a clue to what your trying to start.

Gary... that petition has been discussed beyond a dead horse here. And been found to be quite deficient in the point and scope it was trying to get across due in part, to the questionable sources and signatures on it.

As for having a clue, I do believe symbiosis is spot on with his quote. AAAS is not what I would call a fringe organization.

Sorry, I will let it go. Discussing GW is like discussing religion. There isn't any point.

There is a cure for ignorance. Regarding discussing it, you could also have a point. I guess it depends, if that simile holds true, that discussing the merits of religion in parallel to the merits of GW fully requires one to understand the evidence brought forward and that those that refute such evidence do so with integrity. Something the originators of that petition fail to guarantee.

Some "co-religionists" at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

There are plenty of religious people involved in science. Thankfully most understand that religion keeps it's dirty mitts off our public education, as teaching subjective beliefs is entirely against the objective nature of science, and against the secularism the founding fathers created to escape religious persecution. In this country's history, Christians have been the persecutors. Against Blacks, Women, Arabs/Muslims, Gays, Agnostics/Atheists.. and the list goes on and on. Then, of course, they made sure to institute their god into the currency and national anthem well after this country was established. So in the ever small bit of sympathy I might have possibly garnered to even think it might be objectively taught in school is diminished by this country's inability to separate church from state.

I think that they understand it as something far more simple:

Religion is not science and science is not religion.

well despite GW being real or not, the fact is that it can be tested.. whatever the results and interpretations are, it CAN be tested with scientific methods... intelligent design or creationism.. can't..

thunderbolts and lighting... very very frightening...