Is Sarah Palin a Creationist?

[badfish51581]

A littl harsh, but legitimate questions to ask...

Is Sarah Palin a Creationist?
By Massimo Pigliucci, Scientific Blogging

posted: 01 September 2008 03:31 pm ET


Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for Vice President should he win the November elections, is a worrisome character from the point of view of science education. It is hard to tell whether Palin herself is a creationist or not and, frankly, that's far less important than the policy positions she holds in the matter. (Though, of course, having a Vice President who is deluded about basic aspects of reality would not be exactly reassuring. Oh, right, we already have had something along those lines for the past eight years, though **** Cheney's most dangerous delusions were not about who created the world.)

An article in the Anchorage Daily News dating back to when Palin was running for governor of that state (hmm, a mere two years ago, talk about experience and being fit to be commander in chief), reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having "kids debate both sides," since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.

According to criterion (a), "teaching both" isn't going to cut it, because creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity. On the contrary, it is superstitious nonsense that harks back to an earlier era of ignorance about how the world works. But things aren't much rosier for creationists under criterion (b) either, despite all the talk about "teaching the controversy." Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a "fair and balanced" view of everything and be told "you decide." Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard. If students really do assimilate all of that, just one look at creationist claims would make it painfully clear that they don't need to be further entertained.

Unlike Mike Huckabee (who is also now campaigning for McCain), Palin was at least smart enough not to outright claim that she does not accept evolution. The former governor of Arkansas plainly stated that "I believe god created the heavens and the earth," and that he "wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know." These are lines straight out of the Institute for Creation Research talk book, which explains why "Left Behind" author Tim LaHaye said during the Republican primaries that Huckabee was "the most electable candidate who shares our commitment."

And therein lies the problem: exactly what are Republicans committed to when it comes to science and education? To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago? To allow individual states to decide just how misinformed about science their citizens can be? That way if you are from Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi or a variety of other places along the Ignorance Belt you can keep falling behind in quality of life and ability to compete in a world where science plays an increasingly central role in our lives. Now, there's a platform worthy of LaHaye and his readers.

These are questions that Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain have to answer to voters before the November election. But considering that they disagree about some of those answers, perhaps the two should first get better acquainted and straighten things out a bit. They've got two months to do it.

 

[bpmartyr]

There are a lot more creationists in this country than I think you are giving credit. I hope they make it an issue.




About origins
Public beliefs about evolution and creation

Beliefs of American adults -- 1991 to 2007:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.

Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 47% 40% 9%
Men 39% 45% 11.5%
Women 53% 36% 6.6%
College graduates 25% 54% 16.5%
No high school diploma 65% 23% 4.6%
Income over $50,000 29% 50% 17%
Income under $20,000 59% 28% 6.5%
Caucasians 46% 40% 9%
African-Americans 53% 41% 4%

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data.

"Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." 1

A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that:

"Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. ... Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all."

Poll results:
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created humans in [their] present form. Humans evolved, [but] God guided the process." Humans evolved [but] God did not guide [the] process.
Everyone 55% 27% 13%

 

[AE14]

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all."

boy the bolded certainly does say a lot.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

boy the bolded certainly does say a lot.

That a scientific theory is more supported by scientists? Yeah, it really says a lot...or did you mean something else?

 

[atjnutrition2]

I don't understand why so many people believe that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. If you are a creationist it is entirely possible that when God created the universe he did it with a "big bang" On the flip side if your beliefs are entirely scientific; was not the big bang a form of creation? Even the most learned physicist knows that all of the laws of physics can be traced back to the big bang, but as they near that specific point they all break down.

Stephen Hawking himself in his book "A Brief History of Time" acknowledged the fact that the more he learned about the workings of the universe the more convinced he was that there was some underlying wisdom in its design.

My point in this is that if one can get past their own unbendable beliefs they can acknowledge the fact that quite possibly religion and science can coexist and perhaps that they were meant to.

 

[dsade]

Even to the point of rectifying the dispute about the age of the universe?

 

[Rugger]

Even to the point of rectifying the dispute about the age of the universe?

Yes, many religious scholars point to the idea that the genesis story isn't hard fact, but in fact a story. It is unknown if the "days" in the genesis story were meant to represent an actual full day, or much longer. Bottom line is arguing creation v. evolution is pointless because religious types have one thing that negates all the scientific evidence, faith.

 

[dsade]

religious types have one thing that negates all the scientific evidence, faith.

Negates?

I think not. They can substitute faith in direct contradiction to scientific evidence almost bordering on fact, which is what makes them so scary.

Sure, just make up anything you want then claim Faith, and imply that it has just as much validity as science.

 

[Rugger]

Negates?

I think not. They can substitute faith in direct contradiction to scientific evidence almost bordering on fact, which is what makes them so scary.

Sure, just make up anything you want then claim Faith, and imply that it has just as much validity as science.

I guess you just don't get it.

 

[dsade]

I guess you just don't get it.

Apparently not, yet faith sort of gives one an escape clause from logic and reason, doesn't it?

How convenient.

 

[Hank Vangut]

i like dr p's quote on this topic from another thread.....

Any type of religious belief will often involve circular logic. You can't beat someone that insists on using circular logic. You can only win in your head because they'll never concede.

 

[atjnutrition2]

Even to the point of rectifying the dispute about the age of the universe?

If that one was for me, I'll answer it as best as I can, but I don't know if it will be an answer at all.

I don't think it matters in terms of my religious beliefs how old the universe is. I am no biblical scholar, but the Bible lays out the creation story over a period of six days. Was that six days as you and I know them? Who knows. In the grand scheme of things if you truly belief that God created the heavens and the earth, does it matter? I know this falls into the whole argument of taking the Bible literally or figuritively and I suppose I fall into a category that takes it as both. In many cases the bible uses stories or parables to make a point or to speak to a certain truth. Does the fact that in those cases they are stories make their points any less true? For example, if an author writes a story about the horrors of war by giving examples instead of the exact incidents does that mean that the horrors of war are any less true?

So, let's say God created the heavens and the earth but it took place with a big bang and the earth developed over billions of years. In this case science and religion would both be correct.

Anyway, I hope I didn't confuse with my answer or lack thereof. Science v religion is something that I struggle with in my own faith and I have come to the conclusion that one does not exclude the other.

 

[Rugger]

i like dr p's quote on this topic from another thread.....

And the best part is that they don't care because they believe in something bigger than themselves and don't need anyone to prove it or disprove it to them. So in reality you're kicking yourselves just trying to start a debate.

 

[dsade]

And the best part is that they don't care because they believe in something bigger than themselves and don't need anyone to prove it or disprove it to them. So in reality you're kicking yourselves just trying to start a debate.

In the context of someone askin us to vote for them and place them in a position of power which requires rational decisions, I disagree.

 

[dsade]

So, let's say God created the heavens and the earth but it took place with a big bang and the earth developed over billions of years. In this case science and religion would both be correct.

Anyway, I hope I didn't confuse with my answer or lack thereof. Science v religion is something that I struggle with in my own faith and I have come to the conclusion that one does not exclude the other.

While I come to a different conclusion, and think this unlikely, I do not exclude the possibility completely.

I have no problems with this viewpoint at all.

However, you don't strike me as "we're in the ME to fulfill the lead in to Armageddon" kind of person.

 

[RobInKuwait]

In the context of someone askin us to vote for them and place them in a position of power which requires rational decisions, I disagree.

If small town USA overwhelmingly believes in creationism, why is it wrong to teach it in a small town USA school?

I don't believe in god or creationism, but I do believe that public school curriculum should be representative of the beliefs of the public who attends.

 

[dsade]

If small town USA overwhelmingly believes in creationism, why is it wrong to teach it in a small town USA school?

I don't believe in god or creationism, but I do believe that public school curriculum should be representative of the beliefs of the public who attends.

It's called Federal Tax Money, and you cannot take my money to teach your religious beliefs.

And then again, are you saying 100% of such people have identical beliefs, or will you force the minority to sit through things they are opposed to BY LAW (law states children MUST attend school)?

These are violations of the Bill of Rights.

 

[atjnutrition2]

While I come to a different conclusion, and think this unlikely, I do not exclude the possibility completely.

I have no problems with this viewpoint at all.

However, you don't strike me as "we're in the ME to fulfill the lead in to Armageddon" kind of person.

While I believe in a better place after this one....I have NO desire to speed the end of this place along. I'd like to see my grandkids one day, and I'd like for them to see theirs as well and on and on. Besides.....I'd like to sell a few more of the protein balls too. Although some might say the very existence of the Protein Recovery Balls is a sign of the end of days:toofunny:

 

[Rugger]

It's called Federal Tax Money, and you cannot take my money to teach your religious beliefs.

And then again, are you saying 100% of such people have identical beliefs, or will you force the minority to sit through things they are opposed to BY LAW (law states children MUST attend school)?

These are violations of the Bill of Rights.

I completely agree with your tax money comment, but it works both ways. I don't want my tax dollars being used to teach my future children something I don't believe in. How do you propose we remedy this? Where is the line drawn? What about parents who don't believe in certain aspects of historical documentation? It's a difficult issue. More reason to implement a voucher system for public schooling. The only other point I can think of is this: I think the teachings of immediate family surpass those of public school. I was taught evolution throughout my public education, yet I still believe in creation.

 

[RobInKuwait]

It's called Federal Tax Money, and you cannot take my money to teach your religious beliefs.

I just said it wasn't my religious belief. Read the post:

"If small town USA overwhelmingly believes in creationism, why is it wrong to teach it in a small town USA school?

I don't believe in god or creationism, but I do believe that public school curriculum should be representative of the beliefs of the public who attends."

And then again, are you saying 100% of such people have identical beliefs, or will you force the minority to sit through things they are opposed to BY LAW (law states children MUST attend school)?

These are violations of the Bill of Rights.

How can you say that teaching creationism in public schools violates the Bill of Rights when there were not public schools throughout the US until 1918?

Public schools began in the US prior to its founding in Puritan schools in New England. Their model laid the groundwork for the American education system. They taught creationism.

So you're telling me, that public schools which taught religion, that were in place at the time when the founders WROTE the Bill of Rights is a VIOLATION of the Bill of Rights?

 

[RobInKuwait]

I completely agree with your tax money comment, but it works both ways. I don't want my tax dollars being used to teach my future children something I don't believe in. How do you propose we remedy this? Where is the line drawn? What about parents who don't believe in certain aspects of historical documentation? It's a difficult issue. More reason to implement a voucher system for public schooling. The only other point I can think of is this: I think the teachings of immediate family surpass those of public school. I was taught evolution throughout my public education, yet I still believe in creation.

Vouchers.

 

[Zero V]

Faith can stop the impossible and cause the impossible.....science can not...


Anyhow look into the science behind a whitehole.... It actually is used to support and prove creationism. Interesting science really. Just as valid as the rest of science, so it must be included.

It talks about a while whole, which would allow the creation of the universe, during this creation by God a white hole would be closing in to where earth is. Well as it does the universe outside of its radius gos through time normal, but inside the white hole time stands still(kinda like a black hole) so it could have been used as part of creation to create a full pallet universe with age to it, and mysteries while still allowing earth a to be extremely young in contrast.

Thats not exact, but you get the picture. And it is science after all...and it can be used to explain a scientific foundation for creationism....

Anyhow I think creationism should be taught if evolution is. I mean, they are both beliefs that cant be proven. Right?

 

[Omen]

Anyhow I think creationism should be taught if evolution is. I mean, they are both beliefs that cant be proven. Right?

Why teach either then? What's the problem with that?

I don't believe in Evolution or Creationism, both have hundreds of flaws.

 

[Zero V]

Why teach either then? What's the problem with that?

I don't believe in Evolution or Creationism, both have hundreds of flaws.

I would go with that too...since creationism is already not being taught, I would be happier knowing at least evolution wasn't either. Creationism has been taught by churches for the longest time, evolution shall pretty much die off is schools don't teach it. Its not as widely believed anymore anyhow, and is losing its support.

Doesnt matter.

She would be bringing in creationism to make it a fair deal. Which I like because that means the Bible would have to be used as "reference". One gate leads to another. It would actually be a first step to changing things up even more.

I know you don't believe, and whether you believe it or not I respect that, but both in or both out sounds fair then to you, no?

 

[Omen]

I would go with that too...since creationism is already not being taught, I would be happier knowing at least evolution wasn't either. Creationism has been taught by churches for the longest time, evolution shall pretty much die off is schools don't teach it. Its not as widely believed anymore anyhow, and is losing its support.

Doesnt matter.

She would be bringing in creationism to make it a fair deal. Which I like because that means the Bible would have to be used as "reference". One gate leads to another. It would actually be a first step to changing things up even more.

I know you don't believe, and whether you believe it or not I respect that, but both in or both out sounds fair then to you, no?

I gotta go workout so I gotta be brief.

I would rather both be out since there are better things to be taught.

If Creationism is right, then, what about carbon dating, if the world was created, who created the creator? if "no one" then how did h/she/it come to defying the laws of energy?

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only transfered, what form was this energy available in before "the creator"? How did someone or something, come from nothing, hell, if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how did energy even get created!!?!?!?! How did it come to exist? if it can only be transfered, then, where did it transfer from?!?! and if that's the case, the place that it's transfered from, where did that place come from!!!! it's endless!!

What about Evolution? If human "just gathered" their knowledge, you're telling me hunters and gatherers would out of no where, start agriculture which requires a tremendous amount of knowledge? Metal manipulation? You don't just "accumulate" that knowledge, you get taught that, where did they learn it from? What about domestication of wolves? oh they just "brought a baby wolf in" yeah, early hunter gatherer humans, just out of nowhere, decided to bring an animal that would eat them in and risk it's howls and it eating their babies or themselves, and then JUST by bringing it in, it EVOLVES just like that..........Yeah......

How come there are still hunter gatherer tribes? why didn't they "accumulate" this knowledge? How come "some" monkeys evolved to humans but others didn't ? Why did H-Gs switch to Agriculture? even though plant foods aren't optimal, not only did H-Gs decide to switch, THEY KNEW, that wheat, beans and potatoes were harmful if not cooked? right.......just like that....

How come "civilization" and the knowledge necessary to switch from a H-gatherer life style to an agriculture based lifestyle appeared in a few key areas that "SUDDENLY ACCUMULATED" this information? China, Egypt, Latin America, Middle East, etc...... and then it spread? from those key areas?

Until someone answers ALL those questions beyond reasonable doubt, I'm not buying either "THEORY"

People always "know" it's either Creationism or Evolution, I don't, I don't have the knowledge and there's nothing wrong with that, I don't know how we got here, how this earth came to be, a lot of things.

But does it matter? if tomorrow someone proved there is no god, I'd do everything the same way I always do and if they proved there was, I'd do everything the same way I always do, including not pray and not accept h/her/it.

To me, laws and religion are for the sheep, if tomorrow the US Department of Justice said Rape is Legal!!! am I gonna go out rape people? f*ck no! Murder? Not unless my life is in danger (Maybe I'd rape Jay...but only if he wants me to :hammer Steal? not a chance.

I live by a code of honor that makes sense to me, that code will never change if laws or religions change, if someone harms my family, I will torture them and kill them, I'll risk my life to save someone I might not know, is this what the law or religion says? NO! no matter what the laws or religions say, I don't go by them and never will, I know what's right or wrong, I have a conscious that I go by, not some writings that have unknown origins or writings by people I have nothing in common with and never lived the life I have.

I do agree that society needs religion and laws though, humans are just dumb monkeys :hammer:

 

[RobInKuwait]

As a history major, what bothers me just as much as teaching evolution vs creationism, is the one sided teaching in America's schools.

Stuff I was taught in public schools that is total bullshot:

- FDR and his New Deal saved us from the evil "robber barons" who caused the great depression.

- McCarthyism was based on speculation and fearmongering vs an actual communist presences in the US.

- The Civil War was fought exclusively over slavery and the South was evil.

There are a lot more, but these were just a couple I thought of off the top of my head. Schools need to teach kids to think, not teach versions of history with subliminal political themes.

 

[dsade]

Anyhow I think creationism should be taught if evolution is. I mean, they are both beliefs that cant be proven. Right?

WHose version of the creation myth? After all, there are hundreds.

 

[dsade]

How can you say that teaching creationism in public schools violates the Bill of Rights when there were not public schools throughout the US until 1918?

Public schools began in the US prior to its founding in Puritan schools in New England. Their model laid the groundwork for the American education system. They taught creationism.

So you're telling me, that public schools which taught religion, that were in place at the time when the founders WROTE the Bill of Rights is a VIOLATION of the Bill of Rights?

When public schools take money from the Federal Government, they then become taxpayer supported. To use Federal Funding to promote a religion is a violation of the bill of rights' establishment clause.

In addition, when laws were passed forcing children into school - where we are now discussing indoctrination into a religion via teaching of creation - that also violates the same.

 

[B5150]

So it is OK for the Fedearl Government to support SCIENCE education that MIGHT debunk the existance of a God/Creator but is NOT OK for the Fedearl Government to support SCIENCE education that MIGHT validate the existence of a God/Creator.

I see no Federal Government support of RELIGION in either of these.

 

[dsade]

So it is OK for the Fedearl Government to support SCIENCE education that MIGHT debunk the existance of a God/Creator but is NOT OK for the Fedearl Government to support SCIENCE education that MIGHT validate the existence of a God/Creator.

I see no Federal Government support of RELIGION in either of these.

with all due respect brian, if science ever reached the point of proving a creator the basic tenet of the entire edifice-FAITH- goes up in smoke.

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge - period. It is recognized as such and is therefore taught within its limitations. It is not indoctrination into evidenceless dogma.

 

[Fastone]

Well one thing you could say, no matter what side of it you're on, she has definitely created controversy.


:bruce3:

 

[badfish51581]

Just to clear this up...

There is no dispute about the validity of evolution in the scientific community. A lot of people think because it's called "The Theory of Evolution" that theory in scientific terms is conjectural, like we use normally use the term. If you reject evolution, then you reject most sciences in general that have all validated evolution in various ways.

As far as creationism, I only have a problem with people who believe in it TO THE EXCULSION of evolution. If your belief can have them both co-exist, then I'm okay with that.

 

[CryingEmo]

Agreed. You can't just chose to accept science when it suits you. You either agree with the foundation of scientific principles that have gone on to create everything that makes your life easier; automobiles, computer processors, running water, etc--Or you reject science entirely.

 

[B5150]

with all due respect brian, if science ever reached the point of proving a creator the basic tenet of the entire edifice-FAITH- goes up in smoke.

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge - period. It is recognized as such and is therefore taught within its limitations. It is not indoctrination into evidenceless dogma.

I understand that evidence inherently contradicts faith.

Suppose that the evidence proposed that some extra terestrial alien civilization created us?

My point is that as Christian who has faith that there is a God, I am not opposed to myself or my children being educated in the Science of evolution in addition to creationism because I know my doctrines are faith based.

Why is it then that atheists or agnostics are so opposed to education in the Science of creationism in addition to their doctrine.

This is not indoctrination, it is information.

Edit: don't we teach what racism is, what Nazi's are, what Marxist are, what communism is? Is that also indoctrination?

Indoctrination of faith begins and is supported in my home not in my school. I have no issue with my Federally Funded schools and the education system and information that questions or places alternate ideology or doctrine for consideration. My ideology is enforced at home not in my schools.

...and with all due respect, don't you celebrate all the Christmas traditions in your home with your children?

 

[dsade]

nThat's entirely the point....There IS no science of creationism in the classical model. It stands attacking evolution, then posits itself the only alternative....also known as the logical fallacy "false dichotomy."

We celebrate a humanistic version of Christmas, itsself stolen from pagan winster soltice celebrations- to emphasice empathy and reinforce a noble way of life.n

 

[Zero V]

Science often overturns itself later in history. New discoveries are constantly being made.

I love science, I love history, going to be a history teacher.

Still though science can support religion, but never prove it. The idea of faith is what separates those who believe in a God from those who dont.

Also many many many times has reason failed, and faith been the only explanation. Science cannot prove how the universe came to be just as christians cannot prove creationism.

We talk about freedom of choice, then children should be taught both sides of every argument.

I agree about the civil war, the whole idea of it being only over slavery is botched. Ditto on the depression. heck I bet the mob did more to curve the depression than our prez....

Reason, science, only limits the mind, and crushes creativity. Although chemistry is a sweet class :hammer:

I dont know why having religion in schools is bad anyhow. So what if a kid decides to join it, could be his way of avoiding becoming a gang banger crackhead, no?

Public schools in America are becoming......bleh. I may home school actually.

 

[CryingEmo]

...and with all due respect, don't you celebrate all the Christmas traditions in your home with your children?

Ever heard of the phrase "going through the paces?" This would describe how most people celebrate christmas. It's a holiday, and you may get with your family, and give eachother cool stuff. It's an excuse to do these things. It also gives religious people a chance to recognize the day, but I think for the most part that meaning is lost for most people.

Corporations have turned christmas into a greedfest. Children could care less about the principle behind it, they just want a PS3.

 

[badfish51581]

Still though science can support religion, but never prove it. The idea of faith is what separates those who believe in a God from those who dont.

If by this statment you mean that, a higher power the big bang, then I can roll with that, but I won't be okay with it if invalidates and true science.

I dont know why having religion in schools is bad anyhow.

It's not necessarily bad. I went to catholic schools from K-highschool. We didn't have religion classes that taught dogmatic beliefs. We had theology classes where we studied religion (the history, beliefs, key tennats, etc). And not only catholicism, but every current major religion. I'm okay with that being taught in schools, but I fear that too many people have agendas, so the execution of that ideal worries me.

 

[AE14]

Science often overturns itself later in history. New discoveries are constantly being made.

I love science, I love history, going to be a history teacher.

Still though science can support religion, but never prove it. The idea of faith is what separates those who believe in a God from those who dont.

Also many many many times has reason failed, and faith been the only explanation. Science cannot prove how the universe came to be just as christians cannot prove creationism.

We talk about freedom of choice, then children should be taught both sides of every argument.

I agree about the civil war, the whole idea of it being only over slavery is botched. Ditto on the depression. heck I bet the mob did more to curve the depression than our prez....

Reason, science, only limits the mind, and crushes creativity. Although chemistry is a sweet class :hammer:

I dont know why having religion in schools is bad anyhow. So what if a kid decides to join it, could be his way of avoiding becoming a gang banger crackhead, no?

Public schools in America are becoming......bleh. I may home school actually.

If you would like religion to be taught in school I can applaud that, as I am a history teacher and have taught a course centered around religion for years.

Howeve,r the tight rope that you walk is how you teach it, and what you teach. You cannot just teach one religion and you cannot come off as preaching. I used to break it up geographically at times, and then chronologically within the region. However, without fail, there was always a students or 2 who were not pleased as they would start arguments about their own beliefs, b/c high school age kids for the most part are not mature enough to handle open forum discussions on this topic. Also, I varied the religions to range from all different types: Hindusim, Wicca, Islam, Native American, Atenism as just a few options. Of course, many others were offered

With regard to the Christmas tree issue, I was born Jewish, but am not a follower of that faith at all. I was raised with 2 Jewish parents and we had a christmas tree growing up. Please understand historically, that a tree has nbothing to do with Jesus, and Christmas sadly is a farce if we really believe it was his birthday. Most likely, based on the evidence in the bible, Jesus was born in the spring. Christmas is a conglomeration of MANY different earlier pagan holidays, from Mithras to Sol Invictus

 

[B5150]

Ever heard of the phrase "going through the paces?" This would describe how most people celebrate christmas. It's a holiday, and you may get with your family, and give eachother cool stuff. It's an excuse to do these things. It also gives religious people a chance to recognize the day, but I think for the most part that meaning is lost for most people.

Corporations have turned christmas into a greedfest. Children could care less about the principle behind it, they just want a PS3.

It's called "going through the motions". Your going through the motions has indoctrinated them.

What you do at home is what you are and what they will become.

When do you begin to tell your child that you are a hypocrite and liar and that has lied to them during the first and formost formative years of their lives and that they really evolved from a todpole or a sequence of molecules that have randomly aligned to form a living, reasoning organisism? When do you let them know you lied and that there is no God and you made the whole thing up because of the corporate puppet strings that were controlling you and your home life and doctrines? Or do you leave that to the Federally Funded education system to teach them?

EDIT: if people are so passionate about keeping any sign or form of it out of our schools than start by keeping every and all signs of it out of your homes first. Walk the talk.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Ever heard of the phrase "going through the paces?" This would describe how most people celebrate christmas. It's a holiday, and you may get with your family, and give eachother cool stuff. It's an excuse to do these things. It also gives religious people a chance to recognize the day, but I think for the most part that meaning is lost for most people.

Corporations have turned christmas into a greedfest. Children could care less about the principle behind it, they just want a PS3.

I enjoy Christmas solely because it makes my parents incredibly happy; it is the only time when all of us children reunite. Irrespective of my non-acceptance (I will not say deny, as that implies logical deference) of the Christian Faith, I partake in these activities on a strictly social, human-to-human level. My participance level is not indicative of my faith - or more appropriately, lack thereof.

My concern in respects to 'teaching' creationism is as follows: The Theory of Evolution is necessarily non-denominational - that is, its scientific doctrine does not support nor deny any particular theistic doctrine by virtue of its pretense; inherent within Creationism, however, is the implication that the Christian God of Abraham is responsible for such events. In teaching such a theological conceptual framework, your are implicitly encouraging the child to accept the faith-based precepts of Christianity: Such an act is both inequitable and against the representative nature of both the U.S., Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights.

The very psychological and emotional foundation of belief and faith is embedded within the pseudo-scientific framework of Creationism; in teaching such a doctrine, you are allowing the child to suspend their empirical skepticism in favor of romantic and idealistic viewpoints. How do we honestly tell our children to challenge social injustices and the empirio-scientific 'status quo', when early in their academic development we wholeheartedly push them to accept a baseless ideal? - baseless, insofar as not withstanding any form of empirical validation.

I disagree with 'teaching' Creationism because it is counterintuitive to the natural progression of inquisitive knowledge. Implicit within its teachings is 'acceptance', rather than 'curiosity'; unfortunately, this is merely a tired battle being reclothed in the time honored tradition of Religion and Philosophy clashing.

 

[Rugger]

Can science prove how the earth was created or how life on earth was created? Serious question.

 

[B5150]

I disagree with 'teaching' Creationism because it is counterintuitive to the natural progression of inquisitive knowledge. Implicit within its teachings is 'acceptance', rather than 'curiosity'; unfortunately, this is merely a tired battle being reclothed in the time honored tradition of Religion and Philosophy clashing.

I have no idea how these classes are implemented in a curriculim (sp) as they did not, to my recollection, teach either of them when I was in school. But ellectively I don not see an issue with them. Or as a culmination (sp) of ideologies, I don't see a problem either.

As a Christian, I also do NOT propose that the teaching of creationism be about a Christian God or God Creator or even God of any kind. I even mentioned before the premise of extra terestrial alien creator

My "faith" also has no issue with teaching evolution.

Yes, I agree it is a tired battle and I have little interest in further participation.

 

[dsade]

Can science prove how the earth was created or how life on earth was created? Serious question.

Science doesn'( really prove anything...it accumulates data and evidence, then draws conclusions which are always open to modification by new evidence.

And since I take your question as somewhat of an implication, are you trying to say that religion can prove anything about anything at all?

 

[bioman]

Teach science in the science classes and teach religion in the religion classes or at home or at church. No need to mix the two in a formal setting as kids/people can go on later to make up their own minds with the information they have recieved. People who argue that creationism needs to be taught in the science classroom simply want to extend the power of their particular church. To this I say fine, but then we will also teach the Islamic version of creationism and the Pagan version of creationism and they will all be treated the same so if your Evangelical kid comes out of it a devotee of Islam, just remember that YOU tore down that wall.:twisted:

 

[Rugger]

Science doesn'( really prove anything...it accumulates data and evidence, then draws conclusions which are always open to modification by new evidence.

And since I take your question as somewhat of an implication, are you trying to say that religion can prove anything about anything at all?

Honestly didn't mean it as an implication. I was just curious.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Can science prove how the earth was created or how life on earth was created? Serious question.

Prove insinuates access to an objective truth by which to validate a phenomena (things as they appear) into a noumena (things-in-themselves) - as all scientific discoveries are mediated through the constructs of human intuition ("time", "gravity", "psychology", and so on), nothing is proven but rather validated as a compounded, phenomenological appearance (many instances of the same repeated phenomena).

That being said, many phenomenon are bluntly presented to us on a macroscopic scale. For example: I tip over a glass full of milk, and in a linear, time-dependent fashion the milk spills from the glass onto the floor. As I can neither predict the actions of the milk with absolute accuracy, nor reverse the event, "time"-as-"a this such" (exemplar of the intuited "time") is presented to me - that is, past (milk spilled), present (milk is spilling), and future (milk will continue to spill) are manifested to me as separate states of the same continuous reality.

Now, despite this phenomenon being readily apparent to me, there are no scientific laws to objectively prove the forward progression of time as it appears to us; none. The only law which has concerned itself with the continuous, unilinear progression of time is the Second Law of Thermodynamics of increasing entropy. However, that Law unfortunately presupposes time as means through which to validate it (tracks increasing entropy in isolated systems over time). Would you then say: Time does not exist? I would venture to say no.

This arrives us at the operative phrase: Compounded, subjective phenomenon - consistently repeatable phenomenon presented to us as the objects of intuition. The Theory of Evolution as we know it would necessarily qualify itself within this category; the theory of Creationism, necessarily cannot. It (Creationism) removes itself (as a function of all faith-based reasoning) beyond the reaches of empirical criticism; thereby circularly validating itself; "Because it cannot be disproved as false, it is thereby true". However, such is not the normative path of scientific validation.

However, in reference to your original question, the LHC (large hadron collider) is seeking to answer just that. The experiment was launched several days ago, and seeks to explain several quantum phenomena: Most notably to your question, how collided particles acquire mass (as there is no current explanation for mass); i.e., how the earth would have theoretically been created.

 

[Rugger]

How do scientists explain the creation of life? Combining of organic elements and somehow sparking life? Another serious question.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

How do scientists explain the creation of life? Combining of organic elements and somehow sparking life? Another serious question.

However, in reference to your original question, the LHC (large hadron collider) is seeking to answer just that. The experiment was launched several days ago, and seeks to explain several quantum phenomena: Most notably to your question, how collided particles acquire mass (as there is no current explanation for mass); i.e., how the earth would have theoretically been created.

Google, "Large Hadron Collider". This particle accelerator is literally recreating the Big Bang and will more than likely provide massive insight into the creation of organic life.

 

[Rugger]

Oh, I thought the LHC was only going to theoretically explain how matter gains mass out of nothing. Dark matter? I didn't know it had anything do with with creation of life.