Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Palin for teaching creationism in schools ..

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Oilrig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 727 ✭✭✭Oilrig


    You know, for a supposedly (their projection) intelligent country... I wonder.

    They can grapple with science when it comes to developing military hardware, yet deny it all in preference to creationism in their schools...?

    I give up. :D


  • Options
    #3
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    cindy mccain was asked that last night and she thoughtfully said ' i think both sides should be thought'


  • Options
    #4
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    cindy mccain was asked that last night and she thoughtfully said ' i think both sides should be thought'

    Yeah but I doubt she was talking about evolution in science classrooms and id in sunday school.


  • Options
    #5
    CivilServant
    Registered Users Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭CivilServant


    Come on now. A VP who believes in creationism..

    You cannot be serious
    /McEnroe


  • Options
    #6
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    CivilServant wrote: »
    Come on now. A VP who believes in creationism..

    You cannot be serious
    /McEnroe

    its called reaching out to the base

    the christian right are an integral part of the republican party , palin was chosen by mc cain so as to reach out to this demographic , a demographic that mc cain has never been popular with


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    If she thought it would get votes, Sarah Palin would claim that pigs could fly. Wait a minute, I was looking at her pic when she stepped off the plane...


  • Options
    #8
    33% God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 338 ✭✭33% God


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    cindy mccain was asked that last night and she thoughtfully said ' i think both sides should be thought'
    I'm assuming she's gonna apply that logic to everything to avoid being a hypocrite.
    Alchemy in chemistry classes. Flat earth theory in Geography class.


  • Options
    #9
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    erm...as someone who used to respect John McCain but has now lost it all in the last 8 months due to his sudden conversion to ultra-republicanism, why does it actually matter what Cindy McCain thinks about these things?

    No-one is voting for her. I don't want McCain to win but surely there are more important issues than what his wife thinks about stuff like this.

    To be honest, the only issue I would like to hear from Cincy McCain about is the one dealt with in this article:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/22/nation/na-hensley22


  • Options
    #10
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭Lirange


    CivilServant wrote: »
    Come on now. A VP who believes in creationism..

    You cannot be serious
    /McEnroe
    A VP? You're really shocked?

    What do you think the current gimp in the White House believes?


  • Options
    #11
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Ludo wrote: »
    No-one is voting for her. I don't want McCain to win but surely there are more important issues than what his wife thinks about stuff like this.

    Your correct. But your comment would of made more sense if the Republicans hadn't of had a go previously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    CivilServant
    Registered Users Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭CivilServant


    Lirange wrote: »
    A VP? You're really shocked?

    What do you think the current gimp in the White House believes?

    Anything that lines his pockets.


  • Options
    #13
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Hobbes wrote: »
    Your correct. But your comment would of made more sense if the Republicans hadn't of had a go previously.

    Sorry? Don't really follow that comment.


  • Options
    #14
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭Lirange


    CivilServant wrote: »
    Anything that lines his pockets.


    He has personal conversations with God on policy.

    He claimed to look into Putin's eyes and peer into his soul.


  • Options
    #15
    Spaceman Spiff
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭Spaceman Spiff


    33% God wrote: »
    I'm assuming she's gonna apply that logic to everything to avoid being a hypocrite.
    Alchemy in chemistry classes. Flat earth theory in Geography class.

    teach_both_theories.jpg


  • Options
    #16
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Ludo wrote: »
    Sorry? Don't really follow that comment.

    Well I agree with you. It shouldn't really matter at all. However the repubs had a go first with "baby mama" and "terrorist fist jab" so I don't see how they can then say Cindy is off limits. That isn't even precedence, I still remember the flack Mrs Clinton got when she was first lady.


  • Options
    #17
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Ah right sorry...just wasn't sure what you meant. You are right, of course, but this woman really doesn't have a clue about policy stuff. Seems a bit of an airhead to me so why bother wasting time on it when there are actual candidates to rip apart.


  • Options
    #18
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    seems most if her best friends wont be voting for her!

    http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=GbxClZXzvDo


  • Options
    #19
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭Lirange


    Ludo wrote: »
    Ah right sorry...just wasn't sure what you meant. You are right, of course, but this woman really doesn't have a clue about policy stuff. Seems a bit of an airhead to me so why bother wasting time on it when there are actual candidates to rip apart.
    So I assume on that basis you ignored Bush Jr too? :pac:


  • Options
    #20
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #21
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I assume you were told this in religion class and not taught in biology as being a valid competing scientific theory. Context is everything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #23
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #24
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Palin is for teaching ID as a valid competing theory to evolution in biology. This is not similar to the parable stories told during catechism in primary and relegated to religion class in secondary in Ireland.

    "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "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."


    Either way Palins stance should be condemned irrespective of Irelands or any other countries state curriculum.


  • Options
    #25
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #26
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Erm ..... here's an interesting idea that I'm going to just ... throw out there.

    Creationism. Isn't. A. Science.

    What is it kiddies? It's religious belief.

    And we alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll know that belief != fact.

    All Palin seems to be suggesting is that educators should be allowed to use their best judgment and to have a reasonable discussion of the issue if it comes up. I don't see the harm in that, personally. Do we really want judges and politicians deciding what teachers can and cannot teach?

    No, what Palin is doing is trying to push the thin edge of the wedge into the classroom. The US education system has separated church and education. Now you want to reverse that?
    The question of intelligent design—did the universe and life just evolve randomly, or was there some form of intelligence behind it all—is an interesting philosophical thing to debate, at very least, even if it is in no way a scientific question. I don't see the point in declaring it off-limits just to please the hard-line secularists who bristle at the very mention of the word "God."

    Erm ... That's all very contradictory. I've highlighted the bits that are absurdly at odds here. So first of all, you want to see ecclesiastical debate introduced into scientific education. Then you try to tar people who see the danger in this as hard-line whilst ignoring the fact that the general demographic all for creationism begin taught in schools would appear to be generally right-wing religious fundamentalists.

    On top of deriding secular education whilst slagging off an obsolete (thankfully) system of religious education that was in place in Ireland until the mid 90s.

    Make up your mind for the love of sanity!


  • Options
    #27
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #28
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Let's stop excluding the middle. Theoretical physics has a different factual status to evolutionary biology.
    Does it contravene the Establishment Clause to make children aware of post-Darwinian debates and conflicts between proponents of evolution and advocates of creationism?
    It's sort of generous to call the disagreements between evolutionary scientists debates.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't be aware of them. But making up your own mind from the sort of intemperate arm waving (on both sides of the putatively obvious fence) that goes on in this "debate" isn't, probably, the best way to go. It doesn't really amount to discourse at all. Either side doesn't recognize the argumentative ground of the other. There's nothing much intelligent going on on either side.
    No, I want to see teachers be free to address questions raised by students who might be confused as to how creationism and science interrelate.
    As in... they don't?

    Seriously, though. How are teachers NOT free to address such questions? Granted, Palin isn't advocating putting Creationism on the curriculum. But that aside - it not being on the curriculum - that doesn't rule out its being addressible in class. Addressable in an open-minded, ecumenical and eventually inevitably science-leaning manner.
    I also want to see students educated in the full historical sweep of Western scientific, religious, and imaginative thought, rather than in whitewashed revisionist ones designed to suit the narrow agendas of liberal secularists.
    Since when was this suggested?
    Anyone who sees any "danger" in intellectual debate should consider himself extraordinarily parochial. What exactly are you afraid of?
    Which is forgetting one thing. There's nothing intellectual about repetetive automatic gainsaying. The creationism controversy is the sort of debate that gives you brain damage. It polarizes you - obliterates the possibility of thinking in a nuanced way. It's just a gathering point for opposed extremisms.

    Everyone should forget about the debate, leave science curricula to scientific theories (because you're not supposed to get the full historical sweep of western religious and imaginative thought in your science class - and neither, frankly, are you supposed to be having intellectual debates in science class. You're just supposed to be memorizing the established "facts" of the prevailing paradigm) and leave creationist accounts of the Genesis to Bible school and family and clergy, and let everyone knock themselves out.
    I am about as far from a right-wing religious fundamentalist as you can get. And yet I think the best way to deal with fundamentalist religious ideas is to discuss them openly, subject them to debate and scrutiny, and give children a rounded, informed idea of the issues at play.



    And where did I deride secular education? I have stated that secular education is misguided only insofar as it wants to negate all trace of religion from Western thought, ignoring the complex interplay between science, faith, philosophy, literature, art, music, and countless other disciplines that has given us the world as it is today.
    I hear you on this count. I'm no lover of the Richard Dawkins school of amateurish sociology of religion. Frankly, I think that movement is a force for bad in the world. But it does offend me the thought that state power could be deployed to censor the teaching of science in schools just because certain people "disagree" with evolution.

    There are already perfectly good spheres for both of these issues to live. This whole "debate" stems from the attempted invasion of one by the other, and vice versa.


  • Options
    #29
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes, you don't seem familiar with the scientific definition of facts.

    A fact is the small piece of data that does not provide explanation e.g. throw a rock in the air and it will fall to the ground, facts do not explain anything. Explanations are called theories e.g. the theory of gravity. Theories have to correlate with many independently verified facts through scientific experimentation and observation. Untested theories are called hypotheses although depending on the scientific field theories and hypotheses are interchangeable. All scientific theories and hypotheses have to be based upon the scientific method and must be falsifiable. Mathematics is not technically science although a lot of maths and science are interchangeable and theoretical physics straddles the border between the two. For instance superstring theory is purely maths at this stage until a scientific experiment can observe and verify it as scientific theory.

    Creationism has been proven to be false through radiological dating, the fossil records etc and should not be allowed in the science classroom any more than astrology or alchemy. The ID 'hypotheses' is not really science as you cannot apply the scientific method t and it is not falsifiable and therefore does not belong in the science classroom any more than existentialism.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You can make them aware of the debate in a class on philosophy, civics or religion but not in a science class as that obfuscates what science is.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    They are free to answer them in a scientific context which would be that there is no scientific evidence to support them and that they do not belong to the scientific field.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You are as much of a liberal secularist as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. You've made your political views quiet well known in the thread on Irish conservatism and they are as fiscally conservative as you can get. Now you are also demonstrating that you are socially conservative.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I don't have a problem with children being taught about creationism as a religious belief in a secularist way, but not in a science classroom. That will just confuse children as to what science is and as you've pointed out elsewhere science education is bad enough as it is.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    No. Secularist education in Ireland at least does teach religion in schools, but does it in a balanced way where all religions are given equal treatment and no religion is treated as dogma. Science attempts to exist in a vacuum and the only thing that should influence science is the scientific method and mathematics. Science can impact religion, faith, philosophy, literature, art and music but they should have limited to no impact on science.


  • Options
    #30
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement