Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's appropriate that you put up the Sarah Palin picture, as she agrees that evolution and not ID be taught in science classes.
No, she doesn't, teaching both ID and evolution in the science classroom is not the same as believing evolution should be taught. This is especially true since she separates *microevolution* from human descent.
[Schmidt] knew my position: I believed in the evidence for microevolution – that geologic and species change occurs incrementally over time. But I didn't believe in the theory that human beings – thinking, loving beings – originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea. Or that human beings began as single-celled organisms that developed into monkeys who eventually swung down from trees; I believed we came about through a random process, but were created by God.
"But your dad's a science teacher," Schmidt objected.
"Yes."
"Then you know that science proves evolution," added Schmidt.
"Parts of evolution," I said.
"But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."
Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his head. I had just dared to mention the C-word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground.
No, she doesn't, teaching both ID and evolution in the science classroom is not the same as believing evolution should be taught. This is especially true since she separates *microevolution* from human descent.
Yes she does. I wrote, "she agrees that evolution and not ID be taught in science classes."
But she doesn't want her beliefs to be taught in science classes as science. My post only mentioned what she thought was appropriate in a science class as policy. Her belief about common descent would not be part of that policy. IOW, inappropriate.
It's appropriate that you put up the Sarah Palin picture, as she agrees that evolution and not ID be taught in science classes.
Yes, she seemed to have taken that stance for election purposes, though she believed in creationism, not evolution and thought that the matter should be discussed in class.
I suppose she thought that the convincing case for Creationism would become clear, but that could only happen if the person giving the class was a Creationist. If an evolutionist gave the class, of course evolution -theory would be made to look good.
It would only work with one of each side debating and presenting evidence with an impartial judge stopping the class turning into a shambles.
So Sarah Palin seems yet again to be talking nonsense.
I deny that we are designed to you and everyone else........Considering all of the evidence we have that supports our chaotic universe, how life began and evolved I think that it is silly to think that any of it is designed.
The human race and society is full blown evidence we were intelligently designed. Anyone who denies that is lying to themselves.
You see "full blown" evidence of ID ... but I look at the human race and society and simply see the human race and society. I admit that I do not have as fully developed a sense of wonder as many people, but still ... even if the human race and society actually blew my hair back I would not find any need to read more into it than is actually warranted. There are awesome things about each of us and about the world we live in, but objectively these are a testament only to the emergent properties of complex systems, which is simply a mathematical certainty given enough inputs and time.
The human race and society is full blown evidence we were intelligently designed. Anyone who denies that is lying to themselves.
I'm afraid that is very poor 'evidence'. The human race and society is actually evidence that we have evolved with a lot of very animal social and anti -social instincts. To say that anyone who disagrees with your extremely loose claim is lying to themselves is just awarding yourself the win without even needing to argue a case. You are, old chum, going to have to do far, far better than that.
Yes, she seemed to have taken that stance for election purposes, though she believed in creationism, not evolution and thought that the matter should be discussed in class.
I suppose she thought that the convincing case for Creationism would become clear, but that could only happen if the person giving the class was a Creationist. If an evolutionist gave the class, of course evolution -theory would be made to look good.
It would only work with one of each side debating and presenting evidence with an impartial judge stopping the class turning into a shambles.
So Sarah Palin seems yet again to be talking nonsense.
Of course you would. Maybe, maybe not. However, putting all political bigotry aside, as many creationists of all flavors that I know, I find it very refreshing when one acknowledges that their faith doesn't belong in science classrooms, and understands, as S. J. Gould puts it, that these are two separate majesteria. That happens too rarely. Keeping it separate would not be nonsensical. I actually appreciate her wanting to keep here beliefs out of the science classroom. O would think we'd all appreciate that. That is after all, what we go to court for. Remember Diver v. Kitzmiller. I know I do.
Last edited by PanTerra; 08-20-2013 at 07:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
going to have to do far, far better than that.
