Again, show me where Sarah Palin wants it taught as science in a science class……
Heck, show me where Sarah Palin wants creationism taught at all….

I have already done this. She has advocated the teaching of “both sides”.

This really is old news. Get over yourself, open you eyes and re-read some of the earlier posts.

While it is true that some extrapolation is necessary to actually obtain a firm meaning from the phrase “I think both sides should be taught” (my paraphrase), the only meaning at which one can arrive is that she means that both evolution and creationism should be taught. Now, since no public schools have comparative religion classes or an equivalent, she cannot mean that she would introduce such a thing simply so that the creationist side can be taught in an appropriate context (because this would be such a flagrant violation of the first amendment, and if it were ever actually to happen, you’d end up with a new civil war with about 250 sides as every sub-cult of Christianity fights to get its version of creationism accepted as the version). And, since the question was about evolution, I doubt she meant that creationism should be taught in math or English classes. So where else, apart from biology classes?

What else could she actually have meant when she said “I think both sides should be taught”?

You said, “Agreed…….but wouldn’t you want students to examine any theory and realize why it fails? Or do you want them to just blindly accept whatever theory is placed in front of them?
How’s that different from what creationists do?”

I think you’re confusing a scientific theory with the non-scientific definition. These are two completely different things. Click the link in my name for more details.

Some other scientific theories that we teach:
* General theory of relativity – which describes the physics of gravity, which we know for sure works
* Atomic theory – which describes the smallest particles of matter, which we know for sure works
* Cell theory – which describes the basic units of living creatures, which we know for sure works. Oh yea, this also includes evolution.

Jose said When has Obama ever attended functions of an organization with the stated goal of tearing our country apart?

He is a democrat. They have links to the entertainment and the liberal media = satanists = nazis = socialists = rip the country apart.

Cindy McCain’s drug scandal may not have been the only reason for the collapse of the American Voluntary Medical Team, but it was a major factor.

John McCain absolutely tried to protect Charles Keating. What exactly do you think “he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf” means?

I never claimed Palin was a part of the Alaska Independence Party. But her husband was, and she attended Alaska Independence Party functions. When has Obama ever attended functions of an organization with the stated goal of tearing our country apart?

You don’t get it. I was intentionally taking something that is true or partially true and twisting it into unsubstantiated slander. Which is EXACTLY what’s been done with the Obama drivel you’re spouting.

You’re missing the point regarding Sarah Palin and teaching creationism, particularly in the post I made on it.

Obama has stated very clearly and in no uncertain terms that creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught in science classes. McCain has also said, clearly, that creationism/ID should not be taught in science classes. Palin has said that she supports teaching “both” (implying evolution and creationism/ID). She has subsequently said, clearly, that she thinks evolution should be taught in science class. However, she has not been at all clear in stating that creationism/ID should not be taught in science class. She has said that “science” should be taught in science class, but there is no clarification as to whether or not she views creationism/ID as science. Palin has stated that she would not push creationism, but has also said that federal government should not interfere with local and state school board decisions on curriculum.

The questions of whether or not Palin a) thinks that creationism/ID is science and b) whether or not it should be allowed to be taught (not simply discussed if the topic happens to come up) as science in the science class have yet to be clearly answered by her.

To sum up:
Palin supports teaching evolution in science class.
Palin may or may not believe that creationism/ID is science.
Palin may or may not think that creationism/ID should not be taught as science in the science class.

Obama and McCain both seem to be saying that evolution should be taught in science class and that creationism/ID should not be taught in science class.

If Palin were to be asked the proper question and give a clear answer, this whole big discussion would be over. So far, her answers have been pretty carefully worded, leaving the issue still unclear.

You said:

But he also wants to take taxpayer dollars and give it to those who haven’t paid taxes.

Please point to where he has said that he will give taxpayer dollars to people who have not paid taxes. If you are referring to his tax cut plan, then you are flat out wrong. Take another look at the plan. It does not involve cutting taxes and doling out money to people who don’t pay.

As to “spreading the wealth”, I took that to mean that the tax cut benefits would be spread out so it’s not just the wealthy who are benefitting the most. That’s not socialism. Good Morning America had a fact check on the tax plans on, I believe it was, Monday. They had the segment on their web site, if you’re interested.

Furthermore, I haven’t heard any plans from Obama to “control the means of producing and distributing goods” by the government. Feel free, though, to point to specific plans he has for the government to take over industry as a whole. However, the recent bailout package from Pres. Bush that both McCain and Obama voted for involves government taking over some of the financial industry, which, I’ll grant, is a bit socialistic, but that means Bush and McCain are also socialists, or at least have socialist sympathies.

Perhaps some sort of national health care is what you see as a socialist. If so, please provide citations that you feel show Obama’s plan to completely eliminate privately owned health care companies. As long as there remains private companies, it’s not socialism.

Click on my name for a story on how Obama is not a socialist.

At any rate, what does it matter whether Obama is a socialist or not? Why, specifically, is socialism bad?

>>>”Again, show me where Sarah Palin wants it taught as science in a science class……
Heck, show me where Sarah Palin wants creationism taught at all….”

Show us where she doesn’t. (shrug)

A former KKK member is a senior member of the democratic party! (Robert Byrd)

“McCain knows how to fly planes, and has an uncanny ability to crash them.”

It’s called ‘gravity’…..

“Some would call him a “suicide flier”. How do we know that next time John “Mohammed Atta” McCain takes a nosedive, it won’t be Air Force One taking out the Statue of Liberty?”

I think the effects of the physical torture he received at the Hanoi Hilton prevent him from controlling an aircraft.

“And his wife stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team…”

True.

“…..which eventually caused it to collapse.”

Not true.

“McCain tried to protect Charles Keating.”

Not true.
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf. The report also said that McCain’s “actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him….Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.”

“Oh, and McCain picked a running mate with ties to a separatist party. McCain wants a new Civil War!”

Sarah Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party, and has been a registered Republican since May 1982.

“Wow, Swift-boating someone is fun!”

I don’t know if it’s fun…….but it’s usually done by stating the truth.

>>>”Agreed. But re-read her statement. She clearly states that it is OK to SHOW that there are other theories. She does NOT say that those other theories are correct and proven. My attitude is: Show them the theories, and as they ask questions and dissect those theories they’ll realize what is and what isn’t. Isn’t it better to show the theories – and why they do/do not work – as a means of teaching children how to think logically?

(”Attention class…..Here’s the theory that the earth is flat…….now let’s examine it….”)”

Uh WHAT other “theories”? At least flat earth theory makes definitive predictions and can be tested. Creationism can’t even compare to that. What we’re trying to determine is if Palin can grasp this simple concept. She NEVER gives clear answers. And since there are some schools and school boards actively attempting to find any way they can to insert as much creationist nonsense they can get away with, you still think it’s a good idea to give them excuses to deliberately misinterpret what is meant by “let students at least discuss creationism”?

@ shane

>>>”I wonder why “socialist” is tossed around like an epithet? Are you guys (ie. Americans) really that afraid of socialists? Sheesh.”

Socialist = Communist = UnAmerican = UnChristian = Evil = Satanist. Apparently. If no-one believes me, ask Fidelus Astronautica. It’s like living in the Cold War all over again,isn’t it?

Oops, I forgot to mention Nazi’s. They should probably fit in there somewhere. I knew I forgot something.

If it’s a public school, then yes, the answer is zero.
Creationism isn’t a science, therefore, it shouldn’t be taught in public schools.
Again, show me where Sarah Palin wants it taught as science in a science class……
Heck, show me where Sarah Palin wants creationism taught at all….
Again, WANTS it taught.

“No. There are no other theories. Creationism is not a theory.”

Agreed…….but wouldn’t you want students to examine any theory and realize why it fails? Or do you want them to just blindly accept whatever theory is placed in front of them?
How’s that different from what creationists do?
“God created everything in 6 days 10,000 years ago! It says so in the Bible!”

And my reference to the ‘flat earth’ theory was pretty clear….or so I thought.
(“Here’s a bogus theory, and we’re going to use our reasoning/logic skills to show why!”)

“A socialist President? Who would that be?”
Barack Obama.
‘Google’ Barack socialism, or Barack socialist.

“And who in the campaign is planning on befriending Mohammed Atta? Please don’t tell me you’re falling for the “Obama is really a Muslim and a terrorist”

No.
He’s friends with Bill Ayers…..a man who bombed a place where innocent civilians worked.
Exactly like Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh.
Bill Ayers does not regret his actions.
I do not think Obama is good for this country.
He sat in a pew for more than 500 sermons, sermons given by a black racist.
He squirmed out of that situation by stating ‘…that wasn’t the reverend I knew…’
Either Barack is an idiot….or he thinks we are.
“So, while you may not trust Obama, for whatever reason, he is not a terrorist….”
Nor did I state that Obama was a terrorist.
“…he has no reason to “befriend” terrorists…”
He already has.
See prior comment.

“…and he is not a socialist.”
He’s stated that he wants to spread the wealth around.
That’s socialism.
The man goes on and on about wanting a fair tax system.
But he also wants to take taxpayer dollars and give it to those who haven’t paid taxes.
That’s socialism.
He wants to take peoples/corporations legally-earned tender and spread it around.
That’s socialism.
That’s wrong for this country.
Go to Youtube, search for: BHO Admits He’s a Socialist.

McCain knows how to fly planes, and has an uncanny ability to crash them. Some would call him a “suicide flier”. How do we know that next time John “Mohammed Atta” McCain takes a nosedive, it won’t be Air Force One taking out the Statue of Liberty?

And his wife stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, which eventually caused it to collapse. He must be a drug kingpin! And you still trust John “Pablo Escobar” McCain more than Obama.

McCain tried to protect Charles Keating. He’s a financial Terrorist!

Oh, and McCain picked a running mate with ties to a separatist party. McCain wants a new Civil War!

Wow, Swift-boating someone is fun!

I bow to your superior logical skills.

That’s easy. His middle name is Hussein. That is not a christian name it is muslim. Muslim = terrorist. QED.
So is Magic Johnson. His name is Magic. Magic = Wicca = Satanist = Muslim = Terrorist.

Anyway, I reckon the US Communist party is probably to the far right of most European socialist parties.

You never did answer our questions.
* How much time should we spend in a science class talking about creationism?
* Why stop at the Biblical Creation, why not talk about all other religions’ versions of creation?
* Why should we teach anything that is not a Scientific Theory in a science class?

Do we teach the students about the fall of the Roman Empire in Algebra class?
Do we teach students the Pythagorean theorem in English?

Well said. I would add that some of our founding fathers were not Christians, but were, in fact, Deists, as well as a couple who may have been, based on their writings, atheists.

@Fidelus Astronautica

I would also add that you should be careful about bearing false witness against others. You said that Obama is a terrorist and a Muslim, both of which are false. If you believe otherwise, please provide validated evidence that he is, in fact, both a Muslim and a terrorist.

How about….teach science in a science class……and teach creationism in a religion/theology class? Both classes are in the same school…..but different rooms.

Where has she stated: ‘Both science and creationism should be taught in a science class.’…?

Some of the arguments in this thread are: ‘Because she DIDN’T say they shouldn’t be taught side-by-side, she means that they should be.’

Are you really that naive?

How many public schools in the US have a comparative religion / theology class? Pretty close to zero, I guess.

When she was asked about the teaching of evolution (I don’t have a link to the actual question and can’t be bothered to Google it just now), she talked about “both sides”. What else could she have meant, other than teaching creationism in the science class?

msmith40 says:
“And for her or anyone to say: “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.” is fine with me.”

Nigel Depledge Says:
“No. No, it isn’t OK. This is because it is a lie. There is only one scientific theory that explains the origins of the diversity we see in living things.”

Agreed. But re-read her statement. She clearly states that it is OK to SHOW that there are other theories. She does NOT say that those other theories are correct and proven. My attitude is: Show them the theories, and as they ask questions and dissect those theories they’ll realize what is and what isn’t. Isn’t it better to show the theories – and why they do/do not work – as a means of teaching children how to think logically?

No. There are no other theories. Creationism is not a theory.

The creationist world view has no merit when compared against reality. It has not been a respectable academic position for most of the last 200 years. It had serious logical flaws that were widely known among the educated even before Darwin published his big idea. This was one of the reasons that Darwin’s ideas were so enthusiastically accepted – because any literal or near-literal interpretation of scripture falls down when examined critically. The academic community, in the mid-19th century, had no satisfying explanation of biological diversity.

(”Attention class…..Here’s the theory that the earth is flat…….now let’s examine it….”)

What would be the point of this, or of something along these lines?

Unless you are going to timetable extra sessions for classes on critical thinking or the history of science, such a lesson would need to replace one in which the kids would be taught some actual science.

But really, I seriously doubt (should she become VP) that this would be high on her agenda.
I’m much more concerned that we’ll have a socialist President who has no problem befriending the likes of Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh.
(I see no difference between them and Bill Ayers.)

Now, I would personally be surprised if Palin (should she become president) were to try to force a re-interpretation of the constitution. You use the term “socialist” in a way that means nothing to me. I live in the UK, where socialism has happened from time to time in the last 50 years. We still have a national health service, and I can remember nationalised industry.

I voted for ‘W’ twice, but I’m looking forward to his exit.
Not too crazy about McCain……….don’t trust Obama at all.

In the words of the Skyclad song: How do you cast your vote in a parliament of fools?

Apparently. Perhaps it sounds too close to communist, which, as we all know from the ’80s, is the epitome of evil.

Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. Communism sounds good in theory, but it absolutely does not work in reality. It totally ignores human behavior. Socialism I don’t know too much about, a state I’m fairly sure most of my fellow Americans share with me. I think the fear is that people who are lazy, good-for-nothings will receive aid from the government, while people who work hard will get shafted.

You said, “I hope to see McCain become our next President and, in due course, Sara Palin become our President too and in Jesus’ name to have the Biblical Truth and not mere evolutionist theory taught to our children.”

The Constitution of the United States strictly prohibits the state from forcing a religion on anyone else. That’s called a Theocracy, and the founding fathers we smart enough to know that no matter what your religion is, if you try to force it upon the people, the results are very bad.

You also said, “Legally we may be secular but the American people are, 80 % at least Christian.”

Please cite your source for that.

As to the rest of your preaching, you seem very sure of your faith, and that’s fine for you. But to argue your faith by berating others will not encourage anyone to see your point of view. Its not very Christian of you, now, is it?