Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Christian / Islam divide.
66 Answers
John McCain's 'running mate' in the American presidential election campaign, SarahPalin, wants creationism taught in Science classes in the USA. Does anybody else feel this backwards step increases divisions between religions? Surely the way forward is to accept other faiths, rather than to polarise people, as this inevitably will.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bobclean. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is the same woman who when asked if she felt offended about the words 'under God' in the US Pledge of Allegience said, 'Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.'
Shame the words 'Under God' weren't added until the 1950s.
Obviously a right bright spark in many different areas.
Shame the words 'Under God' weren't added until the 1950s.
Obviously a right bright spark in many different areas.
You're missing the point, this is not a debate about religion this is a debate about what is going to attract voters. The fact is that vast swathes of the US are very religious, mainly christian. They are just securing that vote. Remember 12% of Americans think Obama is a muslim, so the republicans are bound to go down the "Christian" path whilst rubbishing the opposition. Just politics.
Whilst I agree with Whickerman entirely, I am not sure of the question.
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said: "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."
She doesn't partcularly sound like someone who would insist on it, but you never know I suppose.
Also, the Americans call the subject 'Creation Science', basically using science to disprove accepted scientific theories on the history of the earth, evolution etc. So in that sense, it is an alternative branch of science - perhaps testing theories, potentially debasing them etc - so it probably would end up as a science subject, in America.
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said: "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."
She doesn't partcularly sound like someone who would insist on it, but you never know I suppose.
Also, the Americans call the subject 'Creation Science', basically using science to disprove accepted scientific theories on the history of the earth, evolution etc. So in that sense, it is an alternative branch of science - perhaps testing theories, potentially debasing them etc - so it probably would end up as a science subject, in America.
R1 � I know it is not a debate about religion. But what I am saying is that by blocking people from learning something you can not prevent them from knowing about that. Creationism or evolutionism, at the end of the day they are kind of knowledge. Related groups or people of the thought may oppose each other but you can only compare things when you have more than one option.
So my point was that let people know or be taught every thing fairly and sincerely and see which way they go. As far as politics or the politicians are concerned, I believe people are not that stupid any more to fall for these things.
So my point was that let people know or be taught every thing fairly and sincerely and see which way they go. As far as politics or the politicians are concerned, I believe people are not that stupid any more to fall for these things.
Here we go again... creationism/ intelligent design is not science because it cannot be empiracly tested and it doesn't make predictions. To argue creationism/ ID is science is about as sensible as arguing that the Midichlorians in Star Wars is science and therefore should be taught.
If anyone is aware of a scientific test that would allow us to determine whether a supernatural entity is ultimately responsible for life, then let them post it.
Even Michael Medved of the Discovery Insitute, the main proponent of ID has admitted ID is not a scientific theory: "The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else. " Jurasalem Post interview, August 08
If people want to put creationism/ID in RE, then fine. If they want to put it into science, then American is going to see it's reputation for science slip further behind the Chinese and Indians than it is already.
Palin has also stated unequivocably that she supports the rights of parents to remove their children from classes where the content is in opposition to their parents' religious beliefs, i.e. the right not to hear evidence-based science when it conflicts with their bronze-age myths.
R1Geezer is right with what he says about her on this issue.
If anyone is aware of a scientific test that would allow us to determine whether a supernatural entity is ultimately responsible for life, then let them post it.
Even Michael Medved of the Discovery Insitute, the main proponent of ID has admitted ID is not a scientific theory: "The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else. " Jurasalem Post interview, August 08
If people want to put creationism/ID in RE, then fine. If they want to put it into science, then American is going to see it's reputation for science slip further behind the Chinese and Indians than it is already.
Palin has also stated unequivocably that she supports the rights of parents to remove their children from classes where the content is in opposition to their parents' religious beliefs, i.e. the right not to hear evidence-based science when it conflicts with their bronze-age myths.
R1Geezer is right with what he says about her on this issue.
If that was to me, although I am not entirely sure (just seemed like a cut and paste rant) I said that it is called �Creation Science�. An Americanism for using science against established scientific principles, presumably on the basis that the scientist thinks were all created by a creator and is using science to prove other theories wrong. In the same sentence I said I agreed with Whickerman, Creationism isn�t science. If you use science and scientific methodology, for whatever purposes, then surely that must be science?? If you are preaching about a belief system, then that is cultural studies or RE or whatever it is called these days.
I would agree and support anyone who decided that where the teaching in a school does not accord with their beliefs then they have the right to withdraw their children from the school and place them elsewhere. This would work both ways, for atheists as well. What is so incongruous about that?
I would agree and support anyone who decided that where the teaching in a school does not accord with their beliefs then they have the right to withdraw their children from the school and place them elsewhere. This would work both ways, for atheists as well. What is so incongruous about that?
And if I said we should teach children that the world is flat and give them the information to decide?
I'm sorry but schol is NOT a place where children get to decide for themselves - just try that argument on spelling or maths!
All you'll end up with is mixed up and confused kids which is probably what the religious right want in the first place
I'm sorry but schol is NOT a place where children get to decide for themselves - just try that argument on spelling or maths!
All you'll end up with is mixed up and confused kids which is probably what the religious right want in the first place
Evolution is not something that someone needs to make their mind up about any more than multipllication is.
But I'm open to persuasion - this is the mark of true Science.
Go find me a fossilised Rabbit in carboniferous rock and I'll happily ditch evolution.
Doesn't seem much to ask if God created everything on whatever day it was.
After all there are plenty of dinosaur bones one rabbit doesn't seem a tall order!
But I'm open to persuasion - this is the mark of true Science.
Go find me a fossilised Rabbit in carboniferous rock and I'll happily ditch evolution.
Doesn't seem much to ask if God created everything on whatever day it was.
After all there are plenty of dinosaur bones one rabbit doesn't seem a tall order!
-- answer removed --
Right Jake, and if you had children and the head teacher of their school said that they will teach that the world is flat etc. then would you not think about putting them in to another school?
How are maths and spelling relevant to cultural and religious belief? Apart from thinking at the time that I'll never use that when I get out in to the real world!
I wasn't really referring to children making the decision. More along the lines of Wizard66's choice maybe.
How are maths and spelling relevant to cultural and religious belief? Apart from thinking at the time that I'll never use that when I get out in to the real world!
I wasn't really referring to children making the decision. More along the lines of Wizard66's choice maybe.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.