OMG, Palin

[snoopay700]

There is not really one Christian version per say though. If they teach straight creationism there is a bit of a problem, yes. Evolution should be mandatory to teach, but I think that if creationism can fit in with it then why not present this hybrid as one plausible explaination? I am not advocating teaching only creationism or the hybrid; no intelligent person would. But I think that because at Creationism's foundation is the ability to encompass evolution, why not teach it alongside the idea of a random creation along with evolution?

I dunno, i've always been iffy about that because i don't think it belongs in the science classroom, and i can guarantee that any science teacher that cares about their job, which is many, would put the creationism theory on the back burner anyway, or teach it as minimally and badly as they could. It just doesn't belong in the science classroom because it may explain how the universe got started, but it's still all about faith.

[grEnAlEins]

I dunno, i've always been iffy about that because i don't think it belongs in the science classroom, and i can guarantee that any science teacher that cares about their job, which is many, would put the creationism theory on the back burner anyway, or teach it as minimally and badly as they could. It just doesn't belong in the science classroom because it may explain how the universe got started, but it's still all about faith.

I see what you are saying and I guess I did not articulate it best. This is what I would like to see happen:

Teacher: Alright you little turds, today we learn about existence. There are two ideas that explain how the universe came about 1) God did it and 2)nothing did it. I cannot tell you which is correct until we fix the doomsday-black hole making-particle accelerator ( ). There are three main ideas regarding life as we know it 1) God did it exactly as it is 2)live began for no apparent or explainable reason and we evolved 3) God created life and let it evolve. I will now explain the merits of each theory:

1) This is what we call, in the world of science, complete BS. There is veritable F-ton of data suggesting that this did not happen.
2) Plausible, but not clearly supported in full, but is potentially provable. We know evolution happens, but are unsure about the origins of life.
3) Plausible, but not clearly supported in full nor is it provable as it requires faith. We know evolution happens, but are unsure about the origins of life.

We will now talk more in depth about evolution and a dude named Chuck Darwin. [Class continues with a thorough discussion of evolution]

[snoopay700]

I dunno, when it comes to that whole subject i'm not sure how to deal with it in school, and i think it would cause more problems than anything, especially with each teacher's different beliefs influencing how they teach it we'll have some pissed off telling everyone god doesn't exist and we'll have others saying that that is the only true explanation. When it comes to creationism i personally think it's best left out of schools, i mean your way could work but because of the individuals and teachers never really teaching exactly as they're supposed to i think it could become a big mess.

[Hilltop Customs]

creationism assumes there is a god who had massive influence on "creation", therefore it doesnt belong in a science class since it is not proven, it belongs in church. Imagine amending the teaching of trajectories to including the smart parts shocker has a flatter trajectory then determined by equations. Both of these situations assume fact based upon someones opinion, so why in the world would either one be included in a classroom???

The one and only reason for creationism to be included in a classroom is to proliferate the spread of religion. It has absolutely no beneficial influence in the world of science. If you really think about it when you mix god an science the ending result is someone saying "dont worry about that, god did it".....which really means "dont study/learn any more about this subject". IDK about anyone else, if I ever have kids, I dont want them ever to be told not to learn something based on some politicians belief. I want my kids to be able to ask "Why?" or "How?" to anything, and if someone answers back "because god did it" in a science classroom, they dont deserve to teach. A politician that believes that situation is ok.....I can only shake my head in disgust at.


the question the whole PILF/hot candidate thing brings to my mind.......how much did her looks/sexual appeal influence choosing her as a candidate? I mean Obama had "I'm in love with Obama" or whatever, so there was some sexual appeal there. Now look at the McCain ticket pre-Palin...I would say there is very little appeal there, add Palin and the tickets have become equalized.

anyone else think its bad when we making decisions on which candidate will be WORSE for the country?

Everyone talks about cutting back or increasing spending.....no one talks about efficiency. I watched the entire debate last week, it was a waste of my time.

[grEnAlEins]

therefore {Creationism/ID} doesnt belong in a science class since it is not proven

Neither is the big bang though. Does that belong in the classroom? If so, why the differentiation? The big bang is based solely on theoretical physics,a belief, if you will.

I am not saying that kids should be preached too, I am saying that they do need to hear all possibilities surrounding an issue, whether you like all of them or not. I am not saying that Creationism should be touted around as fact. What I am saying is until there is concrete proof otherwise, it remains a plausible explanation. I want it made clear that it is in no way a certainty. It is just as valid to say that God might have a hand in creating the universe as it is to say that we have no clue but it it definitely in no way involved God. The "clockmaker" theory is just as valid as the "clock was randomly created by nothing" theory until there is clear cut evidence suggesting one or the other. I am not suggesting that teachers should give the answer "God did it" to any question that a kid might have. I never said that. The only issue we are discussing is creation of the universe, a subject with no explaination proven, or even clearly suggested, by science. You cannot remove a possibility that you do not like any more than anybody else simply on the belief of greater plausibility. What if someone decided that the big bang theory could not be taught until proven? Using your argument it cannot be taught.

Let me give two more examples:
-How did the universe start?
-Well, nobody knows for sure. Some say God did it whereas others say it happened by chance with a currently unknown cause. Nobody is really sure, but scientists did build a machine and are going to an experiment that might give insights on what exactly happened.
-Why did the universe start?
-Nobody knows. Either it was by chance and for no reason at all, or it was so God could test/"eff" with us.

-Why do some reptiles change color?
-They evolved to have this ability because it helped them prey upon other animals and avoid predators.
-How do they do it?
-This happens because of a chemical reaction in the skin cells of the animal. What happens is {further detail follows}

[Hilltop Customs]

I'm not trying to get in a debate about beliefs here, which is the only direction this is going(at least the creation part). I'll leave it at this, big bang has support of scientists who are by definition are supposed to very skeptical of new ideas, until they have been "proven"/explained enough to the community for acceptance. Creationism has the support of believers who(I'm not trying to say anything demeaning here) are less discerning with their views.

In a science class which one makes sense to teach: a view which is supported by the scientific community, or a view which is supported by the religious community. Now thats not to say the scientific community is right, we all know they have been wrong before.

I agree that students should be exposed to all possible solutions to the creation of the universe/us and allowed to make the choice they see as correct. I just see some huge implications if religious beliefs are taken out of a religious setting and are forced into a science class where what is taught is assumed to be true....even if it is explained that there is no absolute correct answer.

For a more relevant question: why does a politician have the power to determine what kids are taught? Especially when it has huge religious implications, which are one of our fundamental freedoms to begin with.

My personal view(prepares to be lynched by AO) is KISS, we are just really^100000 lucky. Whats nice about that, either way I'm right We are really lucky to have a God which provided all this to us, or we are really lucky because all of the events leading up to now were randomly correct for our birth.

[bryceeden]

anyone else think its bad when we making decisions on which candidate will be WORSE for the country?

Everyone talks about cutting back or increasing spending.....no one talks about efficiency. I watched the entire debate last week, it was a waste of my time.

No joke, its pathetic anymore. What we need to do is just get rid of all partys, no more democrats no more republicans no more anything. If a person wants to run for office let them and let them do thier own fund raising and such, with no partys people will look at all candidates and pick who they think will do the best job and most represents them instead of who has the best odds of winning for thier party. Now for this to work we'd have to ammend the constitution and get rid of the electorial college and go to popular vote instead, but we're at the point where that may be better any way since the college doesn't nessessarily represent the people any more(shoot Utahs deligates said they were all going to vote Romney anyway, we haven't even had an election yet and our deligates have already decided to throw our votes away for someone not even on the ticket that sure as heck doesn't represent us now does it) As the debate proved niether candidate is at all capable of really doing a good job.

[Hilltop Customs]

bryceeden I'm with you in destroying the electoral college.....what is the point in the college if we have the ability to count a popular vote? This is exactly what I mean by efficiency, its impossible to really care about money when it is given to you freely.....think about all those little girls and boys on that MTV show sweet 16....they are our government.

[bryceeden]

bryceeden I'm with you in destroying the electoral college.....what is the point in the college if we have the ability to count a popular vote? This is exactly what I mean by efficiency, its impossible to really care about money when it is given to you freely.....think about all those little girls and boys on that MTV show sweet 16....they are our government.

Sadly this is true.

[Hilltop Customs]

oh and the reason its not likely to change.....parties have a 50/50 chance of winning, leaving a 0% chance of winning to anyone who actually has an opinion(that could make a difference).

[bryceeden]

oh and the reason its not likely to change.....parties have a 50/50 chance of winning, leaving a 0% chance of winning to anyone who actually has an opinion(that could make a difference).

Yes, its like a flat rate tax it'll never change because it affects those in power.

[grEnAlEins]

For a more relevant question: why does a politician have the power to determine what kids are taught?

Because we fund public schools stupidly. We rely on state and federal general funds to fund schools. If we used local property tax as the primary source of funding, a single politician would not have quite the same funding leverage.

[bryceeden]

Because we fund schools stupidly. We rely on state and federal general funds to fund schools. If we used local property tax as the primary source of funding, a single politician would not have quite the same funding leverage.

But this is America, we(our government) do(does) everything as stupid as possible.

[grEnAlEins]

But this is America, we(our government) do(does) everything as stupid as possible.

You jerk. I lost a mouthful of delicious Black Lager

Really though, why not fund schools locally to avoid the issue. We do this to an extent in our township. The school district has the ability (after a referendum passes) to levy a tax within the district and send the money straight to the school. Actually, a significant percentage of the HS operating budget at home comes from local taxes. That seems like the way to go to me. The state/feds can still stick their nose in underfunded schools and give out grants for stuff. I'd rather keep tax money local. If the feds/states could agree to fund it this way, yes property tax would be astronomical in most places because of the absorbed cost, but the state and federal taxes would be proportionally lower, so it would all even out for the citizens. But that would mean a politician would have to agree to lower taxes. I must be living in dream world

[Hilltop Customs]

ehhhh dont get me started on general education....the assumption that all students are equal is destroying the education system. Colleges are just extending highschool because of the average-ness that is accepted throughout the general education system....and colleges are glad to do this as it increases attendees, dropouts and profits.

teaching to an individual students ability has all but disappeared, replaced by teaching to the majority....which teaching toward mediocrity at best.