Sarah Palin: AGW-Denier and Creationist [Archive]

chipmunk stew

29th August 2008, 05:53 PM

What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

In October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a lengthy profile (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html):"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."And earlier that year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:"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. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

McCain/Palin is an anti-science ticket.

Darth Rotor

29th August 2008, 05:56 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html

McCain/Palin is an anti-science ticket.
The cheap attacks begin. Right on schedule. Does it ever occur to you that it takes science and engineering to get oil out of the ground? Does it also occur to you that Palin is a politician whose utterances are designed to appeal to her voting base? (And as such, are to be taken with a grain, or even a shaker full of, salt?)

You can't fool me, oh male chauvinist pig, nor disguise that your true objection to Palin is her gender. ;)

DR

(The last sentence is meant in a humorous vein, just in case anyone didn't get that.)

applecorped

29th August 2008, 05:58 PM

Cha-Ching! The payoff is what exactly?

mrbaracuda

29th August 2008, 06:04 PM

chipmunk is whipping out the big guns and going full broadside

http://b.imagehost.org/0946/big_guns.jpg

Take that, you damn AGW-Deniers and Creationists!

chipmunk stew

29th August 2008, 06:08 PM

The cheap attacks begin. Right on schedule. Does it ever occur to you that it takes science and engineering to get oil out of the ground? Does it also occur to you that Palin is a politician whose utterances are designed to appeal to her voting base? (And as such, are to be taken with a grain, or even a shaker full of, salt?)
Are you suggesting that Palin doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in schools or that human activity doesn't substantially contribute to global warming?

BTW, switching on your TV takes science and engineering, too, but for most people there is a disconnect between "pure" science, which explains, and applied science, which uses those explanations to do stuff or make stuff.

People who actively reject and try to muddy solid explanations are, in my book, anti-science.

chipmunk stew

29th August 2008, 06:10 PM

chipmunk is whipping out the big guns and going full broadside

Take that, you damn AGW-Deniers and Creationists!
It's not going to be a big deal on the national stage (unfortunately), but on a skeptics forum, it should raise eyebrows.

mrbaracuda

29th August 2008, 06:11 PM

You might know the dilemma I'd be in if I were American now. ;)

applecorped

29th August 2008, 06:14 PM

Are you suggesting that Palin doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in schools or that human activity doesn't substantially contribute to global warming?

BTW, switching on your TV takes science and engineering, too, but for most people there is a disconnect between "pure" science, which explains, and applied science, which uses those explanations to do stuff or make stuff.

People who actively reject and try to muddy solid explanations are, in my book, anti-science.

Really? Based on what exactly?

gtc

29th August 2008, 06:22 PM

Darth Rotor

29th August 2008, 06:29 PM

People who actively reject and try to muddy solid explanations are, in my book, anti-science.
Your black and white world fascinates me.

I live on color.

What is it like for you, to live in such a world? ;)

novice skeptic

29th August 2008, 06:29 PM

applecorped

29th August 2008, 06:41 PM

chipmunk stew

29th August 2008, 06:41 PM

Chipmunk.

Do you realise that the quotes you have presented do not show her to be either a 'AGW-denier'
Huh?
I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
That's as clear a denial as you can get. She flatly denies that global warming is anthropogenic ("man-made").
or a creationist?
The only people who call for a "healthy debate" between creationism and evolution in schools are creationists, because everyone else understands that the evidence in favor of evolution began to mount in earnest about two hundred years ago and has ballooned astronomically since then, that creationism has been trounced each time it has been the subject of a high-profile debate, and that creationism is not even a scientific hypothesis in the first place and has no place in a standard school curriculum. I take it back. She's not anti-science. She's anti-science and anti-education.

chipmunk stew

29th August 2008, 06:43 PM

Puppycow

29th August 2008, 06:59 PM

I don't think that this would be an effective line of attack politically.

In a contest between Richard Dawkins or even James Randi and someone like Rick Warren, I bet Americans as a whole would overwhelmingly choose the latter. Religion is popular in the US, Science is not. The products of science are popular, but not the scientific worldview.

gtc

29th August 2008, 07:18 PM

Saying 'I wouldn't say it is x' is not the same as saying 'I believe it is not-x'.

By the way, do you have any evidence that Obama believes in Evolution?

EBU

29th August 2008, 07:40 PM

Saying 'I wouldn't say it is x' is not the same as saying 'I believe it is not-x'.

By the way, do you have any evidence that Obama believes in Evolution?

I found this quote which says it was from an interview Obama gave to a newspaper called the York Daily Record:

“I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.“

chipmunk stew

29th August 2008, 07:40 PM

Saying 'I wouldn't say it is x' is not the same as saying 'I believe it is not-x'.
Rationalize it all you want. Her statement is clear.
By the way, do you have any evidence that Obama believes in Evolution?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/04/01/obama-on-evolution/
But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

Puppycow

29th August 2008, 08:26 PM

chipmunk is whipping out the big guns and going full broadside

http://b.imagehost.org/0946/big_guns.jpg

Take that, you damn AGW-Deniers and Creationists!

That's an awesome image, BTW. Those are powerful guns.

DrBaltar

29th August 2008, 08:40 PM

When I first learned that Palin is the VP pick, I was impressed with her and thought it was a great idea. But then when I found out about her creationist positions and what she said about intelligent design, that was a hard pill to swallow.

The cheap attacks begin. Right on schedule. Does it ever occur to you that it takes science and engineering to get oil out of the ground?
That's not the same thing. Many religious people are perfectly willing to accept what science says, right up to the point where it conflicts with religion. Then all of a sudden that science is flawed. So it's fine to use the scientific method in one case, but not the other when it conflicts with religion.

Does it also occur to you that Palin is a politician whose utterances are designed to appeal to her voting base? (And as such, are to be taken with a grain, or even a shaker full of, salt?)Politicians should always be held accountable for what they say.

gtc

29th August 2008, 08:54 PM

I found this quote which says it was from an interview Obama gave to a newspaper called the York Daily Record:

“I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.“

Thanks.

Rationalize it all you want.

Oddly enough, I think being rational is a good thing.

Jimbo07

29th August 2008, 09:47 PM

being rational is a good thing.

being rational is to rationalizing

as

being thrifty is to being a spendthrift...

MattusMaximus

29th August 2008, 10:44 PM

Wow, so in addition to this tasty little tidbit...

Sarah Palin CNBC Interview: What does the VP do? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ)

I also find out that she is a religious right conservative who denies modern climate science as well as biological evolution. Wonderful :rolleyes:

McCain clearly made this pick for three reasons:

1. He's desperate. Or insane. Or both.
2. He somehow thinks that large swaths of former Hillary voters are going to go for this. (Hint: he is so wrong on that - Clinton will have a field day with this)
3. He needed something to fire up his religious right base.

Mostly because of #3, I have come now to believe more than ever that "Maverick" McCain has completely sold out.

I'm going to make a donation to Obama/Biden.

CFLarsen

29th August 2008, 11:28 PM

Saying 'I wouldn't say it is x' is not the same as saying 'I believe it is not-x'.

By the way, do you have any evidence that Obama believes in Evolution?

I don't believe in Evolution. And neither should you. (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)

McCain clearly made this pick for three reasons:

1. He's desperate. Or insane. Or both.
2. He somehow thinks that large swaths of former Hillary voters are going to go for this. (Hint: he is so wrong on that - Clinton will have a field day with this)
3. He needed something to fire up his religious right base.

Mostly because of #3, I have come now to believe more than ever that "Maverick" McCain has completely sold out.

Choosing Palin is a very smart move. First, she is unblemished by Washington - Obama's thing. Second, she is unknown - a clean sheet, no old news stories or "-gates". Third, she won't overshadow McCain - something Obama risks with his choice of an experienced running mate. Fourth, she is a woman in/of power like Hillary - but none of the first three, which was a problem for Hillary.

Woman, powerful, made it, unblemished by Washington, a clean sheet, won't be a burden to McCain. And she looks good on TV.

Very smart move.

Concerning education, while running for Governor of Alaska and asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes, Palin answered that she thought it was healthy for both creationism and evolution to be taught together; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism.[75] Since her election she has appointed three of the seven Board members, who serve five-year terms: Patrick Shier, Phillip Schneider, and Geraldine Benshoof. None of these appointments attracted criticism on this issue.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)

Tailored to her voting base? Maybe. But she does open up for creationism to be explained, if it "came up in discussion".

It's really, really smart: She is saying "I won't tell you teachers that you have to teach creationism, but if a kid brings up creationism up in class, you gotta explain what it is, and not prohibit any such idea."

Instead of having the state decide, or the school board decide, she lets the children decide.

If a child asks a question in school, how can we deny it an answer?

Really, really smart.

Because all it takes is one kid to ask one question. Think that won't happen? And, boom, you got equal time.

yodaluver28

29th August 2008, 11:37 PM

I do think that there are some women who supported Hillary Clinton who will go with McCain now because of his pick of Palin. They were probably tilting towards McCain after Hillary lost the nomination and now the Palin pick has tipped the scales so they can vote for him and pretend to still be voting for a woman even though she's nothing but an empty suit who everyone, including Republicans, will pray never sits in the big chair. Certainly none of these women ever truly supported Hillary's political philosophy but there were some who were supporting her simply because they despised Bush and Bill Clinton was the last effective president they remember and hoped that she could effect similar economic stability. Those voters are far more moderate and less loyal than most of her supporters and probably would never vote Obama for a myriad of reasons, especially blue-collar union workers. I can't tell you how many people here in Michigan I know refuse to vote for Obama because "he doesn't look like an American president is supposed to look" or because a few of them have either bought into the he-might-be-a-closet-Muslim-sleeper-terrorist hysteria or are actually willing to entertain the absurd possibility.

MattusMaximus

29th August 2008, 11:44 PM

Choosing Palin is a very smart move. First, she is unblemished by Washington - Obama's thing. Second, she is unknown - a clean sheet, no old news stories or "-gates". Third, she won't overshadow McCain - something Obama risks with his choice of an experienced running mate. Fourth, she is a woman in/of power like Hillary - but none of the first three, which was a problem for Hillary.

Nope, that's wrong. She is currently embroiled in an ethics investigation for abuse of power...

Washington Post: McCain's VP Pick Palin Facing Ethics Investigation (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/mccains_vp_pick_palin_facing_e.html)

And this investigation will not conclude until Oct. 31st, three days before the election. I don't know what McCain was thinking, if he was thinking at all. The national press will simply have a field day with this; every time anyone says "Sarah Palin" the press will ask "so how's that ethics investigation going?"

Wow...

mrbaracuda

30th August 2008, 03:29 AM

I also find out that she is a religious right conservative who denies modern climate science as well as biological evolution. Wonderful :rolleyes:

Well she lives in Alaska, and if there's one thing I've learnt from the 'Get some Nuts' thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3956263&postcount=50) (other than to get MORE nuts, of course!) is she might not see the warm weather often! Take that, global warming sheeple! :D

CFLarsen

30th August 2008, 04:35 AM

Nope, that's wrong. She is currently embroiled in an ethics investigation for abuse of power...

Washington Post: McCain's VP Pick Palin Facing Ethics Investigation (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/mccains_vp_pick_palin_facing_e.html)

And this investigation will not conclude until Oct. 31st, three days before the election. I don't know what McCain was thinking, if he was thinking at all. The national press will simply have a field day with this; every time anyone says "Sarah Palin" the press will ask "so how's that ethics investigation going?"

Wow...

And the answer - the correct, justified answer - will be: "Let's let the investigation finish, shall we? We don't want to jump to premature conclusions, hm? We certainly don't want a circus, because that's what people are so darn tired of, right?"

And then, they will point to this:

The governor's husband, Todd Palin, told the Daily News that his family was also concerned about the governor's safety, saying Wooten threatened to kill the governor's father and made vague threats to her that he would bring Palin down.

If true, ain't cool. If not, the mud will still stick.

Whatever the investigation will show, there will only be three days until the election. It will take more than a disgruntled cop in some obscure part of the US known primarily for its nature - and oil resources - to change the outcome significantly.

Find me a politician without any blemishes, and I'll show you a mummy.

kallsop

30th August 2008, 07:07 AM

'Creation science' enters the race (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html)

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

So she doesn't want to censor discussion in the classroom if it arises, won't advocate for Creationism in the curriculum, or have religious beliefs impact hiring decisions. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that some are looking for reasons to justify their hatred for whoever was picked to run with Old McCanine.

quarky

30th August 2008, 07:42 AM

Hello?

She's a babe! Her face will off-set McCain's lumpy jaw. Its a beauty contest.

WildCat

30th August 2008, 07:50 AM

When I first learned that Palin is the VP pick, I was impressed with her and thought it was a great idea. But then when I found out about her creationist positions and what she said about intelligent design, that was a hard pill to swallow.
And as we all know, education in the US is 95% funded by the Federal government and the VP has great say in the curriculum.

Oh, wait... education is funded at the local level and the local school board determines the curriculum.

President Bush

30th August 2008, 08:20 AM

Nogbad

30th August 2008, 08:44 AM

Hello?

She's a babe! Her face will off-set McCain's lumpy jaw. Its a beauty contest.

He should have chosen Yulia

As Ukrainian Prime Minister she has experience and it would annoy the Russians

Also she is a super babe and his lumpy jaw would be irrelevant

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/374446679_a4216004d0.jpg?v=0

novice skeptic

30th August 2008, 09:31 AM

Source please.

The Trinity Church website: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Lonewulf

30th August 2008, 09:36 AM

And as we all know, education in the US is 95% funded by the Federal government and the VP has great say in the curriculum.

Oh, wait... education is funded at the local level and the local school board determines the curriculum.Yes, and that can never ever change, nor can the VP make any influence whatsoever, especially if something happens to the president...

Wildcat, your sarcastic remarks just make you more and more fun to read. I can't help but chuckle each time you kill some pixels for your words.

novice skeptic

30th August 2008, 09:39 AM

I'll wager you an avatar that Obama believes in evolution.

I've done some research and Obama has definitively stated that he believes in evolution. So I guess although he attends the Trinity Church, he does not believe in a prominent central tenet of theirs, which makes him slightly inconsistent in my view, but certainly not at all uncommon with a large pct. of religious people who don't buy all of their faith's stories.

I'm sure though if the Evolution/Intelligent Design question comes up during a debate he will give (like any politician) a little more nuanced of an answer.

fuelair

30th August 2008, 10:10 AM

And Obama is a member of a church which states: "We believe in you, O God, Eternal Spirit, God of our Savior Jesus Christ and our God, and to your deeds we testify: You call the worlds into being, create persons in your own image"

Technically doesn't that make him a creationist as well?
But I assume Obama is a church-on-sunday -because- I -am -forced- to- do- this -crap- so -I -look- good -to -the- people -who- think -religion -is -important-and -
wouldn't - vote-for-jeebus-if-he-didn't-go-to-services kind of guy - I only worry when the church stuff becomes the political stuff as it does with republickers.

joobz

30th August 2008, 10:31 AM

"Teach both..."

It's the pseudo-compromising conclusion that a politician would come to on any topic they have no personal interest in. Simply trying to play the middle ground. It's too bad for her that it sounds as stupid as someone saying,
"Origin of babies: The Stork theory vs. sex? Teach both!!!"

Undesired Walrus

30th August 2008, 11:57 AM

So she doesn't want to censor discussion in the classroom if it arises, won't advocate for Creationism in the curriculum, or have religious beliefs impact hiring decisions. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that some are looking for reasons to justify their hatred for whoever was picked to run with Old McCanine.

I think the problem people have is that she appears to believe in Creationism, which is a worrying trait in a Vice President.

MattusMaximus

30th August 2008, 12:15 PM

Even with all the baggage that Palin brings in reference to McCain's judgment, or glaring lack thereof, if all other things were equal (which they aren't) the whole anti-science schtick would be a definite deal killer for me.

A GOP ticket which is catered to appeal specifically to the religious right conservative base - yeah, that sure is the "change we need" :rolleyes:

Morrigan

30th August 2008, 12:35 PM

Another stain on her career:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/1223/87119/35/578632

You guys want someone as incompetent as that in power of the whole country?

DrBaltar

30th August 2008, 01:07 PM

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/images/palgun.png

Is this video her, or what?

9LZRI9bibWg

Alex Libman

30th August 2008, 01:18 PM

WildCat

30th August 2008, 01:25 PM

Is this video her, or what?

9LZRI9bibWg
Fixed your youtube link, all you need is the video ID it looks like this:
9LZRI9bibWg

Undesired Walrus

30th August 2008, 01:26 PM

And parents should have complete control over what their dependents learn in school.

Holocaust Denial? Racial Eugenics? A flat Earth? The JFK and Moon Landing Conspiracies? Alchemy? Astrology?

I don't think you think these things through Alex.

not_so_new

30th August 2008, 01:37 PM

Holocaust Denial? Racial Eugenics? A flat Earth? The JFK and Moon Landing Conspiracies? Alchemy? Astrology?

I don't think you think these things through Alex.

Exactly.

And who's parents should have complete control over what MY dependents learn in school? (for the record, I am only using this as an example, I don't have any dependents)

Furthermore, part of the very idea of "school" is to learn about things you would not learn from your parents / family. If schools only taught what parents already went over with their kids then school would be redundant and useless. Alex, are you proposing that school is redundant and useless?

joobz

30th August 2008, 01:38 PM

Anthropogenic "global warming" is an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support it.I wonder if any true scottsmen believe in AGW.

And parents should have complete control over what their dependents learn in school.Nope. They have a choice on where their kids are educated. If they do not like the cirriculum, they can change schools. State schools are to have the student's best interests in mind, and not teaching science is not in thier best interests.

ETA:Sorry for the double negative...

gdnp

30th August 2008, 01:39 PM

BenBurch

30th August 2008, 01:48 PM

Alex Libman

30th August 2008, 02:36 PM

Holocaust Denial? Racial Eugenics? A flat Earth? The JFK and Moon Landing Conspiracies? Alchemy? Astrology?

You're mixing the worst of nuttery with legitimate government skepticism (and I've been called a "holocaust denier" for an opinion I posted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119964)), but, regardless, parents have a right to teach their children anything they wish.

Even if you ignore all emotional factors, parents have a strictly financial interest in educating their children to become productive members of the society, and perhaps take care of them when they are old. Would you hire an astrologist with no automotive training to fix your car?

And who's parents should have complete control over what MY dependents learn in school?

Um, that is your decision. If you can't make that decision yourself, you'd be well advised to read some of the multiple competing educational services review publications and see if there is a consensus over popular curriculum choices, or hire a reputable consultant to help you understand the pro's and con's of each option.

Furthermore, part of the very idea of "school" is to learn about things you would not learn from your parents / family.

Yes, that's why many freedom lovers call "public schools" "government indoctrination camps". I call them "part-time torture prisons" based on my own experience.

Alex, are you proposing that school is redundant and useless? If schools only taught what parents already went over with their kids then school would be redundant and useless.

Of course not. I'm entirely self-taught (though I did waste my time getting a couple college degrees - big mistake), but most people will still need some sort of a structured learning environment. That's what private schools are for.

I wonder if any true scottsmen believe in AGW.

You work for the government, you're biased. Why is that so hard to understand?

Nope. They have a choice on where their kids are educated. If they do not like the cirriculum, they can change schools.

Ah, so the victim gets to choose which ax his head will be chopped with? That makes it all better now, doesn't it?

State schools are to have the student's best interests in mind, and not teaching science is not in thier best interests.

The state's primary goal is to hold on to power and expand it. Very different from what's in the best interest of the individual.

Thanks! Next you'll be telling us how Phlogiston is the correct theory of combustion and how bad air and humours out of balance cause all diseases.

Nope, I wouldn't. And if I did, the burden on proof would be on me.

BeAChooser

30th August 2008, 02:44 PM

I only worry when the church stuff becomes the political stuff as it does with republickers.

Any different then when a church chants GD America and advocates 8 trillion dollars in reparations ... and one of it's 20 year members is chosen the democRAT candidate? ;)

Undesired Walrus

30th August 2008, 02:45 PM

You're mixing the worst of nuttery with legitimate government skepticism (and I've been called a "holocaust denier" for an opinion I posted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119964)), but, regardless, parents have a right to teach their children anything they wish.

This is palpable nonesense. In your world, school simply becomes utterly superfluous.

Even if you ignore all emotional factors, parents have a strictly financial interest in educating their children to become productive members of the society, and perhaps take care of them when they are old.

Hang on guy, you are suggesting the child is a means to an end. In this case, the end is to get your son to apply veruca gel to your elderly, selfish feet, rather than that degree in advanced medicine he couldn't get because he wasn't taught evolution at school.

I'm entirely self-taught

Clearly.

Tell me, do parents get the choice of having Advanced Alchemy as a university degree, or can Hollow Earth 101 be taught alongside as a minor?

Alex Libman

30th August 2008, 03:02 PM

This is palpable nonesense. In your world, school simply becomes utterly superfluous.

Yes, if it wasn't for Mommy Government forcing us to be civilized and educated, we would all run around on the street naked and throw spears at each-other. :rolleyes:

Hang on guy, you are suggesting the child is a means to an end. In this case, the end is to get your son to apply veruca gel to your elderly, selfish feet, rather than that degree in advanced medicine he couldn't get because he wasn't taught evolution at school.

Well, still beats not being born. (And if it doesn't, suicide stage left.) Of course all people become free from their parents upon legal emancipation / adaption or automatically upon reaching an age of maturity.

Tell me, do parents get the choice of having Advanced Alchemy as a university degree, or can Hollow Earth 101 be taught alongside as a minor?

That would depend on the university.

Nogbad

30th August 2008, 03:18 PM

Yes, if it wasn't for Mommy Government forcing us to be civilized and educated, we would all run around on the street naked and throw spears at each-other. :rolleyes:

In simple societies, where the clan is all and property is held in common, life is relatively quiet and routine - and arguably a bit dull. In those societies where there is an emphasis on property and the individual but no societal brakes then it is dog eat dog. Ordinary people are not free in such circumstances, they live in fear.

Alex Libman

30th August 2008, 03:27 PM

I'm not talking about "simple societies", I'm talking about Minarchist and hypothetical Anarcho-Capitalist ones.

The point of the sarcastic sentence you've quoted is that my friends and I - we don't need Mommy Government to control our education, in our experience it only got in the way. If you do, that's your problem - don't expect others to pay for it.

BenBurch

30th August 2008, 03:28 PM

Nope, I wouldn't. And if I did, the burden on proof would be on me.

As it is now.

Nogbad

30th August 2008, 03:32 PM

Undesired Walrus

30th August 2008, 03:33 PM

Yes, if it wasn't for Mommy Government forcing us to be civilized and educated, we would all run around on the street naked and throw spears at each-other. :rolleyes:

Is being 'forced' to bring Gym shorts twice a week the same as, say, being 'forced' into your one-way ticket to Auschwitz? Even if you lived in your anarcho-capitalist paradise, I could argue that you were 'forced' to use gravity as a method of dropping a stool. It's part of growing up Alex.

But in a sense, you are correct. Over the course of Human history, how much blood has been spilled by irrational superstitions passed down from their parents? I'll wager that its more than the result of my recent papercut.

Well, still beats not being born. (And if it doesn't, suicide stage left.) Of course all people become free from their parents upon legal emancipation / adaption or automatically upon reaching an age of maturity.

So until that age, the beliefs of children should be shaped entirely by their parents, even if their choice of salute came from a man with a comical mustache? You have a strange view of freedom.

That would depend on the university.

Alex, you are honestly fine with a school of three thousand operating in New Orleans, teaching the unwavering genius of Fred Leuchter, and the genetic inferiority of the black man? This is not freedom, it is indoctrination.

A child cannot walk freely in a park if he is taught falsehoods about what occupies the bushes.

moon1969

30th August 2008, 03:39 PM

After the Ted Haggard scandal maybe majority don"t care about the christian right and the evangelicals this time? Oh yeah and then there was the Larry Craig scandal that took away credibility from the christian right.

Civilized Worm

30th August 2008, 04:30 PM

a_unique_person

30th August 2008, 04:36 PM

Chipmunk.

Do you realise that the quotes you have presented do not show her to be either a 'AGW-denier' (ooh sounds like holocaust denier, scary!!!!!!! bad, evil, woman!!!!!) or a creationist?

Maybe you should take off your ideological blinkers for a moment.

I don't know where this 'holocaust denier' angle came from, but AGW denier has nothing to do with it. An AGW denier is someone who denies the science behind AGW is correct. This association with the holocaust is ridiculous.

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

Seems pretty clear to me.

joobz

30th August 2008, 05:29 PM

You work for the government, you're biased. Why is that so hard to understand?non sequitor.

Ah, so the victim gets to choose which ax his head will be chopped with? That makes it all better now, doesn't it?
Home school, if you prefer.

The state's primary goal is to hold on to power and expand it. Very different from what's in the best interest of the individual.
Now I understand where you are coming from..., *joobz backs away slowly towards the door.*

joobz

30th August 2008, 05:30 PM

Any different then when a church chants GD America and advocates 8 trillion dollars in reparations ... and one of it's 20 year members is chosen the democRAT candidate? ;)
Yeah, it is different.

BTW, there seems to be a problem with your caps lock.:D

gtc

30th August 2008, 05:46 PM

being rational is to rationalizing

as

being thrifty is to being a spendthrift...

Indeed. But in this case he is trying to overturn the rules of logic in order to score a partisan point.

This association with the holocaust is ridiculous.

Glad you agree with me. The scare tactics these people use are ridiculous.

Seems pretty clear to me.

As it does to me. Care to tell us what you think it means?

chipmunk stew

30th August 2008, 07:12 PM

parents have a right to teach their children anything they wish.
Not in a public school, they don't.

joobz

30th August 2008, 07:41 PM

Glad you agree with me. The scare tactics these people use are ridiculous.I fully agree.

a_unique_person

30th August 2008, 08:28 PM

Indeed. But in this case he is trying to overturn the rules of logic in order to score a partisan point.

Glad you agree with me. The scare tactics these people use are ridiculous.

An AGW denier denies the A in AGW. What scare tactic is that?

As it does to me. Care to tell us what you think it means?

There is no A in AGW.

blobru

30th August 2008, 09:06 PM

... McCain/Palin is an anti-science ticket.

And dream team for the religious right: one believes in Creation; the other was there!
(McCain '08: "Am I my brother's keeper?")

:czyes:I am:czsuspicious:commie, eh?

gtc

30th August 2008, 09:14 PM

I fully agree.

Wow. Is this a joke or have you gone off the deep end?

An AGW denier denies the A in AGW. What scare tactic is that?

You have changed your story from a few posts ago.

There is no A in AGW.

So you are a logic-denier?

Tricky

30th August 2008, 09:14 PM

Are you suggesting that Palin doesn't believe that creationism should be taught in schools or that human activity doesn't substantially contribute to global warming?
I would say that those comments make it sound more like she hasn't really thought much about either issue. Saying "Listen to both sides," sounds eminently fair to someone who hasn't actually listened closely to both sides. I'm guessing she's one of these. There's no need to ascribe evil motives when stupidity is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

joobz

30th August 2008, 09:20 PM

Wow. Is this a joke or have you gone off the deep end?

Joke....but it's only funny because there's truth to it.

Your generalization of "these people" simply needed to be commented on. Fear mongering is hardly the exclusive domain of liberals/democrats. It's has been the status quo with the current administration.

UserGoogol

30th August 2008, 09:26 PM

I don't believe in Evolution. And neither should you. (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)

Stop saying that. To believe in something means (among other things) "to be persuaded of the truth or existence of" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=believe) something. Therefore, we believe in evolution.

The connotation you give is another definition, but to push the whole "we don't believe evolution, we know evolution" meme is more about appearances than about logical rigor, (namely, trying to make clear the distinction between religious belief and scientific belief) and that conflicts somewhat with skepticism. (There is a need for caring about appearances of course, but to say a statement is false when it's merely misleading is going too far.)

Additionally, saying that we know evolution to be true might be misleading too. We know evolution to be true with a high degree of confidence, but we don't know it to be true with an absolute degree of confidence, (after all, it's possible life is just a dream) and the distinction between the two is extremely important. (Although it also is not a wrong usage of language per se, because people rarely demand pure a priori irrefutable knowledge in everyday speech.)[/derail]

a_unique_person

30th August 2008, 09:38 PM

You have changed your story from a few posts ago.

Not at all. An AGW denier is an AGW denier. A Holocaust Denier is a Holocaust Denier. To conflate the two is absurd. To raise this as a 'scare tactic' even more so.

So you are a logic-denier?

She says that climate change is happening, but she is denying there is an Anthropogenic contribution.

Tricky

30th August 2008, 09:38 PM

I don't believe in Evolution. And neither should you. (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)
That article is a pointless semantic argument that adds zero value to any discussion of evolution.

UserGoogol

30th August 2008, 10:13 PM

Anthropogenic "global warming" is an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support it.

And parents should have complete control over what their dependents learn in school.

There are many good reasons to dislike the republican ticket, but those two aren't.

Children are not chattel. If public education are government education camps (and of course technically they are) then parenting is mon/duarchy. Having sexual intercourse does not magically give a person power to control their lives. Of course since children are not capable of taking care of themselves someone has to take care of them, but rule by parenting is not some sacred institution, but rather just an "okay" system which is an accident of biology. (If human beings were grown in pods, as I imagine we someday will as technology improves, things would be different.) The power to control people's lives needs to be spread out and given many checks and balances. Now, there are valid reasons to promote a certain degree of ideological pluralism in allowing parents to teach what they want, but there are limits to this. For instance I think moral issues (beyond uncontroversial stuff that's enforced by law anyway like "murder isn't very nice") and matters of taste are certainly the sorts of things that should be left to parents or some parent-like entity. On the other hand, I do think very-well-accepted science falls on the side of things everyone needs to know as long as a certain level of skepticism is encouraged. Scientific knowledge provides too many benefits to both the individual who learns it and society as a whole to deprive it from a child.

Well, still beats not being born. (And if it doesn't, suicide stage left.) Of course all people become free from their parents upon legal emancipation / adaption or automatically upon reaching an age of maturity.

NO IT DOESN'T. There is a huge difference between not being born in the first place and committing suicide after the fact. A person who is not born is absolute nullity, nothing is good or bad to them because they do not exist. It does not have a value of zero, but rather it has no value. A person who is born, to contrast, has pleasures and pains and as such can have good things happen to them or bad things happen to them. Now if the bad things outweigh the good they can end life, but the bad things still happened. And even if the good ultimately does not outweigh the bad, you still can't say it's better or worse than not being born to begin with, because non-existance does not have a value, and thus a child who is born into a subpar existence has legitimate claim for griping.

CFLarsen

30th August 2008, 10:37 PM

Stop saying that. To believe in something means (among other things) "to be persuaded of the truth or existence of" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=believe) something. Therefore, we believe in evolution.

The connotation you give is another definition, but to push the whole "we don't believe evolution, we know evolution" meme is more about appearances than about logical rigor, (namely, trying to make clear the distinction between religious belief and scientific belief) and that conflicts somewhat with skepticism. (There is a need for caring about appearances of course, but to say a statement is false when it's merely misleading is going too far.)

Additionally, saying that we know evolution to be true might be misleading too. We know evolution to be true with a high degree of confidence, but we don't know it to be true with an absolute degree of confidence, (after all, it's possible life is just a dream) and the distinction between the two is extremely important. (Although it also is not a wrong usage of language per se, because people rarely demand pure a priori irrefutable knowledge in everyday speech.)[/derail]

That article is a pointless semantic argument that adds zero value to any discussion of evolution.

On the contrary, it is imperative to point out that Evolution isn't about belief - as opposed to CreationID, which is all about belief.

We are not talking about belief in Evolution vs. belief in CreationID. We are talking about knowledge that Evolution is true vs. belief that CreationID is true. It isn't belief vs. belief - it is knowledge vs. belief. When you say belief vs. belief, you are making it a case of one valid thing against another equally valid thing: It becomes f(A) vs. f(B): All you have to do is weigh A against B. In reality, it is f(A) vs. g(B): Not only are the conclusions fundamentally different, the methods by which you have reached your conclusions are also fundamentally different.

If we can't say that we know Evolution to be true, then we can't say we know anything. Then, "knowledge" becomes something we cannot apply to anything, since we don't know anything with an absolute degree of confidence. That realm of confidence belongs to religion - but not by knowledge, but belief. Belief is about absolute confidence - knowledge is not.

That's a hugely important point we have to make, because it emphasizes the main difference between Evolution and CreationID. One is supported with evidence (be it provisional), the other is a belief concerning a particular religious belief. One is science, the other is dogma.

gtc

30th August 2008, 10:39 PM

Your generalization of "these people" simply needed to be commented on. Fear mongering is hardly the exclusive domain of liberals/democrats. It's has been the status quo with the current administration.

I am sorry that I gave you that impression, I didn't mean to imply that it was.

She says that climate change is happening, but she is denying there is an Anthropogenic contribution.

Simply not true. Read the OP again, this is what she said:

I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

UserGoogol

30th August 2008, 10:58 PM

Belief is about absolute confidence - knowledge is not.

That's the exact opposite of how words are used. I acknowledge (as I said in my original post) that knowledge does not quite imply absolute confidence, but it implies more than belief. Knowledge is a kind of belief: justified true belief. If a person says "I believe there's fifty dollars in my bank account" they are not making as strong an assertion as if they are saying "I know there's fifty dollars is my bank account."

CFLarsen

30th August 2008, 11:09 PM

That's the exact opposite of how words are used. I acknowledge (as I said in my original post) that knowledge does not quite imply absolute confidence, but it implies more than belief. Knowledge is a kind of belief: justified true belief. If a person says "I believe there's fifty dollars in my bank account" they are not making as strong an assertion as if they are saying "I know there's fifty dollars is my bank account."

You are quite right about knowledge implying more than belief. That is why you can't just say "I believe in Evolution". Sooner or later, you will have to point out that difference between knowledge that Evolution is true, and belief that CreationID is true.

Why not say it up front, than to bring it up later? Instead of being the fundamental difference you start off with, it will sound like an excuse.

Nail it from the start: Evolution vs. CreationID is not about belief vs. belief.

Alex Libman

30th August 2008, 11:31 PM

Of course since children are not capable of taking care of themselves someone has to take care of them [...]

It's either their parents or some liar with a gun (aka government). The parents can of course delegate their authority, but this must be done based on competition of ideas, not force.

[...] rule by parenting is not some sacred institution, but rather just an "okay" system which is an accident of biology.

It is an institution based on the biological reality that parents have an inherent incentive (both instinctive and rational) in the well-being of their children. Others only have the incentive to pretend to care.

Parents must make a decision to create a child, knowing that it will require a lot of time, energy, emotional commitment, financial cost, etc. By taking away the parents' ability to raise this child on their own terms, the state takes away the incentive to have children. Not many people want to raise government-brainwashed foot soldiers who might even snitch on them given an opportunity. This is why the birthrate in modern socialist societies tends to be rather low, in spite of the temporary bumps that government bribes provide, and in the end the state will have to hold a gun to people's heads and force them to reproduce - which will probably backfire.

Over several generations, those birthrate differences can have a significant geometric effect. It's really sad that radical Muslims understand the laws of evolution better than some western atheists, but reality must be the ultimate judge.

power to control people's lives needs to be spread out and given many checks and balances.

Stealing wealth to homogenize society for easier government control isn't enough, you need to steal the children as well...

Scientific knowledge provides too many benefits to both the individual who learns it and society as a whole to deprive it from a child.

"Science" is just an excuse that all modern governments use to rule over their subjects. This is why I call myself a "capitalist", not a "scientist". The difference is that in a free market environment scientific results are judged by a more objective measure: consumer needs that are driven by results. Without this, "science" is just another blind faith that depends on the integrity of an unaccountable priestly class (government bureaucrats).

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 11:31 PM

The only reason that Creationism cannot be taught in schools now is the same reason abortion is legal. The Supreme court said so.

Palin vetoed a bill denying benefits to same-sex couples, not because she thought they should have the benefits, but because the Attorney General told her that it would be overturned on Constitutional issues.

There is, of course, a way around that. Get Grampa elected POTUS so that he can appoint a bunch of rightwing whackadoodles to the Supreme Court to undo feminism and the New Deal and re-affirm corporate personhood and a few other far-out-in-right-field principles of the GOP.

As for not cutting off kids questioning the teaching of evolution in the classroom, it is a back-door approach similar to the "student-organized and led prayer" BS.

In a community of right-wing fundies, there will be dominant male types raising the question constantly, perhaps to the point of shutting down the teacher's discussion of evolution to cater to their snot-nosed interferrences.

Been there and seen it at work, back in the days when school prayers were more or less official and shortly after O'Hair.

Alex Libman

30th August 2008, 11:46 PM

What a lot of atheists fail to understand is that religious people with the IQ of 105 or above don't really believe their own bull. They merely understand that children and people with IQ <105 benefit from it, and that makes it an effective tool of social control.

The same can be said about the upper crust of socialists as well, they don't really believe the demagogue bull they have to produce to impress the masses, they appreciate power for its own sake.

That's why I believe no true atheist would be anything but an Anarcho-Capitalist. Others merely make government their god, which is exactly what it wants them to do.

CFLarsen

30th August 2008, 11:51 PM

What a lot of atheists fail to understand is that religious people with the IQ of 105 or above don't really believe their own bull. They merely understand that children and people with IQ <105 benefit from it, and that makes it an effective tool of social control.

The same can be said about the upper crust of socialists as well, they don't really believe the demagogue bull they have to produce to impress the masses, they appreciate power for its own sake.

You wouldn't happen to have any data to support either of these verifiable claims?

That's why I believe no true atheist would be anything but an Anarcho-Capitalist. Others merely make government their god, which is exactly what it wants them to do.

Who is a true atheist and Anarcho-Capitalist?

UnrepentantSinner

31st August 2008, 12:20 AM

Oh, wait... education is funded at the local level and the local school board determines the curriculum.

Then why do we have state school boards, or should we in Texas not be concerned about textbook selection and state science standards?

Anthropogenic "global warming" is an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support it.

By changing a couple of words in this quote it would sound just like the claims Creationists make.

Lonewulf

31st August 2008, 12:28 AM

hat's why I believe no true atheist would be anything but an Anarcho-Capitalist.What a logical argument of what the No True Scotsmen should do... wait, No True Atheist, my bad.

By changing a couple of words in this quote it would sound just like the claims Creationists make.

Such as:

Evolution is an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support it.

The Moon landing Missions were an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support them.

Spherical Earth Theory is an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support it.

Gravity is an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support it.

Hotdogs are an unproven myth that governments found to be a convenient excuse to expand their powers. Hardly any objective unbiased scientists support them.

CFLarsen

31st August 2008, 12:48 AM

Are you sure they're verifiable? I'm not so certain.

Then, why should we pay any attention to them?

But would you engage in pedophilia if you honestly thought the creator of the universe would be particularly pissed at you for defaming his one true earthly institution? On the same note, would you engage in corruption and lies if you really believed in whatever socialist slogan your government is using at the time?

Why do you think people pray for special favors from God, e.g., forgiveness? Because they think they can get away with it.

Yours truly. :D

Joke apart: Can you name some well-known people?

a_unique_person

31st August 2008, 02:13 AM

I am sorry that I gave you that impression, I didn't mean to imply that it was.

Simply not true. Read the OP again, this is what she said:

Anthropogenic=Man Made.

leftysergeant

31st August 2008, 03:05 AM

The topic of anarcho-capitalism belongs in the general category of Politics, rather than here. It is really inconsistant with atheism any way. Without God, we must rely on our animal nature for guidance, and the fossil record supports a position that cooperation, rather than competition is what enabled man to become more than an animal.

quarky

31st August 2008, 06:31 AM

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 06:36 AM

can we get back to Sara?

I'm hearing a lot of weird rumors;
her retarded baby is actually her daughter's; she flew from Tx to Alaska after her water broke; she will give up V.P after the election, to put in Romney; etc, etc.
This thread is about Palin's own statements about two specific topics. There are other threads dealing with baseless rumors. Go have at it.

Tricky

31st August 2008, 06:54 AM

On the contrary, it is imperative to point out that Evolution isn't about belief - as opposed to CreationID, which is all about belief.
It is a stupid semantical argument. Belief can come from a number of different things, including education and knowledge. Saying it is "not a belief" is not only wrong, it makes the argument look like a petty disagreement over the words you choose.

Does Sarah Palin "believe" in creationism? If so, it doesn't look like a big deal with her. It is more like she is simply pandering.

Alex Libman

31st August 2008, 07:17 AM

By changing a couple of words in this quote it would sound just like the claims Creationists make.

The burden of proof should be on the seller, not the buyer, and based on the buyer's subjective desires. If some people want to believe in Creationism or Global Warming, fine, as long as no force is employed. And I choose to reject both for lack of evidence.

What a logical argument of what the No True Scotsmen should do... wait, No True Atheist, my bad.

I've expressed an opinion about some atheists' blind faith in government, the justification of which relies on a "social contract" that is just another name for a god.

The topic of anarcho-capitalism belongs in the general category of Politics, rather than here. It is really inconsistant with atheism any way. Without God, we must rely on our animal nature for guidance, and the fossil record supports a position that cooperation, rather than competition is what enabled man to become more than an animal.

Hey, I remember this one. Someone asks Stalin why he gets to be the dictator, and he answers "it's in the fossil records"... Rii-i-ight... :rolleyes:

mhaze

31st August 2008, 07:22 AM

... creationism is not even a scientific hypothesis in the first place and has no place in a standard school curriculum. I take it back. She's not anti-science. She's anti-science and anti-education.

According to what you have stated, the issue of Piltdown Man should also not be discussed. Creationism may be a minor theory in the history of science. Last I heard, Darwin was a prominent figure in the history of science. You've leaped from some political position statements to an inference about Palin's personal views, haven't you? I don't see that at all as evident from the facts presented.

Suppose you were governer of a primitive island where the natives worshipped rocks carved into the semblance of television sets. You don't believe in their practice one bit. But you allow them to continue it. The natives do some crazy stuff, so what? Does that make you a believer in carved stone TV sets?

In October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a lengthy profile (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html):"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."And earlier that year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information.... is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 07:30 AM

According to what you have stated, the issue of Piltdown Man should also not be discussed. Creationism may be a minor theory in the history of science. Last I heard, Darwin was a prominent figure in the history of science. You've leaped from some political position statements to an inference about Palin's personal views, haven't you? I don't see that at all as evident from the facts presented.

Suppose you were governer of a primitive island where the natives worshipped rocks carved into the semblance of television sets. You don't believe in their practice one bit. But you allow them to continue it. The natives do some crazy stuff, so what? Does that make you a believer in carved stone TV sets?

Is "teach the controversy" a political winner in Alaska? I honestly don't know--haven't looked into it. If it is, you may have a point.

But regardless, once you enter the political arena outside your primitive island, you don't get to claim that you don't really believe that nonsense and were just trying to pull one over on the natives.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 07:35 AM

Is "teach the controversy" a political winner in Alaska? I honestly don't know--haven't looked into it. If it is, you may have a point.

But regardless, once you enter the political arena outside your primitive island, you don't get to claim that you don't really believe that nonsense and were just trying to pull one over on the natives.I also don't know what "needs to be said in political statements" in Alaska.

But if someone is going to call Palin Creationist, let's see them cough up the statements made by Palin where she says the planet is 6000 years old. Let's see some actual sources and cites to back the claim up. That's my position. Wikipedia does not say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) she is Creationist:

Alone among the candidates in the 2006 gubernatorial election, Palin in a televised debate supported allowing both creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) and evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) in public schools andthe next day clarified her position to one of allowing the debate of alternative views and not of having it in the curriculum.[83 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#cite_note-82)

Undesired Walrus

31st August 2008, 08:01 AM

I've expressed an opinion about some atheists' blind faith in government, the justification of which relies on a "social contract" that is just another name for a god.

A God is an unproven supernatural creator of the cosmos who listens to your thoughts and forgives sins. Western Governments are democratically elected systems consisting of carbon-based lifeforms who go home at the end of the day and often make fools of themselves. I fail to see the comparison.

Hey, I remember this one. Someone asks Stalin why he gets to be the dictator, and he answers "it's in the fossil records"... Rii-i-ight... :rolleyes:

What on Earth has that got to do with the statement lefty just made? Do you dispute the facts of lefty's claim?

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 08:04 AM

I also don't know what "needs to be said in political statements" in Alaska.

But if someone is going to call Palin Creationist, let's see them cough up the statements made by Palin where she says the planet is 6000 years old. Let's see some actual sources and cites to back the claim up. That's my position.
If she's an Old Earth Creationist, which is likely since most Creationists these days are, then she doesn't believe the planet is 6000 years old.

Her being a creationist is also unsurprising, given her other positions that fit squarely with the Religious Right.

Alex Libman

31st August 2008, 08:09 AM

A God is an unproven supernatural creator of the cosmos who listens to your thoughts and forgives sins. Western Governments are democratically elected systems consisting of carbon-based lifeforms who go home at the end of the day and often make fools of themselves. I fail to see the comparison.

Religions are also made up of carbon-based priests and so on. Democracy is just a more efficient means of "divine right of kings" or "mandate of heaven". Governments also rule based on unproven "holy books" such as constitutions, laws, etc. One is a newer version of the other, but there is no substantive difference between them.

What on Earth has that got to do with the statement lefty just made? Do you dispute the facts of lefty's claim?

I dispute their validity to justify the governments' "divine right" to initiate force against others.

Tricky

31st August 2008, 08:15 AM

Religions are also made up of carbon-based priests and so on. Democracy is just a more efficient means of "divine right of kings" or "mandate of heaven". Governments also rule based on unproven "holy books" such as constitutions, laws, etc. One is a newer version of the other, but there is no substantive difference between them.
There are few theocracies. Democracies govern based on consent of the governed. You are, quite simply, wrong.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 08:51 AM

If she's an Old Earth Creationist, which is likely since most Creationists these days are, then she doesn't believe the planet is 6000 years old. Her being a creationist is also unsurprising, given her other positions that fit squarely with the Religious Right.facts to support your claim?

Earthborn

31st August 2008, 09:06 AM

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.htmlIs newsmax now a legitimate news source? How do you know her answer was a bit more nuanced and newmax just condensed it in a way that appeals to its readers more?

McCain/Palin is an anti-science ticket.Well, she is a Republican. So she acknowledges Global Warming, just doesn't think it is Anthropogenic, and she thinks creationism should be allowed to be taught in public school but it shouldn't be part of the curriculum.

Is this the worst you can say about her? If so, why aren't you voting for McCain/Palin then?

Dr Adequate

31st August 2008, 09:06 AM

facts to support your claim? According to her own statements, she is familiar with creationist gibberish, and regards it as "information". Ergo, she has been fooled by creationist nonsense, and is therefore a creationist.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 09:14 AM

According to her own statements, she is familiar with creationist gibberish, and regards it as "information". Ergo, she has been fooled by creationist nonsense, and is therefore a creationist.I asked for facts, not simple minded practice of sophistry.Advocating discussion about creationism implies she is creationist? By your strange logic, most on JREF then are Creationist.

Earthborn

31st August 2008, 09:19 AM

And parents should have complete control over what their dependents learn in school.What if I want my children to learn in school that government is a good thing and there to help them, and that people who don't pay their taxes properly belong in jail? Would there be any place for schools like that in your Anarcho-Capitalist society?

joobz

31st August 2008, 09:21 AM

Is this the worst you can say about her? If so, why aren't you voting for McCain/Palin then?
There are multiple reasons I'm not voting for them.
1.) Iraq war.
2.) Health Care
3.) Foriegn strategy
4.) Potential Supreme court justices
5.) Stem cell research
6.) education and research support...

But, Truly, I think the "teach both" statement shows a horrible disregard of science and truth. I know it sounds good, but it's really as dumb as saying
"why can't we teach the stork theory along with sex theory?"
"Why don't we teach both gravity and intelligent falling?"
"Why don't we teach both math and numerology?"

Nogbad

31st August 2008, 09:28 AM

Undesired Walrus

31st August 2008, 09:32 AM

Religions are also made up of carbon-based priests and so on. Democracy is just a more efficient means of "divine right of kings" or "mandate of heaven".

No, as politicians have to prove their worth as a person rather than the blood of their family.

Governments also rule based on unproven "holy books" such as constitutions, laws, etc.

The US Constitution is 'unproven'? What exactly do you mean by this daft statement?

quarky

31st August 2008, 09:46 AM

This thread is about Palin's own statements about two specific topics. There are other threads dealing with baseless rumors. Go have at it.

right you are. sorry about that post.

Dr Adequate

31st August 2008, 09:50 AM

I asked for facts, not simple minded practice of sophistry. Then a simple "thank you" would be in order.

You're welcome.

Advocating discussion about creationism implies she is creationist? No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing.

By your strange logic, most on JREF then are Creationist. That is indeed "strange logic"; but I note that it is not mine.

not_so_new

31st August 2008, 10:20 AM

I suppose one might ask does she really believe they both should be taught/discussed or was it a sound bite for her voting public?

Bush has made a lot of Conservative Christian noises over the years but I am not sure many in that camp feel they got much for their votes.

Oh I think they got their money's worth from Bush and more. If you want evidence go take a look at the current make up of the US Supreme Court. That makes the fundies very very happy.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 11:00 AM

Then a simple "thank you" would be in order.

You're welcome.

No, of course not, which is why I said no such thing.

That is indeed "strange logic"; but I note that it is not mine.

Here are facts:

10/27/2006 (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html)
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she 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."
The next day she clarified....Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Nogbad

31st August 2008, 11:06 AM

Oh I think they got their money's worth from Bush and more. If you want evidence go take a look at the current make up of the US Supreme Court. That makes the fundies very very happy.

Perhaps I conversed with a couple of conservative ingrates but I got the impression they felt Bush had done very little for their agenda. The Judges could have an impact in the future but have they made many (if any) decisions to date that have upset the apple cart from a liberal perspective?.

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 12:53 PM

Is newsmax now a legitimate news source? How do you know her answer was a bit more nuanced and newmax just condensed it in a way that appeals to its readers more?
She's the one who agreed to do an interview with them.

Well, she is a Republican. So she acknowledges Global Warming, just doesn't think it is Anthropogenic, and she thinks creationism should be allowed to be taught in public school but it shouldn't be part of the curriculum.
I personally know many Republicans (and know of many more, including John McCain, if I'm not mistaken) who disagree with both of those positions. But more importantly, I disagree with both of those positions, which is why I wrote the OP.

Is this the worst you can say about her? If so, why aren't you voting for McCain/Palin then?
:dl: That's a good one!

Answer: 1. No, it's just the topic of this thread. 2. Because I don't base my voting decisions on how much dirt I can find on the running mate.

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 01:11 PM

Here are facts:

10/27/2006 (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html)
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she 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."
The next day she clarified....Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Sounds remarkably like a creationist who backpedaled on a policy position.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 01:14 PM

Sounds remarkably like a creationist who backpedaled on a policy position.Again, innuendo.

Bring in more facts, let's figure the matter out. Chipmunk, all I did was trackback from your Bostons paper blurb to the source article which did clarify a bit.

Facts contradicts your statement that MaCain/Palin is an anti science ticket:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Dr Adequate

31st August 2008, 01:24 PM

Bring in more facts, let's figure the matter out. It is not, I think, absence of facts that is preventing you from figuring it out. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and, regrettably, it quacks like a duck. The facts are there; what is lacking is the willingness to apply inductive reasoning.

Nogbad

31st August 2008, 01:55 PM

Again, innuendo.

Bring in more facts, let's figure the matter out. Chipmunk, all I did was trackback from your Bostons paper blurb to the source article which did clarify a bit.

Facts contradicts your statement that MaCain/Palin is an anti science ticket:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

To be honest her position appears at best vague.

Biology class is not the best place to discuss creationism and it is doubtful more than a few minutes could be constructively spent discussing the subject. I recall many years ago when I studied biology at school the teacher made a brief comment regarding evolution being an issue for some religious groups. However, she continued, this is the curriculum and the exam will cover these topics - ignore them at your peril.

I can't see what Palin is suggesting is radically different from that.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 02:49 PM

To be honest her position appears at best vague.

Biology class is not the best place to discuss creationism and it is doubtful more than a few minutes could be constructively spent discussing the subject. I recall many years ago when I studied biology at school the teacher made a brief comment regarding evolution being an issue for some religious groups. However, she continued, this is the curriculum and the exam will cover these topics - ignore them at your peril.

I can't see what Palin is suggesting is radically different from that.

Personally I think some such caution is needed, considering some students from far right fundy homes need a bit of educatifying.

But more facts!

Bring them on!

Support the claim Palin is a Creationist!

Source!

Citations!

Tony

31st August 2008, 02:59 PM

I asked for facts, not simple minded practice of sophistry.Advocating discussion about creationism implies she is creationist?

Yes.

By your strange logic, most on JREF then are Creationist.

Only your strange strawman version of it.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze
I asked for facts, not simple minded practice of sophistry.Advocating discussion about creationism implies she is creationist?
Yes.
Originally Posted by mhaze
By your strange logic, most on JREF then are Creationist.
Only your strange strawman version of it.
YOU can discuss creationism, but YOU say she cannot, unless by so daring to do so she risks YOU calling her a Creationist.

Ha!

Hypocrite.

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 03:38 PM

YOU can discuss creationism, but YOU say she cannot, unless by so daring to do so she risks YOU calling her a Creationist.

Ha!

Hypocrite.
I'm sorry, are we in a classroom? Are we "teaching both" here?

Mark Felt

31st August 2008, 03:43 PM

[/INDENT] YOU can discuss creationism, but YOU say she cannot, unless by so daring to do so she risks YOU calling her a Creationist.

Ha!

Hypocrite.

The two aren't equivilant.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 04:10 PM

The two aren't equivilant.

It is as though in sex education you were required to teach the "cabbage patch theory" of procreation in addition to the conventional reality-based version.

gtc

31st August 2008, 06:24 PM

Anthropogenic=Man Made.

Indeed.

Read her quote again. It doesn't support the claim that she is an AGW 'denier'.

There are other threads dealing with baseless rumors.

Actually, both of these threads are dealing in baseless rumours.

inductive reasoning.

I wasn't aware that inductive reasoning was defined as making stuff up.

joobz

31st August 2008, 06:45 PM

Ignore the argument of whether she is or isn't a creationist. That point is secondary.

What's of primary importance is that she attempted to find a "compromise" answer on an issue (quality of science education) which a politician should never compromise on.

Dr Adequate

31st August 2008, 06:50 PM

I wasn't aware that inductive reasoning was defined as making stuff up. Inductive reasoning is not defined as making stuff up.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning, so that you can see the difference between inductive reasoning and making stuff up.

I note that someone is using arguments that (in my experience, which is extensive) are uniquely characteristic of creationists, and conclude on that basis that she's a creationist (subject, of course, to future correction by evidence tending to falsify this hypothesis, such as her saying that she's not a creationist); just as, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am bound to assume that what looks and walks and quacks like a duck is a duck.

Whiplash

31st August 2008, 07:26 PM

Oddly enough, I think being rational is a good thing.

I always enjoy this response to "rationalizing" because it completely missess what rationalizing means. Attributing it to being "rational" as opposed to what it really is about, which is using rationales (usually bad ones) to justify something you support. In fact.. I think that this mentality is, in and of itself, rationalization! You are seeking to redefine the word to nullify the accusation.

I first heard it about 15 years ago.. I was in a car with a friend and we were talking about something in politics, I can't remember what. I have always been pretty conservative. This friend is now a conservative, but at the time was fresh out of college and very, very liberal. We were arguing about something and he was rationalizing like crazy, and I suggested as much. His response was "I'm not afraid of being rational". I have to admit, I busted out laughing.

I asked him if this was something one of his college professors had said and he begrudgingly admitted it. He was often one to throw out things that he heard someone else say and it sounded good to him, rather than think for himself. He's come a long way since then.

It sure sounds good, but frankly...it's idiotic. It's not about being rational. It's about creating rationales to justify things that are otherwise unjustifiable. Rationalizing is a huge human failing. It's something we are all guilty of. It's throwing truth, facts and logic out the window in order to defend something that you want to defend, but can't really logically defend.

gtc

31st August 2008, 07:41 PM

It sure sounds good, but frankly...it's idiotic. It's not about being rational. It's about creating rationales to justify things that are otherwise unjustifiable. Rationalizing is a huge human failing. It's something we are all guilty of. It's throwing truth, facts and logic out the window in order to defend something that you want to defend, but can't really logically defend.

However, in this case, the person who was accusing me of 'rationalising' was the one who had thrown logic out the window in order to score a political point.

I thought I was being quite witty in using the play on words to rebutt their assertion. If you found that 'idiotic' then, frankly, I couldn't care less.

gtc

31st August 2008, 07:43 PM

I note that someone is using arguments that (in my experience, which is extensive) are uniquely characteristic of creationists,

I think I am beggining to see your problem.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 07:45 PM

... both of these threads are dealing in baseless rumours.
I wasn't aware that inductive reasoning was defined as making stuff up.

Baseless rumours both. Yep.

PixyMisa

31st August 2008, 07:56 PM

I wasn't aware that inductive reasoning was defined as making stuff up.
But this is Politics, a.k.a. Topsy-Turvy Land, where all the rules that apply in the other forums go straight out the window.

Kind of fun to watch if you can maintain a suitable detachment.

Alex Libman

31st August 2008, 07:58 PM

There are few theocracies. Democracies govern based on consent of the governed. You are, quite simply, wrong.

Um, hello?! I'm governed, and I didn't give consent!

What if I want my children to learn in school that government is a good thing and there to help them, and that people who don't pay their taxes properly belong in jail? Would there be any place for schools like that in your Anarcho-Capitalist society?

Of course. In a free society, you'd be able to join any cult (or "government") that you choose, finance it, obey it, and teach your children to do the same - but forcing others to do so is a big no-no.

And I do recognize the difference between saying that Islam or democracy should rule the world by force and actually doing it. (If I didn't then I'd be advocating killing radical Muslims and socialists as self-defense!) So you can teach your children that people who don't associate with your cult (or "government") are bad, but you cannot initiate aggression against them.

No, as politicians have to prove their worth as a person rather than the blood of their family.

Like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc?

The US Constitution is 'unproven'? What exactly do you mean by this daft statement?

I mean I don't recognize the "divine right" of any government, no matter what it calls itself, to violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 08:08 PM

Based on Palin's response when asked if she believes in evolution ("I believe we have a creator"), I have to wonder if she knows what Creationism IS and what people hear when it is said. We atheists tend to use the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design interchangeably because we see one as a gateway to the other. Christians believe in Intelligent Design by nature of their belief (they believe God created mankind with a purpose as he did with the universe and being all powerful he intervenes through miracles and scripture to guide mankind, etc.). I'm going through the Stanford encyclopedia and it says:

At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense.

For most of us, though, Creationism has taken the form of a 6,000 year-old-earth, a talking snake, a world wide flood and so on. I'm wondering if maybe this is where the confusion comes in. When Christians attack evolution they usually follow the line of attacking the "random chance" of it rather than just the idea that one species slowly turned into another over time. The young Earthers will attack all of it, but it seems to me that many Christians will identify themselves as Creationists simply by virtue of the fact that they believe in a Creator. If this is the case with Palin, I don't see any problem with her belief as it's shared by pretty much every politician. A better question to ask her, besides if she believes in evolution, might be to ask her how old she thinks the earth is.

Dr Adequate

31st August 2008, 08:31 PM

I think I am beggining to see your problem. Let us know when you are capable of expressing this mystic vision in mere words.

Dr Adequate

31st August 2008, 08:43 PM

It seems to me that many Christians will identify themselves as Creationists simply by virtue of the fact that they believe in a Creator. If this is the case with Palin, I don't see any problem with her belief as it's shared by pretty much every politician. When she's talking about a "healthy debate" she must surely see the two views as being in opposition.

Theists who accept evolution don't go around calling for a debate between evolution and theism, as they can, obviously, see no benefits in this either to science or to religion, and would consider such a debate ill-conceived.

gtc

31st August 2008, 09:08 PM

Let us know when you are capable of expressing this mystic vision in mere words.

Let us know when you are capable of making a post that doesn't descend into waffle like 'mystic vision'.

Let us know when you are capable of making a point without trying to paint people who have the temerity to disagree with you as being woos.

Your problems are hubris because you feel that your 'extensive experience' exempts you from having to provide evidence to back up your attempts to smear your political opponents; overturning the rules of logic by deciding that because you can think of no good reason why a non-creationist would want to see creationism discussed in school then anyone who thinks that it might be a good idea to discuss it must be a creationist; subsequently displacing the burden of proof by suggesting that your assertion must be considered true until disproven and redefining the term information in an attempt to make your partisan point.

That's a good start.

I believe that marxism, astrology and creationism are suitable topics to be debated or discussed in school. Does that make me a marxist, creationist astrologist?

articulett

31st August 2008, 09:25 PM

When she's talking about a "healthy debate" she must surely see the two views as being in opposition.

Theists who accept evolution don't go around calling for a debate between evolution and theism, as they can, obviously, see no benefits in this either to science or to religion, and would consider such a debate ill-conceived.

Moreover, we are not debating gravity, astronomy, atomic theory, germ theory, tectonic theory or any other well established scientific understandings. We don't debate Pythagorean Theorem either. The truth isn't something to debate, but rather something to understand (or not... in the case of creationists).

The only people "debating" evolution are creationists because it conflicts with their religious belief that god "poofed" people into existence (in a garden with fruit from the "tree of knowledge" and a talking snake... unless we are talking creationist Muslims or Moonies with and their various creation stories.).

Creationists are scientific ignoramuses and bigots against those who have actual evidence for the things they claim. To me, they are on par with believers in psychics or astrologers or witch doctors.

The only "civilized" nation that ranks lower than the US in regards to acceptance of evolution is turkey-- and that is due to Muslim Fundamentalism. http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/upload/figure.gif

This is appalling.... especially when you consider that this kind of ignorance is associated with all sorts of social ills:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

The apologetics cannot shield the facts.

mhaze

31st August 2008, 09:57 PM

...I believe that marxism, astrology and creationism are suitable topics to be debated or discussed in school. Does that make me a marxist, creationist astrologist?If they were not debated and discussed, as they are here, how would someone come to know the problems with them? It seems quite strange that one opposed to these notions would seek to bar their discussion.

That is understandable with AGW, where true believers cannot often win a debate. Evolution has much stronger scientific basis, so there should be no such concerns.

Lonewulf

31st August 2008, 10:11 PM

That is understandable with AGW, where true believers cannot often win a debate.Lol.

Thanks for lightening my day, mhaze. I needed that laugh.

UserGoogol

31st August 2008, 10:16 PM

I mean I don't recognize the "divine right" of any government, no matter what it calls itself, to violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

I don't recognize a divine non-aggression principle. Each person has the equal right to do whatever the hell they want. When there is a conflict between what people want, the recourse is not to some magical "non-aggression principle," but simply to finding the most mutually-satisfactory compromise. Since conflicts of interests are common and invariably involve lots and lots of people, finding these compromises on a case by case basis is inconvenient, so it is practical to form an organization which uses a mechanism (such as voting) to consider everyone's opinion and judge accordingly.

a_unique_person

1st September 2008, 12:42 AM

Indeed.

Read her quote again. It doesn't support the claim that she is an AGW 'denier'.

She says quite clearly, it's not man made. That's the A part of AGW. That's the whole point of AGW, it's us, and we can do something about it, since we are causing it.

leftysergeant

1st September 2008, 01:08 AM

There are two kinds of people in the world. There are Creationists and Darwinists (as sorry a term as that is to describe those who accept that evolution is a real phenomenon.)

Those who want Creationism (or its sneaky little brother Intelligent Design) discussed in public schools as a valid alternative take that position because they cannot see it as just their particular superstition.

Palin is a Creationist and she just wont admit it.

For that alone, I dismiss her as a whacko.

Ryan O'Dine

1st September 2008, 05:03 AM

It makes as much sense to debate Genesis in biology class as it does to debate the Book of Job in algebra class. Anyone unclear on this is, pretty much by definition, scientifically illiterate.

We’ve had eight years of science illiteracy in the White House. Raise your hand if you think another four is a rip roaring good idea.

Dr Adequate

1st September 2008, 06:23 AM

Let us know when you are capable of making a post that doesn't descend into waffle like 'mystic vision'.

Let us know when you are capable of making a point without trying to paint people who have the temerity to disagree with you as being woos.

Your problems are hubris because you feel that your 'extensive experience' exempts you from having to provide evidence to back up your attempts to smear your political opponents; overturning the rules of logic by deciding that because you can think of no good reason why a non-creationist would want to see creationism discussed in school then anyone who thinks that it might be a good idea to discuss it must be a creationist; subsequently displacing the burden of proof by suggesting that your assertion must be considered true until disproven and redefining the term information in an attempt to make your partisan point.

That's a good start. You see, when you put your hallucination into words, it sounds daft, doesn't it? Which is, I must confess, why I wanted you to do it.

For all your blather, the fact that Palin talks like a creationist still suggests that she is one.

I believe that marxism, astrology and creationism are suitable topics to be debated or discussed in school. Does that make me a marxist, creationist astrologist? No, but enough about you, let's talk about Sarah Palin, who said that creationism should be "taught" in schools (do please note the difference between teaching something and teaching about it) and who describes those who prefer a reality-based curriculum as "afraid of information".

mhaze

1st September 2008, 07:32 AM

She says quite clearly, it's not man made. That's the A part of AGW. That's the whole point of AGW, it's us, and we can do something about it, since we are causing it.There isn't much detail right now. She says GW is not man made, but needs the right type of attention nonetheless.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/alaska-govenor-sarah-palins-op-ed-on-polar-bears-and-climate-change-in-the-nyt/ What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.
Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions.

Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments. But listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.
There are two kinds of people in the world. There are Creationists and Darwinists (as sorry a term as that is to describe those who accept that evolution is a real phenomenon.)

Those who want Creationism (or its sneaky little brother Intelligent Design) discussed in public schools as a valid alternative take that position because they cannot see it as just their particular superstition.

Palin is a Creationist and she just wont admit it. For that alone, I dismiss her as a whacko
Why do you think anyone would care about about your opinions?

I am willing to consider actual evidence. Can you provide any? And what is your answer to this:
If they were not debated and discussed, as they are here, how would someone come to know the problems with them? It seems quite strange that one opposed to these notions would seek to bar their discussion.

Dr Adequate

1st September 2008, 08:04 AM

Why do you think anyone would care about about your opinions?

I am willing to consider actual evidence. Can you provide any? And what is your answer to this: Perhaps the reason that leftysergant "thinks that anyone would care about his opinions" is that you are asking him for his opinions. This usually denotes a certain level of interest.

If they were not debated and discussed, as they are here, how would someone come to know the problems with them? It seems quite strange that one opposed to these notions would seek to bar their discussion. There is, obviously, a distinction between discussing creationism and teaching creationism, just as there is, for example, a difference between discussing Islamic terrorism and teaching Islamic terrorism. Both of which, incidentally, would contravene the First Amendment.

mhaze

1st September 2008, 08:40 AM

Perhaps the reason that leftysergant "thinks that anyone would care about his opinions" is that you are asking him for his opinions. This usually denotes a certain level of interest.

There is, obviously, a distinction between discussing creationism and teaching creationism, just as there is, for example, a difference between discussing Islamic terrorism and teaching Islamic terrorism. Both of which, incidentally, would contravene the First Amendment.

Actually, no - I've asked for evidence and got opinions.

Thank you for acknowledging what really is an important difference, between mandated curriculum and freedom of discussion (which should not even have prescribed areas or limits).

Lonewulf

1st September 2008, 08:59 AM

If I were an instructor, I would ban conversations that had nothing to do with what was being instructed.

I.E., I'd be perfectly willing to have a Creationism vs. Evolution debate, assuming that it wasn't heated, if I were teaching German. The problem is, it has to be in German, and enough of the class has to be involved/interested, or else someone's time in learning is being wasted.

Religious discussion in a science classroom takes away time from teaching, you know, science. I know this is hard to accept for some, but uh, there ya go.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 09:25 AM

When she's talking about a "healthy debate" she must surely see the two views as being in opposition.

Most people will see the opposition as the difference between believing evolution is "random chance" while intelligent design is nonrandom and guided by some type of creator. As a result, the debate tends to focus on whether or not nature exhibits some kind of higher order and design.

Theists who accept evolution don't go around calling for a debate between evolution and theism, as they can, obviously, see no benefits in this either to science or to religion, and would consider such a debate ill-conceived.

Many theists who accept evolution likely don't see the random factor of mutation as being part of the theory, or at least not the important part. This gives them room to say that yes, they believe over time one species led to another, but the process was guided by God. Someone who may understand evolution to mean that the random chance aspect is absolutely essential would be more likely to say that they reject it.

We all understand these differences because we debate and talk about the subjects a lot. My guess would be that the majority of people do not.

It's an interesting twist. Even if you believe God guided evolution, you're rejecting the main mechanism of evolution: natural selection. You believe in God selection. So someone might be better to ask Barack Obama if he believes in natural selection and if God guided the evolution of species and to ask Sarah Palin how old she thinks the earth is and how long she thinks it took that oil to form that she wants to drill.

mhaze

1st September 2008, 09:39 AM

Most people will see the opposition as the difference between believing evolution is "random chance" while intelligent design is nonrandom and guided by some type of creator. As a result, the debate tends to focus on whether or not nature exhibits some kind of higher order and design.

Many theists who accept evolution likely don't see the random factor of mutation as being part of the theory, or at least not the important part. This gives them room to say that yes, they believe over time one species led to another, but the process was guided by God. Someone who may understand evolution to mean that the random chance aspect is absolutely essential would be more likely to say that they reject it.

We all understand these differences because we debate and talk about the subjects a lot. My guess would be that the majority of people do not.
Which is what Palin advocated (the discussion), yet some here would twist that into "She is a creationist".

someone might be better to ask Barack Obama if he believes in natural selection and if God guided the evolution of species and to ask Sarah Palin how old she thinks the earth is and how long she thinks it took that oil to form that she wants to drill.That would be interesting.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 09:55 AM

Which is what Palin advocated (the discussion), yet some here would twist that into "She is a creationist".
I don't believe in teaching the discussion either. It's a waste of time and resources to teach a junk hypothesis to impressionable children. If the students want to have the discussion amongst themselves outside of class, they can go for it.

Dr Adequate

1st September 2008, 09:58 AM

Thank you for acknowledging what really is an important difference, between mandated curriculum and freedom of discussion (which should not even have prescribed areas or limits). So, are you now ready to concede that there is a difference between allowing an ideology to be discussed and saying that it should be "taught"?

If so, your thanks are unnecessary --- the sense of achievement in getting you to admit the bleedin' obvious is recompense enough for the effort it took.

articulett

1st September 2008, 10:50 AM

I discuss it. I say humans have been making up creation stories for eons--some people even believe that they have to BELIEVE a certain story to go to heaven. But scientists can't run around trying to find the facts to fit the story they've been indoctrinated to believe in. Instead, they have to follow the evidence that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. It's the only way we are able to separate what is true from what we want to be true. Airplanes fly whether we "believe" that they will or not. That is the kind of knowledge science is about--the stuff that is true whether you "believe it" or not. The earth was a sphere even as eons of humans were ignorant of this fact.

Evolution, is by far the best explanation for those ever accumulating facts about the origins of life; nothing in biology makes sense without an understanding of evolution--just as nothing in chemistry makes sense without an understanding of atomic theory.

Creationism is a religious teaching (the courts say so) and has no place in the science classroom-- it has no evidence behind it, cannot be used to further understanding, and is unfalsifiable (that is, we cannot prove it wrong if it is wrong just like we cannot prove we are not in a matrix scenario.) Teaching creationism in a science classroom would be like teaching the possibility that we are really in a matrix. It's not science... and a waste of teaching time.

(that's about how I discuss creationism should the subject come up...)

fishbob

1st September 2008, 11:04 AM

joobz

1st September 2008, 11:44 AM

Which is what Palin advocated (the discussion), yet some here would twist that into "She is a creationist".

I've said this multiple times, but I'll mention it again.
Even if she isn't a creationist, her position is one of extreme ignorance.

Do we encourage teaching of all nonscience theories in science class? Of course not, especially when the nonscience theory in question is religious in nature.

The issue of creationism.vs.evolution was raised in multiple courts, multiple times under multiple guises. It failed each time because
1.) Too much evidence supports evolution
2.) Creationism/ID is teaching religion

Now the creationist mantra is "teach the controversy". I do not believe that this variation of the theme has made it to court or not yet, but I suspect it too will fail the sniff test.

I can completely see why some people would think Palin is a creationist, considering she is parroting the newest creationist talking point. Is she aware of that fact or does she do it intentionally?

If the former, then she merely shows herself ignorant. If the later, then she's a creationist.

But, let's consider the fact that this has made news and has been in courts multiple times.
Is she aware of what the rulings were?
If no, she shows herself as being woefully ignorant and speaking on a topic which she knows nothing of. Not a smart political move.

If yes, then why does she still support "present both" argument? Does she think the courts made an error?
on what grounds was the error?....

Really, the only good way to interpret her stance is that she is simply ignorant of the issue and put her foot in her mouth. She did this for the shear sake of pandering to a conservative christian base. But in so doing, she made it clear that she doesn't value science education as much as she values the conservative christian vote. As such, she is not a candidate I would endorse.

articulett

1st September 2008, 04:08 PM

To summarize:
Reality trumps wishful thinking.

Yes... whether we want it to or not.

I tell my student that they will know things that Aristotle-- a very smart man-- did not know (objects fall at the same rate)... and they will know things that even the smartest people could not know even a hundred years ago (computer technology, DNA, etc.) They will also learn things their parents didn't know-- just as their kids will learn things that haven't been discovered yet. That is the nature of science.

I shock them when I tell them that their technology will be "old school" to their kids and I tell them the stuff that they have that even the richest person couldn't have when I was a kid (cell phones...ipods, etc.)-- in fact, we'd have thought those devices were magical!

Creationism feels like "knowledge" but it's makes scientific knowledge hard to come by-- it's ignorance promoting and arrogance promoting at the same time. I hate what it does to curiosity and wonder. I have no respect for those who'd inflict it upon anyone as some sort of "truth".

mhaze

1st September 2008, 04:17 PM

...Creationism feels like "knowledge" but it's makes scientific knowledge hard to come by-- it's ignorance promoting and arrogance promoting at the same time. I hate what it does to curiosity and wonder. I have no respect for those who'd inflict it upon anyone as some sort of "truth".Are you able to discuss with students, say the section in bold (in class), or are there rules that prevent it?

volatile

1st September 2008, 05:27 PM

Indeed.

Read her quote again. It doesn't support the claim that she is an AGW 'denier'.

Are you reading the same sentence as the rest of us? She says, clear as day, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made". She says, in as many words, that she does not think global warming is man-made. In as many words, she is denying that global warming is anthropogenic.

I could be wrong, though. Help me out here. What do you think she means when she says "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made" when asked her opinions on global warming? If this clear, unequivocal statement is not a denial of the man-made nature of global warming, exactly what is it?

a_unique_person

1st September 2008, 05:53 PM

Are you reading the same sentence as the rest of us? She says, clear as day, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made". She says, in as many words, that she does not think global warming is man-made. In as many words, she is denying that global warming is anthropogenic.

I could be wrong, though. Help me out here. What do you think she means when she says "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made" when asked her opinions on global warming? If this clear, unequivocal statement is not a denial of the man-made nature of global warming, exactly what is it?

I was wondering if we were living in some kind of parallel universe where what he's reading and what I'm reading are different.

joobz

1st September 2008, 06:02 PM

I was wondering if we were living in some kind of parallel universe where what he's reading and what I'm reading are different.
Are you suggesting that he lives in a Universe of his own design composed entirely of straw?

mhaze

1st September 2008, 08:57 PM

Are you suggesting that he lives in a Universe of his own design composed entirely of straw?146. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3995730&postcount=146)

chipmunk stew

1st September 2008, 09:19 PM

146. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3995730&postcount=146)
In which you acknowledged:
She says GW is not man made
:con2:

MattusMaximus

1st September 2008, 09:29 PM

Btw, it seems that Palin's stance on creationism and other Christian fundamentalist leanings could be getting McCain into trouble with the Jewish vote...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122431

That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 03:50 AM

Are you able to discuss with students, say the section in bold (in class), or are there rules that prevent it? I thought that you had finally understood the difference between discussing creationism and teaching it.

You even thanked me for the explanation. Don't let all those electrons have died in vain.

joobz

2nd September 2008, 03:53 AM

146. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3995730&postcount=146)
So you are confirming your seperate universe or do you mean to say that you agree that she denies AGW in favor of GW?

gtc

2nd September 2008, 03:59 AM

She says quite clearly, it's not man made. That's the A part of AGW. That's the whole point of AGW, it's us, and we can do something about it, since we are causing it.

No she doesn't. She says that she would not ascribe it to humans. That is not the same as saying that it is not due to humans. If you, volatile and the rest can't understand this then I have no idea what you are doing at a skeptics forum.

You see, when you put your hallucination into words, it sounds daft, doesn't it? Which is, I must confess, why I wanted you to do it.

Do you actually wish to discuss the topic or do you just want to keep flinging dirt around?

For all your blather, the fact that Palin talks like a creationist still suggests that she is one.

For all your blather, you have yet to establish that.

No, but enough about you, let's talk about Sarah Palin, who said that creationism should be "taught" in schools (do please note the difference between teaching something and teaching about it) and who describes those who prefer a reality-based curriculum as "afraid of information".

The fact that you have completely ignored this quote - 'Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools' - tells me that you are desperate to twist her words to create a smear.

Religious discussion in a science classroom takes away time from teaching, you know, science. I know this is hard to accept for some, but uh, there ya go.

Do you have evidence that Palin wants to have this debate in the science classroom?

volatile

2nd September 2008, 04:33 AM

No she doesn't. She says that she would not ascribe it to humans. That is not the same as saying that it is not due to humans. If you, volatile and the rest can't understand this then I have no idea what you are doing at a skeptics forum.

:confused:

Saying she would not ascribe it to humans is not the same as saying that it is not due to humans? What?

Maybe I'm being thick, but in my universe when someone says they do not attribute something to being man made, they are denying that it is man-made. I guess you are living in a parallel world. Please explain, in a coherent sentence, how her statement "I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made" is not a denial that global warming is man made.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 04:45 AM

:confused:

Saying she would not ascribe it to humans is not the same as saying that it is not due to humans? What?

Maybe I'm being thick, but in my universe when someone says they do not attribute something to being man made, they are denying that it is man-made. I guess you are living in a parallel world. Please explain, in a coherent sentence, how her statement "I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made" is not a denial that global warming is man made. Oh dear, oh dear, you're really not very bright, are you?

Look, imagine if someone said that she wouldn't ascribe the deaths of any Jews to the Nazis ... and you had the temerity to call her a Holocaust denier! See how absurd that would be? But you're so blinded by partisan political hatred that you apply that same twisted illogic to Sarah Palin.

You see why you don't belong with us smart superior skeptics?

gdnp

2nd September 2008, 04:52 AM

Oh dear, oh dear, you're really not very bright, are you?

Look, imagine if someone said that she wouldn't ascribe the deaths of any Jews to the Nazis ... and you had the temerity to call her a Holocaust denier! See how absurd that would be? But you're so blinded by partisan political hatred that you apply that same twisted illogic to Sarah Palin.

You see why you don't belong with us smart superior skeptics?

borderline Godwin, but the logic is flawless.

My only critique is you make it look like you are criticizing Volatile rather than gtc

volatile

2nd September 2008, 04:54 AM

borderline Godwin, but the logic is flawless.

My only critique is you make it look like you are criticizing Volatile rather than gtc

Oh, I deserve all the criticism I get. All these years in higher education and 4 months away from getting a PhD and no-one told me what "attribute" meant!

These degrees aren't worth the paper they're written on.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 04:56 AM

:confused:

Saying she would not ascribe it to humans is not the same as saying that it is not due to humans? What?

Maybe I'm being thick, but in my universe when someone says they do not attribute something to being man made, they are denying that it is man-made. I guess you are living in a parallel world. Please explain, in a coherent sentence, how her statement "I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made" is not a denial that global warming is man made.

Despite the personal attacks, I will try to help you out.

She is actually not giving an opinion one way or the other. That is not the same as denying that it is occuring.

As an analogy, I would not tell a woman that she shouldn't drink at all during pregnancy because I simply do not have the medical expertise to know what the safe level of drinking during pregnancy is. You will notice that I have not actually said that women can drink during pregnancy.

You can argue that she is equivocating or refusing to state an opinion but you can not say that she is an AGW denier without twisting her words.

I have no idea why this is so hard for some people to understand.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:01 AM

Oh dear, oh dear, you're really not very bright, are you?

Look, imagine if someone said that she wouldn't ascribe the deaths of any Jews to the Nazis ... and you had the temerity to call her a Holocaust denier! See how absurd that would be? But you're so blinded by partisan political hatred that you apply that same twisted illogic to Sarah Palin.

You see why you don't belong with us smart superior skeptics?

Marvellous. You have just proven what I said on the very first page about the term AGW-denier was being used to try to link this to Holocaust denial.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 05:01 AM

Despite the personal attacks, I will try to help you out.

She is actually not giving an opinion one way or the other. That is not the same as denying that it is occuring.

Except, she actually says, in as many words "I do not attribute global-warming to being man-made". Not "I don't know". Not "I'm not sure". Not "I haven't really thought about it".

She makes an outright, direct denial. "I'm not one who would attribute [global warming] to being man made".

I AM NOT. That is a denial, by definition. You need to wipe the ideology off your eyes, it's clearly hampering your comprehension.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 05:08 AM

Do you actually wish to discuss the topic or do you just want to keep flinging dirt around? I wished to discuss the topic, which is why I responded to your personal attack, not by flinging dirt back, but merely by mocking its inaccuracy.

For all your blather, you have yet to establish that. I have "yet to establish" that "the fact that Palin talks like a creationist still suggests that she is one"?

Sheesh.

As the empirical method is self-founding, I scarcely know where to begin.

The fact that you have completely ignored this quote - 'Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools' - tells me that you are desperate to twist her words to create a smear. The actual, real, not-made-up fact that I discussed and partially quoted that very statement in post #135 of this thread tells me that I have not "completely ignored" it.

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 05:08 AM

So you are confirming your seperate universe or do you mean to say that you agree that she denies AGW in favor of GW?You'd like to pideon hole, wouldn't you? I have only referenced here facts. More would be nice. You really need to ask her (or find where she discussed) key sub issues.

She will talk circles around most people on this subject because Alaskans are very familiar with it. Her response shows that she is somewhere in the range of thinking the evidence for the A in AGW is

non existant
weak
or non-conclusive.

You're quite likely looking at the one most familiar with GW/environmental of all four of the P/VP candidates.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:08 AM

Not only has Dr Adequate shown that there is no low to which he won't stoop in order to score a partisan point; he has also demonstrated that he believes that he is perfectly entitled to fabricate claims about his political opponents.

To whit - according to Dr Adequate stating that you will not make claim A is entirely the same as saying that claim A is false.

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 05:12 AM

I put it in simpler language thinking that might help.

Tricky

2nd September 2008, 05:13 AM

No she doesn't. She says that she would not ascribe it to humans. That is not the same as saying that it is not due to humans. If you, volatile and the rest can't understand this then I have no idea what you are doing at a skeptics forum.
If she doesn't know enough to have an informed opinion, then that is what she should say. While one could make a semantic argument that "not ascribing" could be because of ignorance, that is certainly not the message such words give. If she's using weasel words to try to satisfy her demographic, well, that's what all politicians do, but let's not kid ourselves about what the implications are.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 05:14 AM

Marvellous. You have just proven what I said on the very first page about the term AGW-denier was being used to try to link this to Holocaust denial. Oh, blimey-gosh, by my choice of analogy I've magically proven you right about some point that we weren't debating. How "marvellous" for you.

Could you now return from this joyous reverie to the more mundane contemplation of Sarah Palin?

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:16 AM

Except, she actually says, in as many words "I do not attribute global-warming to being man-made". Not "I don't know". Not "I'm not sure". Not "I haven't really thought about it".

When you say 'in as many words', you are actually changing the meaning of the quote.

She makes an outright, direct denial. "I'm not one who would attribute [global warming] to being man made".

She makes a denial, yes, but not a denial of AGW. She is denying that she would attribute this to humanity.

I AM NOT. That is a denial, by definition. You need to wipe the ideology off your eyes, it's clearly hampering your comprehension.

I obviously can't help you. I have pointed out where this claim is wrong. If you wish to continue to make that claim then you are lying.

I have "yet to establish" that "the fact that Palin talks like a creationist still suggests that she is one"?

Indeed.

The actual, real, not-made-up fact that I discussed and partially quoted that very statement in post #135 of this thread tells me that I have not "completely ignored" it.

Fair enough.

When you said:

let's talk about Sarah Palin, who said that creationism should be "taught" in schools (do please note the difference between teaching something and teaching about it) and who describes those who prefer a reality-based curriculum as "afraid of information".

You were ignoring the fact that she had said 'Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools'.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:17 AM

Oh, blimey-gosh, by my choice of analogy I've magically proven you right about some point that we weren't debating. How "marvellous" for you.

Could you now return from this joyous reverie to the more mundane contemplation of Sarah Palin?

A simple apology for your choice of analogy would have sufficed.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 05:21 AM

Not only has Dr Adequate shown that there is no low to which he won't stoop in order to score a partisan point; Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug. He used ... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and ... satire. He was vicious.

... he has also demonstrated that he believes that he is perfectly entitled to fabricate claims about his political opponents.

To whit - according to Dr Adequate stating that you will not make claim A is entirely the same as saying that claim A is false. Your fantasies about me are, as usual, inaccurate. And irrelevant to Sarah Palin.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:22 AM

If she doesn't know enough to have an informed opinion, then that is what she should say. While one could make a semantic argument that "not ascribing" could be because of ignorance, that is certainly not the message such words give. If she's using weasel words to try to satisfy her demographic, well, that's what all politicians do, but let's not kid ourselves about what the implications are.

Oh, I am not denying that she was being weasly but this thread started with the claim that she does not believe that humans are responsible for Global warming and that she is a Creationist.

It has come down to the claim that while she does not say that she is a creationist (in fact she says that she believes that evolution should be taught in schools) she talks like a creationist and the idea that while she doesn't state an opinion about GW, she is doing it in a way that does state an opinion.

Megalodon

2nd September 2008, 05:29 AM

She makes a denial, yes, but not a denial of AGW. She is denying that she would attribute this to humanity.

So you're saying that she doesn't deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, only that humans have anything to do with it?

Do you know what anthropogenic means?

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:30 AM

Well, I was terrified. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug. He used ... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and ... satire. He was vicious.

I don't actually think that I was being sarcastic. Your choice of analogy was repellant.

And irrelevant to Sarah Palin.

Nice attempt to sidestep. You get the right to make any statement no matter how outrageous, and no one has the right to comment on your statements?

This is quite funny given that you have just quoted Monty Python in order to comment on my statements.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 05:31 AM

She makes a denial, yes, but not a denial of AGW. She is denying that she would attribute this to humanity.

That's what denial of AGW is! If she is denying that she would attribute global warming to humanity, she is denying the anthropogenic component of global warming. It's right there, in black and white.

Attribution of a (significant) proportion global warming to humanity is what AGW means. To make it even simpler, the very word "attribute" means "to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually fol. by to): .

What sense are you understanding "attribute"? None of the other, nuanced definitions make your case any clearer. To whit:

" 2.to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated: He attributed intelligence to his colleagues.

3.to consider as made by the one indicated, esp. with strong evidence but in the absence of conclusive proof: to attribute a painting to an artist.

4.to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc., indicated; credit; assign: to attribute a work to a particular period; to attribute a discovery to a particular country."

So, by denying attribution, she is denying that global warming is caused by, characteristic of, made by, assignable to or produced by humans. That is the very essence of AGW denial, said in a very straightforward way with no room whatsoever for the kind of reading you're engaging in.

"I am not". That is a denial, and it is a denial that humans are responsible for global warming. She denies that humans are responsible (that she would attribute blame to them), thus she is an AGW denier.

At least, in this universe.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:31 AM

So you're saying that she doesn't deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, only that humans have anything to do with it?

No.

Do you know what anthropogenic means?

Yes.

These questions were asked and answered several pages ago.

Lonewulf

2nd September 2008, 05:33 AM

Do you have evidence that Palin wants to have this debate in the science classroom?I don't care what Palin wants. I was responding specifically to a point that was presented.

Tricky

2nd September 2008, 05:35 AM

Oh, I am not denying that she was being weasly but this thread started with the claim that she does not believe that humans are responsible for Global warming and that she is a Creationist.

It has come down to the claim that while she does not say that she is a creationist (in fact she says that she believes that evolution should be taught in schools) she talks like a creationist and the idea that while she doesn't state an opinion about GW, she is doing it in a way that does state an opinion.

I don't think that Sarah Palin has a personal (and certainly not strong) belief in creationism or in AGW, pro or con. I think she hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about either one. But you could say that she is, for example, creationist because she supports creationist positions. As a politician, she might have the opportunity to advance one position over another. Regardless of what her actual beliefs are, if she's going to put out the welcome mat for creationist ideas to enter law, than, by some lights, that makes her a creationist. In fact, it makes her a more dangerous creationist than somebody wailing from a pulpit, because she would actually have the power to advance their cause.

Semantics? Perhaps, but the reality is that in such instances her political stance is more important than her actual beliefs, and that makes it a fairly accurate label.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 05:35 AM

Indeed. I do not wish to impugn your integrity, but I am not convinced that you are actually unable to see the connection between talking like a creationist and being one.

When you said:

* snip *

You were ignoring the fact that she had said 'Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools'. And also many other facts. I ascribe this chiefly to my inability to post two things simultanously, what with the English language being essentially a serial means of communication. I did, however, comment on it elsewhere.

Megalodon

2nd September 2008, 05:38 AM

No.

Yes.

These questions were asked and answered several pages ago.

Well, then either you don't know the meaning of "attribute" or you're a troll...

Either way...

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:45 AM

I don't think that Sarah Palin has a personal (and certainly not strong) belief in creationism or in AGW, pro or con.

Good then we are in agreement. Could you try explaining that to volatile and Dr Adequate?

I think she hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about either one.

Again we are in agreement.

But you could say that she is, for example, creationist because she supports creationist positions.

But I support some Democrat positions without being a Democrat.

As a politician, she might have the opportunity to advance one position over another. Regardless of what her actual beliefs are, if she's going to put out the welcome mat for creationist ideas to enter law, than, by some lights, that makes her a creationist. In fact, it makes her a more dangerous creationist than somebody wailing from a pulpit, because she would actually have the power to advance their cause.

Other than the assertion that it makes her a creationist, I think this is a perfectly reasonable argument to mount. Unfortunately, this is not the one that the partisans in this thread have chosen to mount.

Semantics? Perhaps, but the reality is that in such instances her political stance is more important than her actual beliefs, and that makes it a fairly accurate label.

Again, I think the label is wrong but that this is a reasonable argument to mount.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 05:50 AM

I don't actually think that I was being sarcastic. No, you weren't. I was, in response to which you set up a howl about how there were no depths to which I wouldn't stoop. This reminded me of the Pythonesque concept of Doug Piranha terrifying the East End of London with his powers of satire.

Your choice of analogy was repellant. Yeah, yeah, that's what they said to Jonathan Swift ...

Nice attempt to sidestep. I told you that your fantasies about me were, as usual, inaccurate as well as irrelevant. The fact that you chose only to quote me as saying that they were irrelevant does not constitute a "sidestep" on my part.

You get the right to make any statement no matter how outrageous, and no one has the right to comment on your statements? I did not, of course, say any such thing.

What I said was, and I quote:

Your fantasies about me are, as usual, inaccurate. And irrelevant to Sarah Palin.

I would stand by that.

May I suggest that if you don't want your posts to be moved to AAH, they should contain at least some token reference to Sarah Palin? I mean, they shouldn't be all about me. For one thing, my chances of becoming VP of your great and free republic are remote.

Lonewulf

2nd September 2008, 05:51 AM

Unfortunately, this is not the one that the partisans in this thread have chosen to mount.I'm curious. I can't help but I'm one of the ones that you're indirectly referring to here.

If you are, do you have evidence that I'm "partisan"?

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:54 AM

I don't care what Palin wants. I was responding specifically to a point that was presented.

OK. I thought it was a specific, rather than general comment.

Well, then either you don't know the meaning of "attribute" or you're a troll...

Either way...

With respect, I have presented my evidence. You have made a claim and have not presented your evidence. I think your actions are more 'trollish' than mine.

I do not wish to impugn your integrity, but I am not convinced that you are actually unable to see the connection between talking like a creationist and being one.

You have done little but impugn me. I suspect you are not being entirely honest here. You have suggested (without evidence) that some creationists wish to see the topic debated in schools.

And also many other facts. I ascribe this chiefly to my inability to post two things simultanously, what with the English language being essentially a serial means of communication. I did, however, comment on it elsewhere.

You are waffling. You left out the bit of the quote where she suggested that the ideas be debated. This changes the complection of the bits that you did quote.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 05:57 AM

I'm curious. I can't help but I'm one of the ones that you're indirectly referring to here.

If you are, do you have evidence that I'm "partisan"?

No, you are not. Sorry if I gave you that opinion.

No, you weren't. I was, in response to which you set up a howl about how there were no depths to which I wouldn't stoop. This reminded me of the Pythonesque concept of Doug Piranha terrifying the East End of London with his powers of satire.

Yeah, yeah, that's what they said to Jonathan Swift ...

I told you that your fantasies about me were, as usual, inaccurate as well as irrelevant. The fact that you chose only to quote me as saying that they were irrelevant does not constitute a "sidestep" on my part.

I did not, of course, say any such thing.

What I said was, and I quote:
Your fantasies about me are, as usual, inaccurate. And irrelevant to Sarah Palin.
I would stand by that.

May I suggest that if you don't want your posts to be moved to AAH, they should contain at least some token reference to Sarah Palin? I mean, they shouldn't be all about me. For one thing, my chances of becoming VP of your great and free republic are remote.

You are still waffling and still sidestepping.

Tricky

2nd September 2008, 05:59 AM

Good then we are in agreement. Could you try explaining that to volatile and Dr Adequate?
They can read. Plus, if you examine their posts, I think you will find that they are saying similar things, though perhaps couched a bit more stridently.

But I support some Democrat positions without being a Democrat.
Well, Democrat is a party affiliation, not a single issue. I normally vote Democratic, but I certainly do not accept any position that Democrats put forth. Creationism and AGW, while there is a little wiggle room, are generally thought of as single issues.

I am quite sure there are people who believe in creationism but who do not want it taught in school. Politically speaking, then, they are aligned against the creationists. But you need a shorthand for these sorts of things, so when I use the term "creationist" in a political discussion, I mean someone who supports (or enables) teaching of creationism in public schools.

Again, I think the label is wrong but that this is a reasonable argument to mount.
See my reasoning above for choosing this label in this context. The labels might be different if this were purely a discussion of religious beliefs rather than school curriculums.

Same for global warming. Whatever your evaluation of the scientific evidence causes you to conclude, your political position is based on whether or not you would support laws that try to combat the things which (purportedly) lead to global warming. For example, if you thought AGW was bunk, but you supported reducing carbon emmissions for other reasons, politically, you'd still be in the camp with the AGW people. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 06:02 AM

So, by denying attribution, she is denying that global warming is caused by, characteristic of, made by, assignable to or produced by humans. That is the very essence of AGW denial, said in a very straightforward way with no room whatsoever for the kind of reading you're engaging in.

But that is the whole problem. She is not denying attribution. She is denying that she would attribute.

A politician who says, 'no comment' is not saying 'no' (except in 'The House of Cards').

gtc

2nd September 2008, 06:08 AM

They can read. Plus, if you examine their posts, I think you will find that they are saying similar things, though perhaps couched a bit more stridently.

Well, Democrat is a party affiliation, not a single issue. I normally vote Democratic, but I certainly do not accept any position that Democrats put forth. Creationism and AGW, while there is a little wiggle room, are generally thought of as single issues.

I am quite sure there are people who believe in creationism but who do not want it taught in school. Politically speaking, then, they are aligned against the creationists. But you need a shorthand for these sorts of things, so when I use the term "creationist" in a political discussion, I mean someone who supports (or enables) teaching of creationism in public schools.

See my reasoning above for choosing this label in this context. The labels might be different if this were purely a discussion of religious beliefs rather than school curriculums.

I see what you are saying, but this does not seem to be what they are arguing.

Same for global warming. Whatever your evaluation of the scientific evidence causes you to conclude, your political position is based on whether or not you would support laws that try to combat the things which (purportedly) lead to global warming. For example, if you thought AGW was bunk, but you supported reducing carbon emmissions for other reasons, politically, you'd still be in the camp with the AGW people. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

This is an interesting comment. Effectively, the policy choices available to someone who believes in AGW are the same as those available to someone who doesn't believe in the A part. Kind of makes the scare tactics about her position redundant.

Darat

2nd September 2008, 06:12 AM

Before the Mod Team has to step in and take some action (because of the increasingly heated and personalised posts) I'd like to suggest to participants that old adage "We shall have to agree to disagree".

volatile

2nd September 2008, 06:13 AM

But that is the whole problem. She is not denying attribution. She is denying that she would attribute.

What's the difference between "denying attribution" and "denying she would attribute"?

You said "She is denying that she would attribute this to humanity". I agree. By any conventional definition of the word "attribute", this means she is denying humans are responsible for global warming. Nevertheless, you seem to have chosen to emphasise the word attribute, as if a particular nuance of this word makes your case. What is that nuance? What do you understand by the word "attribute"?

Break this down for me. Because here's my interpretation, and the only one that seems logical:

""I'm not one" - I am not someone who

"who would" - thinks that

"it" - global warming

"attribute" - is caused by, characteristic of, made by, assignable to or produced

"to being man made" - by human beings.

In other words, there are people who say that global warming is caused by man, but I'm not one of them.

That's a denial of AGW. Plain and simple.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd September 2008, 06:15 AM

Speaking of Palin's anti-scientific points of view, she is also in favor of the proven unsuccessful (by the science, not just her own daughter) abstinence-only sex ed programs which are essentially gag-orders forbidding the dissemination (ironic word choice intended!) of information about condoms and other forms of birth control.

Her responses to the 2006 questionnaire by the conservative Eagle Forum (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) are enlightening.

To the question, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?", she answered, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

The science on these programs is clear: they don't work. At best they delay first sexual intercourse a little bit, but they result in higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Also, I don't get the controversy here about whether or not Palin is a creationist. She is in favor of teaching creationism in public school science classes. As a political position, that makes her a creationist. (Frankly, I don't care what religious beliefs she has. She's free to believe whatever she wants. I care immensely that she likes to let her religious beliefs--or the religious beliefs of others--influence her policy decisions in a distinctly anti-science way.)

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 06:25 AM

You have done little but impugn me. That would be where I point out the inaccuracy and irrelevance of your fantasies about me, right?

I suspect you are not being entirely honest here. Wrong again.

You have suggested (without evidence) that some creationists wish to see the topic debated in schools. Wow, a whole sentence about me that isn't false in any way.

You are, it appears, shifting your ground to the claim that I haven't shown evidence that this is how creationists talk. I own the soft impeachment; I did not, because I had no idea that anyone participating in this discussion would be ignorant of this fact. If you are in need of evidence, google is your friend. Try phrases such as "teach both theories".

You are waffling. If you look closer and study hard, you will see that I am in fact pointing out the bleedin' obvious --- a pearl that at present seems to lie just beyond your grasp.

You left out the bit of the quote where she suggested that the ideas be debated. Except where I quoted her as saying so and discussed it.

This changes the complection of the bits that you did quote. I ... I changed their complection!!! OMG!!! What are you talking about?!?

It appears that there is some point you think should be made about the phrase "healthy debate". Instead of merely whining about what a bad person I am for not making it for you, perhaps you should make it yourself.

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 06:32 AM

You are still waffling and still sidestepping. Actually, having just seen Darat's post, I should say that my remarks were remarkably prescient.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 06:33 AM

In other words, there are people who say that global warming is caused by man, but I'm not one of them.

That's a denial of AGW. Plain and simple.

As Darat has pointed out we may have to agree to disagree.

However, I have highlighted what I think is the crucial term.

Her comments amount to a 'no comment'.

That is all I will say on that issue as I agree with Darat that I can't see how I can reword my point and I remain unconvinced by the counterpoints. I also want to keep the thread open - I think Tricky's comments were very interesting.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd September 2008, 06:36 AM

Are there people here actually arguing that it would somehow be better if Palin were not a creationist but just advocates teaching creationism in public school science classes than if she were a creationist who advocates teaching creationism in public school science classes?

Frankly, I have no problem labeling anyone who advocates teaching creationism in public school science classes a "creationist"--as a political position. Creationism is religious credo.

It doesn't matter whose religious credo it is, it still doesn't belong in a public school science class, and any politician who advocates teaching it in a public school science class (even with weasly words like "teach the controversy" or "allow the debate") is endorsing an anti-science position.

Remember, even the courts have agreed that there is no such thing as "creation science" and even "intelligent design" is only a renaming of the religious doctrine of creationism.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 06:37 AM

Her responses to the 2006 questionnaire by the conservative Eagle Forum (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) are enlightening.

Indeed. I wonder if she even realises the idiocy and irony of the following juxtaposition:

"2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties"

Guess only straight people get to have the infringements of their liberties prevented, huh?

She's an odious, odious woman. She's almost a caricature.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 06:41 AM

As Darat has pointed out we may have to agree to disagree.

However, I have highlighted what I think is the crucial term.

Yes, but you haven't explained why you highlighted it, nor what meaning your are ascribing to the word "attribute" that you thinks make her case.

That is all I will say on that issue as I agree with Darat that I can't see how I can reword my point and I remain unconvinced by the counterpoints. I also want to keep the thread open - I think Tricky's comments were very interesting.

I have not been personal or insulting, GTC. I'm just interested in how you can make the claims you are making, with a straight face. Honestly, I'm willing to be shown that I'm grasping the wrong end of the stick here - all you need to do is explain what particular nuance you see in the word "attribute" that supports your claim.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 06:47 AM

I have not been personal or insulting, GTC. I'm just interested in how you can make the claims you are making, with a straight face. Honestly, I'm willing to be shown that I'm grasping the wrong end of the stick here - all you need to do is explain what particular nuance you see in the word "attribute" that supports your claim.

The problem is that it seems impossible for me to make the statement in a way that lets you grasp what I think is the right end of the stick.

She is not talking about her beliefs about AGW. She has not even said that she has an opinion. She is talking about what she would state publically about those beliefs (i.e. that she would not state anything).

It's a big no comment.

Lonewulf

2nd September 2008, 06:51 AM

The problem is that it seems impossible for me to make the statement in a way that lets you grasp what I think is the right end of the stick.Which kinda suggests one of three things. One, that Volatile can't understand "the right end of the stick". Or two, the "right end of the stick" is obviously not the right end of the stick. Or three, the "right end of the stick" is obviously not very visible, even when put in different ways.

And seeing what she said myself, as an independent observer, I come to the same conclusion as Volatile has.

applecorped

2nd September 2008, 06:55 AM

She's an odious, odious woman. She's almost a caricature.

You hate her? Seriously?

varwoche

2nd September 2008, 06:56 AM

Her responses to the 2006 questionnaire by the conservative Eagle Forum (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) are enlightening. Check out this gem:

Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin: 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. One problem -- "under god" was added to the pledge in 1954.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 06:56 AM

The problem is that it seems impossible for me to make the statement in a way that lets you grasp what I think is the right end of the stick.

Well, how about you start with an explanation of what your interpretation of "attribute" is, and why you emphasised it in making your point earlier.

She is not talking about her beliefs about AGW. She is talking about what she would state publically about those beliefs. She has not even said that she has an opinion.

Huh? She was asked a direct question - "What is your take on global warming?". Her answer was direct, and amounts to, as explained below "there are people who say that global warming is caused by man, but I'm not one of them". This is a denial that global warming is caused by man. There is nothing at all there about her public statements, about her lack of opinion or anything else. In fact, quite the opposite - she was asked her opinion, and gave it. She does not agree with those who think that global warming is anthropogenic. That is denial of AGW, by definition.

Where are you getting all this stuff about public opinions and the like? It's simply not there.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 06:57 AM

Check out this gem:

One problem -- "under god" was added to the pledge in 1954.

Ideologues say the darndest things!

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 07:00 AM

(i.e. that she would not state anything).

It's a big no comment.

That's not what was said. It's not a "No Comment", it's a "I wouldn't say that global warming is man-made" comment, which is directly equivilant to a "I'd say that global warming is not man-made" comment.

gtc

2nd September 2008, 07:02 AM

My post was an explanation of why I highlighted the word 'say'.

I can't restate my point without repeating myself. Sorry.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 07:09 AM

You hate her? Seriously?

I don't hate her. I've never met her. In fact, I hadn't even heard of her until yesterday.

I do, however hate the offensive, backwards, ignorant things she stands for though, and vociferously.

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 07:11 AM

Oh, I am not denying that she was being weasly but this thread started with the claim that she does not believe that humans are responsible for Global warming and that she is a Creationist.

It has come down to the claim that while she does not say that she is a creationist (in fact she says that she believes that evolution should be taught in schools) she talks like a creationist and the idea that while she doesn't state an opinion about GW, she is doing it in a way that does state an opinion.

I thought it was more along the lines of JREF far lefters would like to freely discuss creationism, and by golly that does not make them creationists, but if A REPUBLICAN says it's a good thing to discuss different points of view (including creationism) that MAKES HER A CREATIONIST!

Now, it's only logical consistency I'm striving for. And thus, it bothers me that many here such as Dr. Adequate (not meaning to pick on him by any means, just too lazy to page back through this mess) do by application of their own logic to themselves look like.....

CREATIONISTS!:clap:

On AGW, it seems that any rabid far left True Believer of AGW would be convinced she's a Denier. Reality, though, she's Alaskan. And it's the far left loons that passed crazy law after crazy law and regulation that impacted Alaska. They can't even log timber, but have to import it. They export gas, but have to import it for their cars. ANWAT? They know that 2000 acres where drilling is requested looks like the surface of the moon, literally, no tree within what, 700 miles?

Be prepared. Palin knows a lot more on GW and environmental subjects than all the smug big city urban atheist environmentalists.:D

Definitely be interesting to watch all this develop.

volatile

2nd September 2008, 07:13 AM

My post was an explanation of why I highlighted the word 'say'.

I can't restate my point without repeating myself. Sorry.

You can. You could explain why you highlighted "attribute" when you said "She is denying that she would attribute this to humanity".

That would really help me understand what it is you're getting at. It seems from the preceding sentence that this emphasis was intended to clarify what the difference was between "She is not denying attribution" and "She is denying that she would attribute this to humanity". I don't see a difference between the meaning of those two sentences. You do. So, what's that difference?

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 07:13 AM

My post was an explanation of why I highlighted the word 'say'.

I can't restate my point without repeating myself. Sorry.

Right... but:

She is talking about what she would state publically about those beliefs (i.e. that she would not state anything).

You're wrong, because what she would state publically is that GW is not man-made. It's not a "No Comment" in any sense of the word.

Lonewulf

2nd September 2008, 07:19 AM

do by application of their own logic to themselves look like.....

CREATIONISTS!Wow, when you use that little smiley thing, that somehow makes it all clear...

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 07:22 AM

applecorped

2nd September 2008, 07:23 AM

I don't hate her. I've never met her. In fact, I hadn't even heard of her until yesterday.

I do, however hate the offensive, backwards, ignorant things she stands for though, and vociferously.

That's fine. Careful though on your wording. You stated that you found her odious, not her ideas.

joobz

2nd September 2008, 07:31 AM

I thought it was more along the lines of JREF far lefters would like to freely discuss creationism, and by golly that does not make them creationists, but if A REPUBLICAN says it's a good thing to discuss different points of view (including creationism) that MAKES HER A CREATIONIST!

Now, it's only logical consistency I'm striving for. And thus, it bothers me that many here such as Dr. Adequate (not meaning to pick on him by any means, just too lazy to page back through this mess) do by application of their own logic to themselves look like.....

CREATIONISTS!:clap:

Perhaps read below and you'll understand that it isn't the label of her that's the problem. But rather, what her pandering implies about her policy preferences.

I've said this multiple times, but I'll mention it again.
Even if she isn't a creationist, her position is one of extreme ignorance.

Do we encourage teaching of all nonscience theories in science class? Of course not, especially when the nonscience theory in question is religious in nature.

The issue of creationism.vs.evolution was raised in multiple courts, multiple times under multiple guises. It failed each time because
1.) Too much evidence supports evolution
2.) Creationism/ID is teaching religion

Now the creationist mantra is "teach the controversy". I do not believe that this variation of the theme has made it to court or not yet, but I suspect it too will fail the sniff test.

I can completely see why some people would think Palin is a creationist, considering she is parroting the newest creationist talking point. Is she aware of that fact or does she do it intentionally?

If the former, then she merely shows herself ignorant. If the later, then she's a creationist.

But, let's consider the fact that this has made news and has been in courts multiple times.
Is she aware of what the rulings were?
If no, she shows herself as being woefully ignorant and speaking on a topic which she knows nothing of. Not a smart political move.

If yes, then why does she still support "present both" argument? Does she think the courts made an error?
on what grounds was the error?....

Really, the only good way to interpret her stance is that she is simply ignorant of the issue and put her foot in her mouth. She did this for the shear sake of pandering to a conservative christian base. But in so doing, she made it clear that she doesn't value science education as much as she values the conservative christian vote. As such, she is not a candidate I would endorse.

chipmunk stew

2nd September 2008, 09:29 AM

She is not denying attribution. She is denying that she would attribute.
:dl:

chipmunk stew

2nd September 2008, 09:39 AM

The notion that Palin was answering with such narrow and weasel-y precision, layering and nuance as ascribed by gtc in her interview with Newsmax, especially given her pattern of wearing her beliefs on her sleeve and giving very straight forward answers, is simply laughable.

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 10:35 AM

Sure, we'd like to discuss it. We don't want it discussed in science class, because it's not a scientific theory by any sense of the word.Sure, now go look for your (new) specific qualification of "science classroom" in Palin's words.

Oh gee-it's not there? I see.

So...You don't mind it discussed in school, and Palin doesn't mind it discussed in school. Where is the problem?

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 11:12 AM

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 11:16 AM

Sure, now go look for your (new) specific qualification of "science classroom" in Palin's words.

Oh gee-it's not there? I see.

So...You don't mind it discussed in school, and Palin doesn't mind it discussed in school. Where is the problem?

When people say that we should "teach the controversy" they're not talking about teaching it in english class.

Lonewulf

2nd September 2008, 02:06 PM

Okay, so Palin is okay with Creationism being taught in a Religion class or English class, and obviously doesn't want it in the science classroom.

I'm sure the creationist/ID voters would be happy with that. ;)

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 02:28 PM

When people say that we should "teach the controversy" they're not talking about teaching it in english class.
Thanks for the repeat yet again of the standard talking points, but Palin the next day corrected "teach" and said she meant "discuss".

The one talKing about "teach the controversy" is you...so...

Are you a creationist, then?:)

gdnp

2nd September 2008, 02:33 PM

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 02:49 PM

I have often said myself that I do not have the expertise or time to analyze claims and counterclaims about global warming. All she had to say was "I don't think we can tell yet how big a problem global warming is and how much of global warming is due to human activity" and I would give her a pass. She would be an AGW skeptic rather than a denialist.Which is reasonable. But in the world of an AGW True Believer, any who do not exactly agree with their own views is a Denier. All skeptics are thus Deniers.

Ergo, Palin is a Denier because she isn't a True Believer.

Oops....

Wait...

Didn't we Not Want radical fringethinking such as Creationists or True Believers in positions of power?

Hmmm...

joobz

2nd September 2008, 03:05 PM

Thanks for the repeat yet again of the standard talking points, but Palin the next day corrected "teach" and said she meant "discuss".

The one talKing about "teach the controversy" is you...so...

Are you a creationist, then?:)
Which is STILL an obvious pander to her religious base and clearly shows that in regards to science, she values the vote over the quality of the education.

BTW: what version of creationism do you suppose she thinks should be discussed in contrast to evolution?
There are dozens to go through. Should we discuss all of them in contrast to evolution???

Dr Adequate

2nd September 2008, 03:15 PM

Thanks for the repeat yet again of the standard talking points, but Palin the next day corrected "teach" and said she meant "discuss".

The one talKing about "teach the controversy" is you...so...

Are you a creationist, then?:) Let me help you out with that.

No, he isn't.

In particular, his use of the phrase:

When people say that we should "teach the controversy" they're not talking about teaching it in english class.

does not imply that he holds creationist views. Because it does not advocate them.

Do you understand?

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 03:31 PM

Let me help you out with that.

No, he isn't. In particular, his use of the phrase:
When people say that we should "teach the controversy" they're not talking about teaching it in english class.does not imply that he holds creationist views. Because it does not advocate them. Do you understand?

Yes. I understand derails.

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 03:55 PM

Yes. I understand derails.

Well no wonder you're so good at causing them!

Why should it be "discussed" in a science class if it's not a scientific theory?

chipmunk stew

2nd September 2008, 03:56 PM

Thanks for the repeat yet again of the standard talking points, but Palin the next day corrected "teach" and said she meant "discuss".

The one talKing about "teach the controversy" is you...so...

Are you a creationist, then?:)
When a politician makes such a correction, we call it "backpedaling". Backpedaling is only necessary when one lets one's actual position sneak through.

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 05:15 PM

Well no wonder you're so good at causing them!

Why should it be "discussed" in a science class if it's not a scientific theory?It's only you saying that the hypothetical Class would be a science class. Not Palin.

What, did the Daily Kos talking points not cover this?

Acleron

2nd September 2008, 05:16 PM

Which is reasonable. But in the world of an AGW True Believer, any who do not exactly agree with their own views is a Denier. All skeptics are thus Deniers.

Apart from the very relevant fact that proponents of AGW are convinced by the facts and do not just believe in AGW, just what is the difference between a Believer and a True Believer? And what is the significance of the capitals?

Sorry for the derail, everyone, but I just wanted to know.

UnrepentantSinner

2nd September 2008, 05:23 PM

Check out this gem:

One problem -- "under god" was added to the pledge in 1954.

She had her first Ma Ferguson moment. That's not good.

...They export gas, but have to import it for their cars....

Are you sure about this?

FaisonMars

2nd September 2008, 05:42 PM

left True Believer of AGW would be convinced she's a Denier. Reality, though, she's Alaskan. And it's the far left loons that passed crazy law after crazy law and regulation that impacted Alaska. They can't even log timber, but have to import it. They export gas, but have to import it for their cars. ANWAT? They know that 2000 acres where drilling is requested looks like the surface of the moon, literally, no tree within what, 700 miles?

The "2000 acres" myth is bogus:

http://www.bushwatch.org/drilling.htm

But the area isn't what matters, what matters is that it won't make a difference for oil or gas prices, and for several different reasons we have to move towards renewable energy sources.

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 06:01 PM

It's only you saying that the hypothetical Class would be a science class. Not Palin.

What, did the Daily Kos talking points not cover this?

If Palin meant that she wanted it taught-I'm sorry, discussed- in a religion class, then she should have said so. It's not unreasonable to assume that when someone says that they want to teach the controversy that they're talking about teaching it in a class remotely relevant to where the controversy is located. In this case, it would be a science classroom. Why would you teach it in a math class? In an art class? In an english lit. class?

leftysergeant

2nd September 2008, 06:41 PM

And it's the far left loons that passed crazy law after crazy law and regulation that impacted Alaska. They can't even log timber, but have to import it.

Last I heard, they were still logging the Denali.

They export gas, but have to import it for their cars.

Poor ecconomic planning oon somebody's part. Not the fault of environmentalists.

They know that 2000 acres where drilling is requested looks like the surface of the moon, literally, no tree within what, 700 miles?

And you point would be....?

mhaze

2nd September 2008, 07:07 PM

If Palin meant that she wanted it taught-I'm sorry, discussed- in a religion class, then she should have said so. It's not unreasonable to assume that when someone says that they want to teach the controversy that they're talking about teaching it in a class remotely relevant to where the controversy is located. In this case, it would be a science classroom. Why would you teach it in a math class? In an art class? In an english lit. class?Yet, you are still trying to morph her comment which neither used "controversy" nor, after her correction, "teach" , nor "science class" into something that contains all three in a nice little bottle. Why shouldn't this subject arise in history or government class, these notably absent from your examples?

PS: By all means let's keep religion out of the science classroom.

Environmentalism as Religion (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

joobz

2nd September 2008, 07:16 PM

It's only you saying that the hypothetical Class would be a science class. Not Palin.

What, did the Daily Kos talking points not cover this?
How often is evolutionary theory brought up in home economics?

BTW, I wouldn't critique someone on "talking points" when the entire reason that this was brought up is because Senator Palin used a classic creationist talking point.

Mark Felt

2nd September 2008, 07:42 PM

Yet, you are still trying to morph her comment which neither used "controversy"

"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. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Yep, nothing here that smacks of "Teach the controversy".

nor, after her correction, "teach"

So she was lying when she said that we should teach both, twice? "I am a proponent of teaching both." That's pretty damn straightforward. Hard to mess up. She was just confused? Ignorant, perhaps? Maybe the correction was just an attempt to weasel out of the ramifications of the statement as it stands?

nor "science class" into something that contains all three in a nice little bottle. Why shouldn't this subject arise in history or government class, these notably absent from your examples?

Because evolution is a scientific theory, and hence should be taught in a science class. I object to it being taught in a history course as much as I'd object to creationism being taught in an algebra course.

And if it came up in a government class or in a history class, it should be about the history of the controversy, or the governmental ramifications of the controversy, not the relative merits of either idea, which is, again, what people mean when they say to "teach the controversy".

PS: By all means let's keep religion out of the science classroom.

At least we agree on this.

Environmentalism as Religion (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentlismaseligion.html) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Yeah, that's all kinds of irrelevant.