DescentBB

Duper wrote:lol Kyo, Alaska is environmentalist central (with the northwest a close second )

As an environmentalist, I'm not pleased. Not only is she for more drilling, likely in the ANWR, but she pushed for more aerial wolf hunting (you know, chasing them with helicoptors until they get tired, then making an easy kill. How sporting!). With that kind of respect for wildlife, I'm not confident she'll do much good in other areas either.

Sedwick wrote:

Duper wrote:lol Kyo, Alaska is environmentalist central (with the northwest a close second )

As an environmentalist, I'm not pleased. Not only is she for more drilling, likely in the ANWR, but she pushed for more aerial wolf hunting (you know, chasing them with helicoptors until they get tired, then making an easy kill. How sporting!). With that kind of respect for wildlife, I'm not confident she'll do much good in other areas either.

I don't know about wolves but with wildlife in general if one species starts to grow to overpopulated numbers the state will kill them off to protect other wildlife and people so if it works from a helicopter so be it.

And drill for oil!! OMG!!! She must be insane!
It's so much better to let places like latin american and middle eastern countries drill for the oil we're going to use regardless of who drills for it because we all know those places have so much more strict controls on drilling and transporting the oil in an environmentally friendly way...and buying from them instead of ourselves makes good clean economic fun too!!

...

Sedwick wrote:

Duper wrote:lol Kyo, Alaska is environmentalist central (with the northwest a close second )

As an environmentalist, I'm not pleased. Not only is she for more drilling, likely in the ANWR, but she pushed for more aerial wolf hunting (you know, chasing them with helicoptors until they get tired, then making an easy kill. How sporting!). With that kind of respect for wildlife, I'm not confident she'll do much good in other areas either.

Sed, please remember that Alaska is 1/3 the size of the continental USA. !!!!! if we sacrifice our country for the sake of 100 wolves or whatever, that would totally irresponsible of us as a nation not to mention the debt we will accrue and pass on to our kids and grand-kids. The impact of one site will be well under 10 square miles. Get some perspective.

If you (sry, "you" in general, not YOU specifically) want to continue to pay money to countries that hate us. .. let me say that again...

HATE US !! then hey, knock yourself out. but personally, I don't like being in hock to China. ya know?
I'd say I'm sorry but I'm not. Being over 40, growing up in the Northwest through the 70's I've seen just how absolutely stupid environmentalist can be. (and you guys think Christian fundamentalism is bad. sheesh) They've done some good, but sacrificing livelihood for some dogs? um no. we're more important than that. I'm not talking about raping the land. I'm talking about punching half a dozen holes in the ground and "ruining" about 3 square miles of worthless permafrost! That's out of some 586,000 square miles. Perspective.

Sorry for the rant, but after listening to environmental craziness for 30 years and a lack of balance or a willingness to find balance gets my blood pressure up.

Anyone who thinks that drilling in Alaska and other places is a solution to the middle east oil problem is a complete idiot and should be shipped to the front lines in Iraq.

I'm not talking about isolationism. We're part of a global market. But like any solution that's brought up in public transportation, no one idea is THE solution. We need to have all our option open. Why cut off our nose to spite our face? As you well know, we buy nearly as much oil from Venezuela and Mexico as we do the middle east.

But all this is for another thread or rather was? anyways, I'm just thinking that if having to deal with global environmentalist organizations on a regular basis isn't one qualifying mark, I don't know what is.

Bet51987 wrote:And the fact that she's a creationist with an eye on education made it easy in my decision whether to vote or not.

Did you bother to actually read what she said?
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/ ... d_the_ala/

You say she "suddenly changed her mind"... it sounds to me more like she said something offhand, was later asked to clarify, and gave a more complete (and entirely sensible) answer.

Kyouryuu wrote:Leader of the basketball team, winner of a beauty pageant... not exactly getting your hands dirty working the streets of Chicago as a community organizer and leader.

Why did you compare her high school and college-age accomplishments (she was 20 in the pageant) to Obama's adult-life accomplishments?

How do her adult accomplishments -- mayor of a small town for 6 years, on the state Oil+Gas commission for a year (resigned due to others' corruption), and governor for 2 years -- compare to Obama's stint as a "community organizer" and his time voting "present" in the legislature (when he wasn't campaigning)? Obama set up some key programs in his time in Chicago, though a lot of the records are sealed so we can't really evaluate. And Palin made some major accomplishments as governor. You make a big deal out of how Obama "upset the pecking order of Chicago"; why no love for the lady who upset the pecking order of Alaska?

-----

Personally, I think she was a great pick. I think she'd do far better staring down Putin than many of the other choices (and I think we'll see that come out when she debates Biden.) She solidifies McCain's position among both social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. She reinforces his message about being a maverick, and completely shuts down the "another term of Bush" line of attack the Obama camp has used. And she's a very likable person. With McCain trailing, he needed to take a shot at a real reformer at VP instead of going down quietly with a guy like Romney; we'll see if it works out.

EDIT: an interesting quote about "staring down" Putin:

Shannon Love wrote:I find the choice of the phrase “staring down” very interesting. “Staring down” describes an unsubtle test of will. You don’t have to be smart, sophisticated and cunning to stare someone down. You just need emotional strength and determination. You can be dumb as a fence post and stare someone down as long as you don’t loss your nerve. If they thought her to be unintelligent or unsophisticated they would have used a phrase such as “can you imagine her outmaneuvering Putin?” By choosing to use the phrase “stare down”, Palin critics reveal that they believe her emotionally weak and easily dominated.

What is it about her being a governor, a mayor and a hunter that makes these assumedly-spontaneous critics think Palin possess no emotional strength? It’s doubly strange given that the Left never stereotypes Republicans as lacking resolve in foreign affairs. Indeed, they usually make the opposite criticism that Republicans hold their ground when they could relent and compromise. So why do so many leftists look at Palin and see someone who will crumble under pressure?

I think it can only be because she is a mother. Leftists associate mothers with doormats. They believe a woman who rejects the narcissistic, me, me, me vision of capital ”F” feminism must be a wimp and a chump.

There's a difference between 'competitive, decisive and strong' and 'cast iron b***h'. Why do you think she was nicknamed 'Barracuda' when she played basketball. Was she sportsmanlike and talented or overly aggressive?

As for military experience, the Republicans tout her leadership with the National Guard. OH COME ON! Every governor in the U.S. has dealt with their respective National Guard units, that doesn't mean they have military leadership experience in the world foreign theater! NOOOOOB! No foreign policy experience either. None, zippo!

Executive experience? Well, she's governed a mostly empty rural state with a population less the the city of Austin, Texas. Not much of an encompassing world view here either.

a Mostly Rural empty state that has approx the same population of Bidens home state of Delaware
and by the way just exactly what have Obama and Biden Governed?????

Zero,Zip,Nada,

they have not governed or been in command of one d@mn thing, not to mention they don't even show up for half the votes they are called upon to cast in the senate. WTH? a Governor does not have that Option. they must always be on call, plus she likes the Veto pen and has used it over 300 times so far while in office.

also using the \"she doesn't have any experience\" line is a losing attack by the DNC. your boy Obama has just as little experience as she does, even less in some ways, a Jr Senator is really not much more than an errand boy, they sit on insignificant committees and never chair anything. Does Obama have any bills that he's sponsored?????? that would be a big NO he has had no significant achievements while a United States Senator. not one single one.
not to mention that he has spent his 3 years as a first term Senator by campaigning for President, so you just keep right on going down that line it will backfire on you.

and if you want to use the Line well McCain's old what if he dies in office she just one step away from the Presidency.
keep in mind your trying to make President a person with no more experience

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:And the fact that she's a creationist with an eye on education made it easy in my decision whether to vote or not.

Did you bother to actually read what she said?

Yes, I bothered to actually read what she said.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:And the fact that she's a creationist with an eye on education made it easy in my decision whether to vote or not.

Did you bother to actually read what she said?

Yes, I bothered to actually read what she said.

Bee

You seem to have done a poor job of comprehending it.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:And the fact that she's a creationist with an eye on education made it easy in my decision whether to vote or not.

Did you bother to actually read what she said?

Yes, I bothered to actually read what she said.

Bee

You seem to have done a poor job of comprehending it.

That's understandable thinking on your part if you look at written words but fail to see the meaning hidden between them.

Bee

tunnelcat wrote:There's a difference between 'competitive, decisive and strong' and 'cast iron b***h'. Why do you think she was nicknamed 'Barracuda' when she played basketball. Was she sportsmanlike and talented or overly aggressive?...

I don't know, do you? Or did you just decide to make up "overly aggressive" as the reason for the nickname because that suits your prejudice or agenda?

On the other point:
How much foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have? How about Abraham Lincoln?

The most important characteristic to know about a candidate is their character because it will clue you in to the choices they will make. She has shown some impressive characteristics and made some fine choices in her life. It isn't hard for people to see that so when someone tries to belittle her achievements and qualifications it comes off as blatantly partisan and deceitful. Like Obama's team initially referring to her as the part time Mayor of a small town as if that is the biggest job she held! Pathetic! Like children scrambling to find an insult to hurl on the playground!

Well that’s pretty much what politics have become.

ya know, all this talk about \"change\" in the Demi convention from Hilary .. they had 8 years. what happened then? Nuffin. .. oh wait. They stopped an airplane on a taxi way to finish a hair cut. That was new.

If I recall, Bill changed forever the way we think about moistening a cigar.

Lothar wrote:Why did you compare her high school and college-age accomplishments (she was 20 in the pageant) to Obama's adult-life accomplishments?

I concede it was a bad comparison.

As I said, the more I read about her in the last 48 hours, the less it bothers me. She did take charge of a pretty nasty situation in Alaska and maybe most importantly, stood up to a powerful Senator. She passed taxes on the oil companies and invested in the Alaskan people. I know I'm kind of glossing over a lot here, but you can fill in the rest.

Wish she wasn't so adamant about pro-life, but whatever.

I believe the best evidence will come at the GOP convention next week (assuming it happens as planned) and we get to see her take the stage and talk. Something tells me she may even be the most effective speaker there.

You know, as far as ANWR goes, I know she differs from McCain on that issue. As Duper pointed out, everyone who argues against drilling in ANWR has to put it in perspective. We are talking about a extremely tiny piece of land. Environmentalists have absolutely overstated the situation.

That said, I generally support drilling in ANWR. But just as we ask for perspective with ANWR, it's also rational to ask for perspective in terms of how this fits into a more robust energy plan. Drilling in ANWR, or anywhere else in the proposed new areas, needs to be part of a broader energy plan that includes considerations for alternative energy sources. The bottom line is that we can't drill our way out of the current crisis. As Pickens pointed out, it's main purpose is to buy us time.

Course, personally, I think we're heading toward an electric future. I have a lot more faith in our country's ability to find new sources of electricity (including nuclear energy) than in finding more sources of oil. If we can get cars hooked up into the same "grid" as all of our other household appliances, we will have a solid common denominator to work from. You might as well leverage an infrastructure that already exists rather than having to wait for a new one to emerge. That's just my opinion.

woodchip wrote:If I recall, Bill changed forever the way we think about moistening a cigar.

Have an intern do it for you?

that being said...

Will Robinson wrote:The most important characteristic to know about a candidate is their character because it will clue you in to the choices they will make.

Well put. Unfortunately, this race has really skewed what good character is or "should be".

And K, good form!

Kyouryuu wrote:

Course, personally, I think we're heading toward an electric future. I have a lot more faith in our country's ability to find new sources of electricity (including nuclear energy) than in finding more sources of oil. If we can get cars hooked up into the same "grid" as all of our other household appliances, we will have a solid common denominator to work from. You might as well leverage an infrastructure that already exists rather than having to wait for a new one to emerge. That's just my opinion.

Right now I don't think there is enough grid to handle a large influx of electric cars, especially during real cold or real hot days. Who will authorize expanding the grid? Where will the money come from? Right now you have to look at who is thwarting alternate energy. The liberals have long protested against nuclear (which is why we have such a lack today) and look who adamantly opposed setting up wind generators off the coast of Mass.
If both parties are going to use ideologies for energy programs, we will still be arguing 10 years from now with nothing done.

woodchip wrote: Right now I don't think there is enough grid to handle a large influx of electric cars, especially during real cold or real hot days. Who will authorize expanding the grid? Where will the money come from?

The influx of electric cars is not going to happen overnight. Even with the current gas prices, you don't see enough hybrids on the market to overwhelm the grid. Unless there is some federal mandate that makes an electrical choice affordable for the masses, or forces Detroit to produce electric cars exclusively, the rate of adoption probably isn't going to dramatically change. There will be fuel-efficient ULEV cars as another option, don't forget. We've got time.

As far as where the money will come from, we found a way to pay for the Iraq War, didn't we? Yes, they took a loan out on the future. Do you think we're going to see a return on that investment?

What follows is just speculation, so consider it with a grain of salt. Ask Eisenhower. We need to tap into that same American spirit that gave us the modern day highway system. It's going to cost a lot of money, but we built that system for about $425 billion in today's dollars. That's less than the cost of the Iraq War. If you factor in the expense projections of wounded soldiers and their long-term care and benefits, you're not even a quarter of the way there. With the highway system, we've surely recouped that cost with increases in productivity. Not only that, but look at the many thousands of jobs it created. We could sure use some good jobs. The plan put the American people to work to collectively solve a problem.

Does the plan translate to our modern day problem? How much does it cost to build a nuclear power plant? Less than $10 billion. A wind farm off the coast of Delaware? About $1.6 billion. Put that in the perspective of the Iraq War and it's not a whole lot, is it?

Now, it's too late for Iraq. That ship has sailed. But let this be a lesson for any future wars or occupations politicians are proposing, such as Afghanistan, Georgia, Iran... billions if not trillions are wrapped up in there. How important is Afghanistan, really? In the broader picture of our country's future and prosperity, is it more important than the goal of energy independence?

I want to see Bin Laden's head on a pole just like anyone else, but I don't think the expense of going over there to find him justifies it when we could be spending that money to completely undermine our "friends" in the Middle East through energy independence.

It's something we will have to do anyway, Woodchip. Wouldn't you agree that our need for energy only grows? Necessity is the mother of all invention. Have some faith in the American people, we will find a way. What we need is a President who will plant the seeds and encourage real solutions, whoever that is, and a Congress and Senate who can come together to resolve this problem.

Assuming we picked up and left the middle east, what are the chances that the Taliban would regain control of Afghanistan, provide a home for those who hate us as they have in the past, have their schools teach that hate, and supply the training for a new and more elite group of west hating Jihadists.

What do you do then?

Bee

Yeah Bet, we know everything will fall apart once we leave and quit propping up what little stability there is in AfganIraq. There will be ethnic purges, there will be genocide, there will be a tremendous loss of human life (of course this will all happen even if we stay there till the bitter end). It is the unavoidable consequence of our military actions in the middle east and the world will blame us for it. And rightly so because it IS OUR FAULT.

However, keep this in mind: The reason the Middle east is always threatening us with cutting their supply of oil to and the reason the most they ever do is lower production is because in the long run they need us more than we need them. It would be absolutely devastating to the middle eastern nations if nobody had a reason to buy their oil. They have for the most part wasted their vast fortunes gained from mining oil, without continuing to sell their oil, they have no future and nobody knows it more than they do.

If I were Obama, I would seriously watch my back. When he said we should focus the American spirit on energy independence, it is the same thing as declaring war against the middle east and it would not surprise me in the least if our so called \"friends\" would attempt to assassinate any president seriously pushing for it. And I also applaud anyone willing to go through with eliminating the global oil markets, because whoever makes it happen is probably going to be held responsible in history for what will likely happen in the middle east as a result: countless millions could die in a \"great depression\" in the middle east the likes of which the world has never seen before.

The Taliban or any other group in the middle east would still hate us, but more or less the entire population of the middle east would have far more pressing issues to deal with than hatred of a nation halfway across the world. Like for instance: day to day survival would be a major problem. And terrorist cells and networks still need money to really function and recruit/train new members. In other words, the problem of terrorists in the middle east will largely resolve itself if we attack the root of the problem: Oil.

Interesting blog post on Palin, from a guy who lives in her neck of the woods: http://stonekettlestation.blogspot.com/ ... -ohio.html

Oil is nothing more than a traded commodity, I seriously doubt that it is the root of all evil in the middle east. What about all the other things everyone buys and sells around the world, are they also responsible for all the hatred and bloodshed?

Israel and our support for them, is the main problem, and then there are the others like religion and culture, and I wouldn’t put oil anywhere near the top.

Lothar wrote:Interesting blog post on Palin, from a guy who lives in her neck of the woods: http://stonekettlestation.blogspot.com/ ... -ohio.html

Yes, very interesting. Thanks for that.

Spidey wrote:Oil is nothing more than a traded commodity, I seriously doubt that it is the root of all evil in the middle east. What about all the other things everyone buys and sells around the world, are they also responsible for all the hatred and bloodshed?

Israel and our support for them, is the main problem, and then there are the others like religion and culture, and I wouldn’t put oil anywhere near the top.

Oil and the Palestinian conflict are the root cause. Read up on the fall of Ottoman Empire. It's a good read but seriously long with many view points.

The short version is that the powers to be at the time made deals with the Palestinians to take out the Ottoman Empire for there resources and the powers to be gave them the shaft. The U.S. was one of the powers, which is why the Middle East wants us to be more pro-active in resolving the issue.

I agree with the Palestine issue…IE: Israel. But oil? I can’t see any reason why trade would be a problem. Go ask 100 people in the Middle East why they hate America, and see how many say “they buy our oil, so I hate them” Give me a break. We buy most of our oil elsewhere do they all hate us because of it? We buy oil and sugar from South America, is that the reason the commies down there hate us? I somehow doubt it.

Trade is mostly a plus. (yes, I understand there is more to oil than just the trade issue)

Don’t try to use a trade product as a scapegoat for the real problems.

And, I would bet if you asked a member of radical Islam about Turkey and the Ottoman Empire most of them wouldn’t even know what you were talking about.

EDIT:

So I guess I better say this now, cause I will only have to explain it later…I do understand how oil can be part of the problem in the Middle East, because it makes the region of strategic importance…but that does not imply that oil is the problem.

Also wanted to make another point on the veep…

Experience is not that important, that’s what the cabinet is for, what you want in a president is…leadership skills & good character.

Nuff said…

Lets put it this way. I'd rather vote for a man with little experience but the willingness to learn and has the wisdom to choose a veep candidate with foreign policy experience to augment his deficit, than vote for an aging, PTSD affected and possibly senile older man who's probably one cancer away from death with no imagination (he's co-opted Obama's 'Change' theme and is now calling himself the 'Reformer', yeah sure). He's chosen a totally unknown woman governor with no experience in the national arena (she only just got a passport in 2007 and has never visited Iraq either, something the Republicans constantly rubbed in Obama's face). She believes that Creationism should be taught in our public schools, would work to take away a woman's right to choose, was FOR the bridge to nowhere before she was AGAINST it (contrary to the McCain spin), would defile the pristine and fragile Arctic with more oil exploration (sounds like Cheney's energy policy to me) and would essentially abandon her duties to her 5 children (the youngest one is autistic) to the care of others while she runs for VP.

She claims she is a feminist, but although I firmly believe that a woman should be able to do what ever she wants in life without any barriers or restrictions, she should choose EITHER motherhood OR a career and put her best effort in it, but not BOTH, unless it's out of necessity (not in her case). She could have even waited until her children were grown up. It's not good for children to have a mother who is absent or has her priorities elsewhere. The father is not a good full time substitute, especially if he's working. . It's just not feasible or good for the family.

Tunnelcat, your credibility dropped a notch with your last post:

tunnelcat wrote:She believes that Creationism should be taught in our public schools

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/ ... d_the_ala/

"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.""

That's not a dogmatic approach; that's a realistic approach. Teachers have to expect that students will want to argue, and they have to recognize that some level of debate is healthy. Telling kids "STFU, you can't talk about that" is not a healthy way to approach the controversy. The best way kids are going to learn/understand evolution is by arguing about it and letting the creationists get smacked down by their own peers.

would essentially abandon her duties to her 5 children (the youngest one is autistic)

The youngest has Downs Syndrome, not autism.

Also, the oldest of her children is grown (due to be deployed to Iraq soon.) At best, she's leaving 4, not 5, of her children in others' care -- and I think your post is insulting to the many stay-at-home dads out there. Who are you to say that her husband isn't capable?

Creationism is not an \"alternative view\" and it's not science, it is a theological view and should be left to church teachings, NOT put out in public school in science class, even as an alternative view. She advocates and believes in this for the general public education curriculum. (Edit: The fact she changed her stance when she was questioned after the interview is telling.) Evolution is just a theory too, but is part of hard science, not religion. Would you propose that the Scientology view of an 'Alien Being' origin be taught in public school as well. Children can form their own opinions based on what they are taught in their family's church and learn in public school.

My bad, you're right, her youngest child has Downs Syndrome and the oldest is headed into the military, I heard it wrong. But I still believe that ONE of the parents should be a full time parent, whether it be the mother or father. Both of the Palins are working full time as I recall (I'm assuming), so neither of them is devoting full time to their youngest four children, especially the one with the most needs, the youngest one. I firmly believe that if you are a woman and you want to raise a family, do it, but you should devote your full effort to it, not divide your time between a career and a family. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that a woman can't have a career, I just think that the idea of a 'superwoman' is a fallacy and that children will suffer the consequences in the long term.

But I still believe that ONE of the parents should be a full time parent, whether it be the mother or father.

I heard on the radio on the way home tonight that her husband has agreed to quit his job if she is elected. Though, acording to the host, he didn't while she was governor. So the move seems a bit like 'checking the boxes' to me.

tunnelcat wrote:She advocates and believes in this for the general public education curriculum. (Edit: The fact she changed her stance when she was questioned after the interview is telling.)

Did she "change her stance" or did she clarify, in several words, what was probably misunderstood in a few?

I think she gave the most realistic and reasonable answer I've ever heard -- she wouldn't make creationism a part of curriculum (nor scientology nor alien beings), but the topic WILL come up when you teach evolution, and it's healthy to let the kids debate it.

When some kid says "I don't believe this" and you tell him to shut up and listen, you've lost him; he'll just be a silent creationist. When you let him have a voice, let him put forth his opinion and whatever "evidence" he has, and let his classmates evaluate it and argue about it and point out his mistakes, you put him on a path to learn. I should know; it's the path I traveled.

I still believe that ONE of the parents should be a full time parent... Both of the Palins are working full time as I recall....

Do you recall this with more certainty than you recalled her oldest son's age or her youngest son's condition?

Her husband apparently has a "non-managerial" position in BP, owns a fishing business (Alaska fishing is HIGHLY seasonal, and this isn't the season), and races snowmobiles in long-distance races (definitely optional.) It doesn't seem like a huge stretch to assume he'd take some time off from BP and those other positions.

I wonder if there's a Godwin's Law equivalent for creation-evolution debates.

There have been many politicians who have had to go through the ordeal of raising kids while running a country. I wouldn't worry about it.

Kyouryuu wrote:I wonder if there's a Godwin's Law equivalent for creation-evolution debates. :P

I suspect it's more the "special Olympics law"...

This did not impress me.
http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html

So much for \"standing up to big oil\".

(Although it may have a lot to do with being another climate change denialist as well. Either way she seems to have views that pretty conveniently line up with \"drill, drill, drill\".)

Sirius wrote:This did not impress me.
http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html

So much for "standing up to big oil".

(Although it may have a lot to do with being another climate change denialist as well. Either way she seems to have views that pretty conveniently line up with "drill, drill, drill".)

Big Oil isn't the only special interest out there, I think maybe she's standing up against a different but equally manipulative, deceitful and self serving entity with that move.....

tunnelcat wrote:Creationism is not an "alternative view" and it's not science, it is a theological view and should be left to church teachings, NOT put out in public school in science class, even as an alternative view. She advocates and believes in this for the general public education curriculum. (Edit: The fact she changed her stance when she was questioned after the interview is telling.)

A big X2...

Bee

A big problem with censoring creationism in the schools in the context of discussing the beginning of life on the planet is the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of this country describe themselves as believing in God!

So, like Lothar explained, if you want to have a discussion and not just demand the listeners abandon their beliefs, then it would be wise to recognize the perspective held by most of the students in the room when you hold the discussion!

What is the harm done if a science teacher allows a student to bring up the scenario that life was created by God and evolution is a part of that creation?
Are you afraid that students question will convert a non-believer? Are you afraid the evolution lesson will not be able to stand up to the mere mention of creationism?

When you censor a widely held belief from the discussion, a belief held by the student and his or her parents, their friends and neighbors... a belief held and taught for generations... the evolution lesson becomes authoritarian programming by an outside influence instead of a discussion.

I'll restructure tunnelcat's phrase, saying that creationism is an alternative view, but agreeing that it is not science. Science, by its nature deals with material (natural) phenomena, whereas religion also incorporates supernatural phenomena. Science has no reliable way to address phenomena outside of nature, so they simply should not be part of the science curriculum.

The difficulties come when nonbelievers conflate science's methodological naturalism (we can only observe nature, so that's all we can talk about) with philosopical naturalism (material nature that we observe is all that there is).
see discussion.
The two are not necessarily equivalent, and that can indeed be the source of lively discussion, IMHO, even in a public school setting, just not in the science classroom. If it comes up in science class, then the teacher can simply say that such topics (supernatural phenomena) are not within the realm of ordinary observable data. Then they should also point out that scientists don't \"believe\" in evolution, they accept evolution as the most comprehensive theory that encompasses the known data and observations. Any theory is subject to modification, or even rejection, in the face of new data or observations.

So it's not really a debate issue - it's the job of the science teacher to put out the data and observations with the best theory to stitch it all together, then let students look at this and then look at new data to see how it lines up with the old theory. If students want to debate the philosophical implications of this, then do it in a philosophy class.

Keep in mind also that when opponents say \"creationism\" they are almost entirely referring to Young-Earth creationism of the kind espoused by Henry Morris, Ken Ham, AiG, et. al. There are plenty of religious folks (also \"creationists\" in the most general sense in that they believe in God and a supernaturalism outside of what we commonly observe) that also reject the faulty attempts of the YECers to shoehorn all of nature into their literalist reading of Christian scripture.

Ryujin wrote:There have been many politicians who have had to go through the ordeal of raising kids while running a country. I wouldn't worry about it.

But not many of them have had 17 year old daughters who are soon-to-be mothers. I hope she really wants to be married....and him too.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ters-baby/

If I were in charge of the dems, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot poll. But they also can't let this "release it as soon as the eye hits" tactic work.