Sarah Palin

[Dedman]

It will be interesting to see what the Dems do with this:

ST. PAUL, Minn. — John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin said Monday that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant, an announcement campaign aides said was aimed at rebutting Internet rumors that Palin's youngest son, born in April, was actually her daughter's.

A statement released by the campaign said that Bristol Palin will keep her baby and marry the child's father. Bristol Palin's baby is due in late December.

\"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents,\" Sarah and Todd Palin said in the brief statement.

The disclosure of the pregnancy came on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, scaled back because of Hurricane Gustav, and three days after McCain named Palin as his running mate. Other news was likely to overshadow the disclosure.

\"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family,\" they added. The father was identified in the statement as Levi, but the campaign said it was not disclosing his last name or age.

Sarah Palin's fifth child, a son named Trig, was born in April with Down syndrome. Internet bloggers have been suggesting that the child was actually born to Bristol Palin but that her mother, the 44-year-old Alaska governor, claimed to be the mother.

Palin spokesman Bill McAllister emphatically denied those rumors, and McCain adviser Mark Salter said the campaign announced the daughter's pregnancy to rebut them.

\"Senator McCain's view is this is a private family matter. As parents, (the Palins) love their daughter unconditionally and are going to support their daughter,\" said McCain spokesman Steve Schmidt.

\"Life happens,\" he said.

\"An American family,\" added Salter.

The advisers said Palin told them about the pregnancy during lengthy discussions about her background. At several points during the discussions, McCain's team warned Palin that the scrutiny into her private life would be intense and that there was nothing she could do to prepare for it.

Prominent religious conservatives, many of whom have been lukewarm toward McCain's candidacy, predicted that Palin's daughter's pregnancy would not diminish conservative Christian enthusiasm over the vice presidential hopeful.

\"I think it's a very private matter,\" said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. \"It's a matter that should stay in the family and they have to work through it together. My prayers go out to them.\"

Added Combs: \"We're excited about the governor and think she's going to do well.\"

Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: \"We're all sinners.\"

\"We all make mistakes. Certainly, the ideal is not to get pregnant out of wedlock. But she made the right decision after her mistake,\" he said.

Staver also criticized anyone who would seek to make it a negative campaign issue: \"It's absolutely shameful to put her child in the spotlight. She's not running for office. When someone can't face issues, they try to tear down a family.\"

____

Associated Press Writers Eric Gorski in St. Paul and Steve Quinn in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report.

[Bet51987]

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?

Nope.... Because teaching alternatives in science class makes the implication that evolution is not as accepted in the scientific community as much as it is. That theorys do not require testability but just speculation and belief in the supernatural which will permit evolution to be on par with creationism, intelligent design, and scientology.

They are not, and like it was said, creationism belongs in philosophy class or as an after school elective.

My personal belief is that creationism should be taught in church. Those who are interested in it should already be attending.

Bettina

[Nightshade]

Creationism = Religious dogma

[Sergeant Thorne]

You know, anytime you're absolutely unwilling to be wrong you can get off in left field. Many creationists have, from what I've seen. Answers In Genesis is profound in that the founder has made solid arguments against certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and I think they're getting a bad rap around here. However, my exposure to AIG has only been to the founder, Ken Ham, so I don't know what the rest of them are up to.

A lot of Creationism may be dogmatic, but evolutionism is not synonymous with science, because it does not have all of the answers either. The theory of evolution, and whatever theory of origins you take along with that, is a theory that is having great difficulty keeping up with science . In fact it's not keeping up, from where I'm standing. There are many scientific discoveries/facts that I've heard that shoot holes in the theory of evolution, and yet the theory still appears to be alive and well. To what degree is it being kept alive by science (fact), and to what degree are you folks being dogmatic?

[Kyouryuu]

Leaf insects are weird.

I'm sure evolution can produce a reason for them, but mimicry has always been something that fascinates me.

Wait, how did we get here from Sarah Palin?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yes, as you can plainly see, leaves are evolving into insects.

[Krom]

In the end scientists will generally take an incomplete theory that still makes some logical sense given their current understanding of nature over what basically amounts to magic.

[Sergeant Thorne]

bull**** This theory came from a time when the cell was assumed to be very simple. In our day, with new discoveries showing a cell to be highly complex, even \"irreducibly\" complex, you can't chalk the theory's survival up to plausibility, except in ignorance.

Do people question the basic assumption of the theory of evolution, or do they just look for a way to fit everything around them within a naturalistic system? Creationism is only on par with magic if you refuse (religiously) to question that basic assumption.

[Will Robinson]

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?

Nope.... Because teaching alternatives in science class makes the implication that evolution is not as accepted in the scientific community as much as it is. That theorys do not require testability but just speculation and belief in the supernatural which will permit evolution to be on par with creationism, intelligent design, and scientology.....

No, you have created a problem that Palin never asked for and then held her responsible for it...red herring or strawman...whatever.
Read my question again:
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?

Allowing the question to be introduced does not put it on a par with evolution unless the teacher gives it that weight, it all depends on how you approach it.
However, to dismiss the question without examining it, just flat out refusing to entertain the topic as something unspeakable, will do nothing to give the teachers belief in scientific theory any more credence than the child's pastor/priest lessons on creationism... less in fact since the chyurch isn't afraid to address questions on evolution asked in Sunday School by children!
Making it taboo and not letting the teacher of evolution address his doubters simply pits both theories against each other and leaves the student to find the resolution to the conflict somewhere outside the school...which does exactly what you are claiming you want to avoid, it makes the two theories equal!!

[Spidey]

You know the reason “the theory of evolution” is called that? Because that is exactly what it is…a theory, it’s never been proven, it’s never been tested & it’s never been reproduced. Most of the scientific community simply accepts it as fact. And once you start to take things forward, to where science begins to fail at giving the answers, it starts to sound like religion.

Examples:

Big bang theory…In the beginning…
Dark matter, and energy…you can’t see it or prove it exists but we know it’s there. (sound familiar)
Black holes…
String theory…
Quantum mechanics…
Etc…

I was going to start a thread on this subject, but this is my busy season, and my head is kinda thick right now, so I will just leave it the condensed version.

PS, I lean toward the theory myself, but I don’t close the door to other possibilities, or that evolution is not the work of a god.

[Cuda68]

What trips me up is where did GOD come from. Does not everything have a beginning or start.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The idea that macro-evolution could be the work of God is just a compromise perpetrated by individuals who are awed or intimidated by naturalistic \"science\". It doesn't agree with scripture, and the idea of macro-evolution is no less ridiculous for its association with a creator.

That's always been a difficult subject for me to get my head around too, Cuda, but it ought to be. Throughout our lives, everything we know has a beginning and an end. But the Bible is clear that God had no beginning, and actually dwells outside of time itself. Mathematically the idea of an infinite creator is very satisfactory, and infinity with a beginning is nonsense.

[Spidey]

I’m sure a lot of things seem ridiculous to someone that has everything spelled out for them, and has no room for questioning.

O..nice edit...

[Bet51987]

Spidey, even though science has detected black holes, has evidence for the big bang, and plausible explanations for many things, it makes no difference in any form of discussion. Creationists who have no evidence will claim that they don't need to explain the \"how\", because they know the \"who\" and the \"who\" trumps \"how\" and I have never seen any evidence for the \"who\".

Bee

[Sergeant Thorne]

That's a poor assumption on your part. I've asked my share of questions throughout my life.

My arguments are not so easily dismissed, Bettina.

[Dedman]

Oh yeah, I forgot. This is the religion forum. Never mind.

[Tunnelcat]

dissent, you restructured by thoughts very well and gave an excellent argument.

I put forth a compromise that 'Creationism' or other supernatural being ideas out there would be better taught in a theology class that could be added to most public school curriculum's, than in a science class, if people really wanted an 'alternative view' to our origins than evolution. Then the ideas of the numerous world religions could be honestly and openly discussed and debated amongst students, allowing them to form their own opinions.

Despite it's many flaws, evolution as a scientific theory does have some short term examples. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good example of rapid adaptation to a changing environment in order to survive. As to man, it's still open to debate and study.

To get back on topic, the release today of the news of Sarah Palin's pregnant 17 year old daughter just adds to my argument that a full time working woman doesn't have the time to devote her full attention to her family. And the topic of sex IS best left to the mother, not the father, when it concerns a daughter. Maybe she thought that she had thoroughly discussed the 'abstinence only' sex ed she thinks is the only sex ed necessary in public schools and that this was sufficient to keep things from happening. Well, that doesn't look like it worked very well, does it.

If Palin is deluded enough to think that 'abstinence only' is sufficient to stop teens from dabbling in sex, she needs to wake up and smell the hormones. Prudery and wishful thinking is not going to prevent babies or STI's in teens. Knowledge and education is much more effective, not Victorian thinking. It's fine to teach our children that sex should wait until marriage, but for crying out loud, give our children the knowledge to protect themselves in the event that the hormones do take over, and they WILL in some cases.

Opps, now we have a troopergate scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Pub ... _dismissal

Now I will agree that her brother-in-law is an absolute scumbag who deserves the worst punishment possible, but if she used her position to pressure a commissioner to try and get this guy fired, tsk, tsk. A clear misuse of her powers of office. And she just hired a lawyer today to defend herself. What about her judgment if and when she's VP? Was she even vetted by McCain's camp at all?

[Lothar]

I put forth a compromise that 'Creationism' or other supernatural being ideas out there would be better taught in a theology class...

This, and many of the other arguments, miss the point.

TB is right to say that creationism = religious dogma. It's also a religious dogma that's held by a large percentage of people in this nation, and that a lot of kids are going to want to bring up when evolution comes up in science class. If they're told to shut up because it's "not science", then as we all know from experience, they're going to feel like their challenge was ignored and they won. It's worse than Will Robinson says; they won't merely feel the theories are equal, but that their theory is so superior that the teacher was afraid of it!

The best way to deal with the issue is what my 9th grade teacher did: let the creationist kids have their say, let them give their weak defense of creationism, and let them see how poorly their ideas stand up to scrutiny. Don't ignore creationism because it's "not science"; instead, let your students experience science at its finest by tearing into the problems with creationism, and by using evidence to discard that theory.

the release today of the news of Sarah Palin's pregnant 17 year old daughter just adds to my argument that a full time working woman doesn't have the time to devote her full attention to her family.

Oh please... you're grasping for straws.

Do you honestly think this girl got pregnant because her mom was working? Do you honestly think she got pregnant because she didn't have adequate sex ed? I think it's more likely she knew what she was doing and did it anyway, not because her mom was away, but because she fell for some guy. It happens.

Now, I disagree with "abstinence only" sex ed... but I think you're way, way out there with where you place the blame here.

now we have a troopergate scandal.

.... if she used her position to pressure a commissioner to try and get this guy fired....

.... Was she even vetted by McCain's camp at all?

The "scandal" has been known about for a long time. It's a big "if" to say she tried to pressure a commissioner to get the guy fired; it's also completely plausible that the commissioner is just making a desperate attempt to keep his job. It's a he said / she said situation (here's what she said, btw, with some funny commentary on the VP slot), with lots of hearsay and no concrete evidence this far. So why don't we all wait and see what happens, instead of being quick to pass judgment based on shaky evidence?

[Sergeant Thorne]

So why don't we all wait and see what happens, instead of being quick to pass judgment based on shaky evidence?

Hear hear.

Found some interesting videos relating to Sarah Palin's former membership in the group known as the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP). Interesting.

AIP Convention Pt. 1
AIP Convention Pt. 2
Governor Palin Addresses AIP Convention

An interesting commentary on her history. I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Another interesting clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5BaBljYfVE&NR=1

[Jeff250]

You know the reason “the theory of evolution” is called that? Because that is exactly what it is...a theory, it’s never been proven, it’s never been tested & it’s never been reproduced

Science is not in the business of proving anything to be correct. The scientific method doesn't give us a way to prove things correct. It is only a tool to prove things wrong or to fail to prove things wrong. (And even then, it is not so much proving something wrong as showing it inconsistent with a currently accepted framework, since you can always just deny the underlying assumptions...)

So the "theory of evolution" being the "theory" of evolution doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know about it not being proven. In fact, because we have no method in science to prove things correct, everything in science is a theory. Scientists learned to stop calling things laws a long time ago. Contrary to what you say, we cannot learn anything about how much evidence there is for the "theory of evolution" by virtue of it being a "theory."

it’s never been tested

I'm not sure where this comes from. Evolution can be tested the same way theories of astronomy can be tested. It's true that we cannot rearrange the stars in space, which is a limitation. But nature provides her own experiments. If we observe a star moving behind something we think might be a black hole, we might hypothesize that effect X will happen. And the test is to just see if it will. Moreover, we can use different kinds of measurement as tests. We can say that if this is a black hole, then we should expect it look like Y under a radio telescope. Etc.

Biological evolution is the same way. Although it's largely said and done, we might see an animal with very long legs in fossil layer A and a similar animal with very short legs in fossil layer C. To test evolution, we can hypothesize that there will be an animal with medium-sized legs in fossil layer B. If evolution suggests that something in a certain fossil layer should be Z years old, we can perform different dating methods on it to see if they are. Etc.

it’s never been reproduced

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Most of the scientific community simply accepts it as fact.

At some point, if a theory generally fails to be disproven long enough, we accept it as true. Sometimes we can't have solved every problem in the theory before we do this, but if the problems seem like something that we will have figured out eventually, we can overlook the issues in the short run. This is only so that we can use the theory as a foundation to build other theories on and make further developments.

And this is important. Using evolution doesn't just give us a framework in which we can tackle problems like why men have nipples. It is much more crucial to human welfare. For example, it gives us a framework to understand and, hopefully, some day, cure diseases like Ebola, AIDS, and Tuberculosis. I sincerely hope that the scientists researching cures for these infectious diseases take evolution as fact!

[Sirius]

I'd be quite happy to discuss that whole topic actually. Legitimate critiques of evolution theory are great, but they're few and far between. Most of them are retreads of tired old points and fallacies.

(Yes, I am still Christian. And I'm not an outright theistic evolutionist, even though I do consider the idea possible. Funny how that works...)

[Will Robinson]

Tunnelcat you are obviously not interested in the truth because you keep taking bits of stories and characterizing them to fit your anti-Palin position so you go ahead and run with that.
It's interesting that in a thread that branches off from politics to include religion you found a way to demonstrate there are at least two kinds of blind faith.

[snoopy]

Here's my primary Palin-related thought: I hope her daughter doesn't marry mr happy pants out of family/political/etc. pressure. Really, at 17 how do you know if he's gonna be a good man for you? At 17 I didn't know who I was.

So, in a sense, I think it's a bad move for them to have announced that she planned on marrying the father. If they didn't announce, then there would be less outside pressure to go through with marrying him, if she decided she didn't want to. Now, if she backs out she'll get accused of just saying that she was going to to help her mother's PR, and if she goes ahead with it but regrets it she's stuck with either a sucky life or bad PR.

I suppose it moot if she really does want to marry the dude. I just feel for the girl being stuck in the middle of all of this. It's bad enough that she's 17 and pregnant.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It is best that the father is the father, though. I think it's the commendable part of an unfortunate business. I think people have gotten some funny ideas about marriage in our present society, and have imposed some high, superfluous requirements for happiness that don't need to be there (\"soul-mate\", etc.). I believe that it's selfishness that is the greatest root cause of failure in marriages today. They'll probably do just fine. At that age I'm sure some counseling by a competent party wouldn't be lost on them.

I don't even know them, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Marrying someone when you've already conceived a child together is a commendable thing, not a mistake. The real mistake was getting pregnant outside of wedlock in the first place. I get sick of hearing people getting all worked up about \"if she should really marry him\". Unless he's an out-and-out ***hole, it can work. It's the best thing that could happen, for them and for the child.

On a side note, that family being what it is, my guess is that not getting married would be unacceptable even without the political ramifications. Just an educated guess based on some values that I believe we share.

[Tunnelcat]

Tunnelcat you are obviously not interested in the truth because you keep taking bits of stories and characterizing them to fit your anti-Palin position so you go ahead and run with that.
It's interesting that in a thread that branches off from politics to include religion you found a way to demonstrate there are at least two kinds of blind faith.

How's that and what truths? The problem with politics in the U.S. is that religion can't seem to stay out of it. I'm all for people having their religion and faith, but when a political candidate uses his or her religious beliefs to set doctrine or law for the public in a pluralistic society, that's where I think the line has been crossed.

You're right that I don't like Sarah Palin. She has interjected her religion into her politics. She would like to see 'Creationism' as part of a public school science "discussion" (read the previous Anchorage paper article section in the previous scienceblog link carefully) and is a fervent supporter of 'abstinence only' sex education, an abysmal failure of the last eight years. Her own daughter can't even keep an abstinence pledge.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20 ... -50247.pdf

I question her judgment on these matters, especially if the alleged misuse of her powers of office in the Public Commissioner firing debacle comes out as true.

I stand by my opinion that if a woman wants to start a family, she, or the father, should put their FULL effort into it, not divide their time between the children and a career. How is she going to care for her children now, a pregnant daughter and a Downs Syndrome baby, when she's out for several months campaigning for McCain? Delegate it to others, the father who is still working? If she manages to win the Vice Presidency, she'll be constantly busy with the work of office and state. Just this morning on Good Morning America, several of the women hosts questioned whether Palin should be running for VP with the care that she should be devoting to her children and family.

Now it's been reported that the young father of the daughter's baby DOESN'T WANT KIDS! Will he chicken out and bolt from what looks like a now required marriage, a marriage that will keep Palin from looking like a hypocrite? I hate to repeat this but there are nasty rumors all over the internet that the Downs baby is not Sarah Palin's, but really the already born offspring of the daughter. Sarah Palin never showed as pregnant to her co-workers and the daughter missed 5 to 8 weeks of school last year. The new conspiracy theory (this is not mine) is that the daughter will magically have a miscarriage before the election and solve the problem. But it won't be a real miscarriage since the baby may already be born, no abortion needed to tie up loose ends.

[Will Robinson]

Tunnelcat you are obviously not interested in the truth because you keep taking bits of stories and characterizing them to fit your anti-Palin position so you go ahead and run with that.
It's interesting that in a thread that branches off from politics to include religion you found a way to demonstrate there are at least two kinds of blind faith.

How's that and what truths?

[snip] ....blah, blah, blah....[/ snip]

I hate to repeat this but there are nasty rumors all over the internet that the Downs baby is not Sarah Palin's, but really the already born offspring of the daughter. Sarah Palin never showed as pregnant to her co-workers and the daughter missed 5 to 8 weeks of school last year. The new conspiracy theory (this is not mine) is that the daughter will magically have a miscarriage before the election and solve the problem. But it won't be a real miscarriage since the baby may already be born, no abortion needed to tie up loose ends.

Your Honor, I rest my case!

[TechPro]

Tunnelcat you are obviously not interested in the truth because you keep taking bits of stories and characterizing them to fit your anti-Palin position so you go ahead and run with that.
It's interesting that in a thread that branches off from politics to include religion you found a way to demonstrate there are at least two kinds of blind faith.

How's that and what truths?

[snip] ....blah, blah, blah....[/ snip]

I hate to repeat this but there are nasty rumors all over the internet that the Downs baby is not Sarah Palin's, but really the already born offspring of the daughter. Sarah Palin never showed as pregnant to her co-workers and the daughter missed 5 to 8 weeks of school last year. The new conspiracy theory (this is not mine) is that the daughter will magically have a miscarriage before the election and solve the problem. But it won't be a real miscarriage since the baby may already be born, no abortion needed to tie up loose ends.

Your Honor, I rest my case!

Agreed.

Tunnelcat,
Instead of listening to unsubstantiated rumors, try a little math (you know, the 2 plus 2 equals 4 kind of thing).

Sarah Palin's son named Trig is about 4 months old. Sarah Palin's Daughter that is pregnant is 5 months pregnant. If Trig was really the Daughter's child, the Daughter would have to have gotten pregnant (for this pregnancy) one month before Trig was born. NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.

[Gooberman]

Who names a special needs baby 'Trig'?

Sorry, but that was a pretty big elephant in the room for me.

[Lothar]

Who names a special needs baby 'Trig'?

The same person who names her oldest son "Track" and her daughters "Bristol", "Willow", and "Piper". Her husband is an Eskimo... maybe that has something to do with it?

EDIT: story

[Gooberman]

hmm good point. Maybe it has another meaning for him. I was assuming sines/cosines.

EDIT: From Lothar's link:

Her youngest is 4-month-old Trig Paxson, whose first name is Norse for \"true\" or \"strength\" and whose middle name comes from one of his mother's favorite spots in Alaska.

Ok, elephant defeated.

[Spidey]

Actually Jeff, I happen to know that the strict definition of science in “the study of” I was merely responding to Bett’s statement that creationism theory need not be tested. And pointing out that evolution is just a theory like creationism. (evolution has never been tested, only extrapolated)

Anyway it’s funny how you put that a theory can be considered to be fact if it’s not disproved…kinda like god, huh?

[Bet51987]

For example, it gives us a framework to understand and, hopefully, some day, cure diseases like Ebola, AIDS, and Tuberculosis. I sincerely hope that the scientists researching cures for these infectious diseases take evolution as fact!

A big X2... We can't wait for the who.

Bee

[Jeff250]

Actually Jeff, I happen to know that the strict definition of science in “the study of” I was merely responding to Bett’s statement that creationism theory need not be tested. And pointing out that evolution is just a theory like creationism.

Not all theories are the same. Some are scientific, and others are not. Some are good scientific theories, and others are bad scientific theories.

Young-earth creationism is scientific, but it's a bad scientific theory. It is easily testable. If the earth is only 10,000 years old, we should expect to find a 10,000 year old earth. We don't. So young-earth creationism fails the test.

Something like theistic evolution, i.e. evolution happened, but it was God's plan, isn't scientific. It may be a theory, but not a scientific one (perhaps a theological one).

This is not to say that I agree with Bet in that creationism shouldn't be discussed when brought up in class. Lothar is right in that when people believe bad theories then the best way to correct them is to confront them. But I don't disagree with Bet because everything is just a theory in the end or something like that.

(evolution has never been tested, only extrapolated)

I already explained all sorts of ways that evolution is tested in my earlier post. Reread it and respond to my post directly if you think that my explanation is unsatisfactory in some way.

Anyway it’s funny how you put that a theory can be considered to be fact if it’s not disproved…kinda like god, huh?

You've got it half right--it's true that the theory needs to fail to be disproved. But it needs to be thoroughly tested AND THEN fail to be disproved. Of course, theists may think that there are sufficient ways to test God's existence. (I don't know.) And agnostics and atheists not so much. But this isn't something that will ever be resolved in this thread!

[Spidey]

“To test evolution, we can hypothesize that there will be an animal with medium-sized legs in fossil layer B”

That’s the exact definition of extrapolation, look it up.

Never mind…I forgot…

The biggest problem with the theory is...they never seem to come up with the missing links.

[Lothar]

Topic pls.

[Drakona]

You can say creationism is a theological idea because it references God, but I think this is just trickery with language. It's also a scientific idea, grounded in arguments from the natural world. Creation--if it occured--is a historical event, just like the formation of the Grand Canyon; you can totally scientifically approach the question of how it happened, and draw conclusions both limited and broad.

You can say creationism is motivated by the belief that God had to have created us because it's what the Bible says. That's true of a lot of folks. But you could say equally fairly that evolution is motivated by the belief that nature had to have created us because God can't exist. That's also true of a lot of folks. In fact, I think one of those statements is true, or has been true, to some degree for just about everyone that cares about origins.

It's an inherently religious topic. No one can really be dispassionate about it, because it really is a proving ground for religious belief. Some folks say that science and religion are separate, and so science in principle can't say anything about the existence of God. But that's just what people wish was true; it doesn't take a lot of thinking to see that it's not so. It's certainly possible in principle that with the right instruments (time machines?) or arguments one could make a scientifically credible case that we, that the earth, that the universe were created. Or vice versa; if you could make a scientifically compelling case that we weren't created . . . well then. That whole religion/science divide is bunk. Some religious ideas--Biblical literalism, strict atheism--just can't manage get along with some things that an honest scientific study of origins could, in principle, find.

So nobody approaches origins dispassionately.

But that doesn't mean most folks approach it dishonestly. Just the opposite.

Everyone--or at least most everyone--realizes that you can't start with the conclusion you want and backfill the evidence. The evidence has to support your position on its own. Everyone knows that. That's just common sense. And the thing most people don't get . . . is that everyone believes it does. EVERYONE. Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Intelligent Design'ers, Theistic Evolutionists, Naturalistic Evolutionists, Directed Panspermia-ists--EVERYONE. They all believe that the science is on their side. That if you start with nature and nothing else, and just allow the evidence to speak, they'll come out on top.

Nobody approaches it dispassionately. But everyone approaches it as a fundamentally scientific question. We need to get past trying to throw each others' arguments out for ideological reasons, and take each other seriously. We all want to get the science right. We all honestly think it's on our side. Let's talk.

---

When it comes to teaching science, it is important to learn the ABC's of how the world works, and evolution is part of that. Even if you don't believe in it, it's the going theory, and you need to be aware of it, what it's got going for it, and what it means for how we understand the world. That's just part of basic scientific literacy. Creationism--while possibly scientific and interesting--is a definite minority alternative and doesn't make that cut.

But it's also important to learn how to think scientifically, to learn to criticize ideas and demand evidence. To that extent, I'd agree with Palin--a muscular engagement of the controversy is healthy for everyone involved. If kids--creationist kids--have logical and scientific beefs with evolution, slug it out. Don't tell them to shut up because of scientific consensus--science is full of theories that were extremely popular right before they were proven wrong. Engage them. Show them the evidence. Don't burn a lot of time; meet after class if you have to; if you have to, say \"Well, there's good evidence for that, but unfortunately it's at the graduate level; if you're interested, you might think about going into biology.\"

But by all means permit controversy, and encourage hunger for evidence. Truth can defend herself in the open arena, and the losers are persuaded--or at least intrigued--instead of sore. That's best for everyone.

(Er . . . topic . . . )

That Palin seems to hold that same view speaks well of her judgement.

[Will Robinson]

Maybe Sarah Palin at some point asked the question 'What came before the Big Bang?' and the best answer anybody could give sounded just as unsure and theoretical as the created evolution theory so faced with that and factoring in the reality that most citizens believe in God she concluded that censoring creationism from the discussion was not sound leadership. So she suggested it be included.

You see, for those of you who are 100% sure there is no God it's easy to throw away any other belief. Likewise for those who are 100% sure that God created everything...
Well if you were in charge of everyone and you knew most of them believed 100% one way or the other how would you govern? Who would you tell to STFU? Do you have the authority to mandate your brand of blind faith upon all citizens?

[woodchip]

This is a topic on Sarah Palin so if you want to discuss the merits of various religious beliefs, start a new topic.

Tonight Palin will be speaking at the RNC so we should all get a better sense of who she is and how she will stand up to the extraordinary liberal biased attacks.
The degree to which the press is trying to break her shows how much they are concerned that she may be the one choice that will give McCain the presidency. If Palin and her family stand up to this unprecedented attack, they will be all the stronger for it. We will then have someone we can all relate to whether you like her or not. Palin and her family, with all this exposure, will add a truly refreshing aspect to DC political life. Tune in tonight for her speech.

[flip]

let them give their weak defense of creationism, and let them see how poorly their ideas stand up to scrutiny. Don't ignore creationism because it's \"not science\"; instead, let your students experience science at its finest by tearing into the problems with creationism, and by using evidence to discard that theory.

I feel this same way about evolution. It doesn't hold up to well to scrutiny either you know .

Hmm. Not creationism. Not evolution. What does that leave us with?

[Duper]

Hmm. Not creationism. Not evolution. What does that leave us with?

Uplift conspi.. er theory?