How do you teach creationism? Gov. Sarah Palin thinks it should be taught in the classroom. How short would?

Question

the textbook be? In the beginning God created everything. End of story.

Answer 1

I used to think creationism shouldn't be taught in science class alongside  evolution, but now I think maybe I was wrong. Perhaps it should be taught right alongside evolution, and compared point by point so the students can see clearly just how ridiculous creationism truly is.

Answer 2

In the home and some Churches as science.  Gov. Sarah Palin Has never said that...Ask and you shall receive the answer.  The End of story is your cop out.

Answer 3

Sarah Paulin also thinks abstinence only s*x education is what kids need too, I mean, look at her daughter; it worked out great for her.

*eyeroll* Man, this woman is in serious need of a wake up call.

Answer 4

It's taught by reading what's written in the Bible, and then filling in all the gaps and inconsistencies with whatever you want to.  

If you study the Biblical creation story and compare it to other creation myths of other early peoples, you will find many similarities and actually realize that the Biblical story itself is a myth as well.

If it's going to be taught in school, I think all creation myths of all religions and cultures of the world should be taught as well.

Answer 5

going through the bible? I was taught evolution in the classroom, don't know how a public school can teach a religious subject like that

Answer 6

It should be taught in the classroom - IF the school has religion classes!

Answer 7

How about the Egyptian gods?  Ra ra ra ra ra

Better keep these jokes, Loki

Answer 8

The lack of Jesus Christ being taught in the classroom is the reason this country is in the shape it's in.  Back when we could still say prayers and the pledge of allegience,  I don't recall kids bringing guns to school and going on  killing -sprees.  Evidentally, it's okay to teach our kids about Gautama (Buddha, a man) or Mohammed (a freakin' rock) and this is a result of who?  Who else, but the Atheists.  The very ones that  "objected" to the word "God" even being in the pledge of allegiance.  The very ones that instigated the removal of the ten commandments at our nation's capitol.  My question to those antichrists is this:  If you are so discriminated against  and so mistreated, why don't you just get out and let this country return to it's providence: ONE NATION, UNDER GOD!  NOT ALLAH, NOT BUDDHA, NOT THOR!  JUST BE  GONE, PERIOD!  Stop being a hinderance to those you deceive, but truly wish to be freed from the deception that they cannot be forgiven.

Answer 9

You got it. That is all that any Christian should want taught.

"Some people believe that God created the heaven and the earth" would satisfy me.

Answer 10

Yeah. I guess we could plug it into highschool without me getting too upset about it. By that age it's hard to fool the kids into believing stuff that's well...moronic. But it's the principle of the thing.

Answer 11

Science requires that:-

1.  There is a hypothesis

2.  There is accepted data

3.  The hypothesis stands in light of the accepted data

4.  There is peer review of the results of the experiment

5.  The experiment is repeatable and verifiable.

None of this takes please in Intelligent Design or creationism except for maybe 1. - Its just a fact that Intelligent Design is trying to get into the classroom with a free pass - without having to pass the rigours that all other science must take. It sickens me that people like Palin might get ID through.  

Answer 12

For someone who has to, or may have to swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution, shes ignorant of the fact that what she wants is Unconstitutional, and that the court ruling finding that, came from a Republican judge, who was appointed by G W Bush.

    "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

    "A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

    "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

    "Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

    "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

    "[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)

    "ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

    "Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

----

Anyone who wants to violate such a decision, well, they're only fit for the loony bin, not high office.