Is Palin's advocacy of teaching both creationism and evolution good in that kids can compare & reject the BS?

Question

Isn't creationism more widely believed if the 'liberal' schools reject it without discussion or debate?

Answer 1

Nothing wrong with getting both sides of the issue - unless you're a democrat, of course.

Answer 2

We need to only have one (the correct one) creationism taught in our schools. Evolution is just the fringe left trying to force their anti-religion rhetoric down our throats.

Answer 3

Absolutely! If children are taught both theory's and that is what they are, they can use their own brains to decide what they believe. Oh wait, it's mostly far left liberals running the schools and thinking for yourself is strictly not allowed.

Answer 4

Sure, and add her global warming conspiracy theories and junk science to boot. Se cares more about politics than science, thats for sure.  

Answer 5

She actually didn't advocate teaching creationism.  She simply didn't want any discussion that might bring it up made taboo.  I think that that is a good thing in student discussions.  It is always bad to censor discussion..  

Answer 6

Yeah, well, thats going to sit well with Middle America. Here in PA, the voters in Devon PA already voted that down and Pat Robinson put a hex on all our houses.

Answer 7

NO... Creationism has no business in public schools.  Evolution on the other hand is a SCIENTIFIC theory and therefore is suitable for science class.  Creationism should be taught at home or in the Sunday school if parents support that. If children or parents want them to have that information to compare, they should seek it out in the appropriate setting.  It has no place, not only because its a blurring of church and state but because its insensitive to anyone who may not be Christian.  What about Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, etc students?  Not acceptable and should NOT even be a debate!  

Answer 8

NO.

You cannot teach children two contradictory things and expect them to pick one, especially when one of them is supported by scientific fact and the other is supported by religion only (ie not appropriate for public schools).

Answer 9

I started school in the day and age of School Prayer, a person was not forced to recite the Lords Prayer each morning but you had to be there. Since a single atheist, one person out of the millions of Americans did not like it, the court stopped it. She was latter murdered by her own son because of her beliefs.

Teaching two contradictory theories on a subject creates a thinking person as long as both are taught as what they are, theories, since neither one is absolutely undeniable provable and each is presented in a fashion as not to unduly influence.

For reference "separation of church and state" was not intended to exclude the church from public schools, it was designed to prevent a country like England that mandated you HAD to belong to the Church of England or face the chances of being caught and executed

Answer 10

To me, Creationism, and Evolution can have complementary elements.  In the Bible, the first thing that happens is let there be light.  Big Bang theorists agree with this, and I do agree with the Big Bang.  How could God explain the origins of man to people who had no concept of atoms.  No concept of the relationship between matter and energy.  The answer is symbolically.  Few of the best minds can grasp the extraordinary ways we have evolved into the beings we are over a time span we can't grasp in our experience.

I do not buy into Creationism as science, and I don't believe it should be taught in schools as such.  I do believe that God is the creator and that having some theology or philosophy taught will help us understand each other and live together more peaceably

Answer 11

Yes.

Finally. Someone asks the question in the proper context. Palin never suggested to replace evolution or teach both viewpoints.