Is it a legitimate political concern that Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in schools? ?

Question

Is this the GOP platform on the future of science education in the USA? If not, what is the GOP platform on this subject, and how does this reconcile with its enthusiastic support for Sarah Palin? Look the other way on her stance on teaching Creationism?

Answer 1

Usually neither the President nor the Vice President dictates local school curriculum content.  Thank Goodness for this if the other guy gets in.

Answer 2

I'm sure you believe it shouldn't be taught in schools.That's just plain wrong.

I believe creationism should be taught along with intelligent design theory and here's exactly why:

God exists and there is ample scientific evidence of his works

Take two very well established scientific laws

1) Biology -  All life comes from other life of a similar kind. In order to even suggest God didn't exist, you will have to disprove the first law of biology. where did the first life come from? If God didn't create the first life, you will have to prove it happened by chance. In that case, you will have to disprove the first law of biology. (good luck with that)

2) Physics - The second law of Thermodynamics. You may know it as "entropy" Heat is lost to surrounding areas. It means a tendency toward randomness. In other words All things fall apart. Consider the thousands of proteins in even the simplest of cells. Consider all the cmplex structures of a cell. Please note. Man cannot even make a protein in the lab out of raw materials, let alone a single internal structure of any cell. The structures of a cell have to all be assembled all at once in exactly the right order for the cell to work. The Second law of thermodynamics would cause any and all of those complex structures to break down before a single one could form. So, in order to prove there is no intellegent design, you will have to disprove the second law of thermodynamics (Good luck with that too)

Are you actually suggesting, public school teachers should ignore these 2 basic fundamental laws of science?

Answer 3

Just out of curiosity, does it really matter?  Both are THEORIES; and neither you, I or anyone else was there to actually SEE or RECORD what actually happened.

Isn't the scienctific process observing something and then figuring out WHY something happened?  Shouldn't all avenues be examined until proven wrong?

Point is, some people believe in intelligent design.  If you can't disprove the theory, then it is just as valid as the one all of the scientific community has espoused as gospel (pun intended).

Answer 4

The only thing Sarah Palin has the right to advocate is the creationism of unwanted children by her teenage daughter

She's the perfect example that abstinence-only education and the abolition of abortion doesn't work

Answer 5

Well, if that is true.  It mean's one thing.  She is a total nut case who is totally out of sync with science eduction.

I think that Palin enough being on the ticket is enough to not vote for McCain.  

I know that McCain is supposed to be a maverick who flies by the seat of his pants, but this is ridiculous.  

Answer 6

Evolution still does not address the beginnings of life.  It only shows survival of the fittest and that life does make adaptations to new conditions in its environment or in ways to capture food, protect themselves, etc.  Creation was mentioned along with the teaching of evolution when I was in school.  To me, both of these are valid since nobody knows how life began.  They really do not conflict.  Intelligent design is not in conflict with science. Why leave creation out?  People decide how they believe themselves.

Answer 7

For the responses that say a President has no influence on local education: what the h**l do you call NCLB?!?  Federal mandates have completely reformed public education, down through the state, district, school, and ultimately, into my classroom.  So I'm freakin terrified of a president (or vice president) who may think that it's acceptable to present non-scientific information in a classroom. Why not teach em that palm reading is a valid medical diagnostic or that crystals can cure diseases.  I mean, if we're supposed to be introducing 'ideas' to our kids and letting them decide for themselves, who's to say what 'ideas' we're going to introduce? If our country's leaders can't recognize pseudoscience and use critical analysis, then they shouldn't be in charge.  

Edit:

In response to those who advocate open-mindedness....I'm all for it.  I tell my kids that they need to believe what they feel is right.  For many of us that means interpreting what we hear in church with what we learn in science class.  I believe in God, and I accept scientific evidence of evolution (which, btw, doesn't imply a lack of a God).  But do you really want me teaching YOUR child what I believe?  In a public school classroom?  What if I told you I believed HIV is a direct cure for the disease of homosexuality?  Would you be offended if your kid learned that?  What if I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Can I teach about Him, and where do you draw the line?  If I don't 'believe' in DNA, do I have to teach about that?  Do you think the president should know anything about DNA?  

I'm trying to make a point here about science...it is what it is, whether you believe it or not.  My job as a science teacher is to present what modern scientific evidence shows as fact (ie, gravity, structure of the universe, function of DNA, and yes, evolution) without bias.  If you chose to reject science then that's your prerogative.  But that does not change what the evidence shows.  And unless you really want me teaching ANYTHING I want to (or, what a vocal minority can get written into the standards), I'm going to stick with the hypothesis-driven, quantitatively-documented, critical-analysis, verifiable, fact-derived kind of science thank you very much.

Answer 8

Given the power of fundamentalists these days---maybe because they are actually taking the time  to reproduce themselves--- one must be grateful that she believes evolution should also be taught along with "intelligent design."

Answer 9

it should be the 1st thing a voter thinks about....fine if the voter agrees, but to anyone who does not want one brand of religion rammed down their throat, it is reason enough to vote against her...if she believes in Creationism, it is very likely she also believes that God will come very soon and take away the faithful and it is quite alright that the rest of us die when she pushed the red button to take her to Paradise

Answer 10

No it is not legitimate.  The president and especially the vice president will have nothing to do with science curriculum.  That is not GOP platform.  I know you want to believe that.  Sorry.

Answer 11

President Bush says he thinks there should be equal time in a class room for both evolutionary theory and intelligent design (which doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis).

He, and others, often confuse the difference between a theory and a scientific theory, the latter being considered, in terms of its technical literative definition, "a body of scientific knowledge that is factual and coherent".  That differs from a theory big time.

The notion that there should be equal time in the class room is, as Christopher Hitchens points out, "as preposterous as saying 'well kids your astronomy teacher has the day off, so we'll be hearing from your astrology teacher instead".

Answer 12

From what I have seen the VP has very little input into the platform. That is usually decided on in a committee.

Answer 13

Yes, that would set the US further back in science education.

Answer 14

Why would it concern you that there are multiple ideas taught in school regarding the beginning of the earth?  Aren't liberals all about tolerance, understanding, and diversity?

I don't see evangelicals on here asking if it's a political concern that evolution is taught in schools...

Answer 15

No it is not a legitimate political concern.

Why should there be any problem with teaching any theory and then examining it critically.