Sarah Palin thinks that creationism should be taught in public schools and...?

Question

...she has a pregnant teenage daughter?

Fundamentalists are always telling us that the world went "bad" because of the theory of evolution. Is this enough to show them that even a hardcore creationist can s***w up?

Answer 1

Well I believe no religion should be taught in school... but them again, evolution is taught in school. I don't see a problem with just showing out point of view :)

Answer 2

It takes a certain type of person to be proud of her 17 year old having a child. Is this the type of person that Americans can be proud of as vice president. I certainly hope not.

Answer 3

No,  creationism should be taught in church's sunday schools.

Answer 4

Everyone can s***w up.

I have no problem with you teaching Creationism in public schools, as long as it's taught in Religious Studies - as the myth that it is.

x

Answer 5

Well, its clear that claims by such theists that living with jeebuz gives one a more moral life and family is untrue.

Further, if Palin were to have to take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the US, yet she wants to enact policies that have been, several times now, been proven and ruled to be Unconstitutional, then shes clearly not fit to take such an office.

Creationism is bad fiction, not any sort of science, thus, as even a Republican judge, appointed by G W Bush, ruled in the Kitzmiller trial, it is illegal to teach it in any public science class.  

Morons who want "equal time" would do well to learn that a scientific theory is NOT "just a guess", and that creationism has NO evidence that supports it, UNLIKE evolution. To offer "equal time", would be a travesty, because the two are NOT equal in supporting evidence.

Oh, how about "equal time" for OTHER religious creation stories ? That IDiots don't want that, only shows that they are religious BIGOTS, pushing THEIR religion, ONLY.

Evolution has literal mountains of evidence that show it to be correct, and creationism/IDiocy has NONE at all...

    "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)

----

So, the real question is, why do creationist IDiots HATE America ?

Answer 6

She should have been first teaching abstinence to her daughter.

Answer 7

If she gets creationism taught in public schools, I will be the first to pull my child out. I will home school her myself if need be.

Answer 8

I'm against equal time laws but if some science teacher wants to spend fifteen minutes explaining creation, go for it,

That's about how long it should take, anyways, especially considering that the Bible has two different creation stories.  

Answer 9

I didn't know creationists thought that creationists were unable to have mishaps in life.

I can't wait to see Obama supporters hate on this woman, and lose 18 million voters all over again.  

The sexism from Obamabots brings back those memories I once thought I had successfully suppressed.

Answer 10

creationism and evolution should be taught side by side. They are both ONLY theories. Evolution can ONLY be proven as an intra specy theory. It is completely false and there is NO PROOF of macro-evolution. Mice stay mice they do not become another creature but they do have alterations through their history just not a jump from one thing to another.

Answer 11

If Evolution THEORY is taught in school, then creationism should be taught.  

Answer 12

I think that people who go to school should learn all kinds of things.

I hate that they took music out of some schools.  Learning music actually helps the brain develop in a better way.

(I mean, how many hours can be spent on a couple of lines in Genesis?)

Answer 13

Palin is an anti-choice homophobic creationist who wants to dumb down our kids in school.

McSame put the final nail in his coffin when he chose Palin.

Teach creation is a religious class NOT a science class.

Answer 14

Since evolution is THEORY, why shouldn't a different idea also be taught?

Should children be taught WHAT to think or HOW to think??  With evolution ONLY being taught in schools, they are being taught WHAT to think!

Just my opinion, but I'd rather my children be taught HOW to think and they aren't in public schools in America.  That's why their SAT scores are sliding so badly.

D1

Answer 15

I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools as long as it isn't in a science class.

Answer 16

Her daughter is creating a baby... Oh.. the left is now worried about the morals of our politicians children. How touching...

Answer 17

No one is perfect there, genius.

And, who's to say that Palin's daughter holds to the same core beliefs her mother has? I'm betting you've yet to ask her.

Christianity is a personal choice for a personal Savior, and no matter how "religious or spiritual" someones parents are, they can reject Christ.

And, they already teach the THEORY of evolution in school, so may as well add the Biblical teaching of creation back into the mix. At the very least, its another theory, therefore on even footing with the theory already being taught. More accurately, it's the truth, and needs to be heard.

Answer 18

God bless Sarah Palin.  If evolution is being taught in public schools, why not creationism?  What is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.  That is the way I see it.  As for Sarah Palins pregnant teenage daughter, who made you king?  She is a human being.  Things happen.  That does not change what we believe.  It just makes us that much more thankful that Christ forgives our sins and carries us through our troubles.  

Answer 19

That's not what she said.  She stated that creationism could certainly be a part of the discussion.  To draw from this that she advocates a creationism curriculum, or even that it be "taught" (the word was discussion, not teaching; there's a difference) is a bit of a stretch.

There's also no relationship between this and the fact that her daughter got pregnant.  The Palins appear to be teaching their children to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, rather than go for the quick and easy way out. Obama might think of this situation as being "punished" with a baby (although he's taken the high road and stated that candidate's families should be off-limits, something I wish his followers would pay attention to) but obviously not everyone sees an innocent child as punishment for sexual indiscretion.  Thank goodness.

Edit:  You guys need to learn the difference between pro-life Christians like Palin, and fundamentalist dominionists like Mike "take this country back for Christ!" Huckabee.  The former, when holding public office, put the Constitution first.

And she's not proud of her daughter for getting pregnant; how people do love to spin things.  She is proud of her for making a responsible decision to have the child.

Answer 20

Who said Christians or creationist were sinless?

Only the sinful need God.

You bet we know that we can s***w up. But... its how we handle that s***w up that makes the difference. The girl did not abort.  

Answer 21

As long it isn't in science, then I'm fine.