Creationism---GOPs arugmentum ad populum

I don't think we should turn entirely away from her child's pregnancy. It is a real world example of why a "keep it in your pants" policy is not a sound response to sexual health and education and goes to the heart of why religion and politics should combined to create policy. However, you are right, that should not be the entire field of focus.

Her comments on teaching religion in schools is something that must be addressed swiftly and accurately. Sadly, "teach both sides" has somehow become synonymous with "American values" (freedom and all that), making a good rebuttal of the absurdity of teaching myth in schools a very difficult goal to achieve.

W00T! *dancing the happy dance*

What? Oh... I'm just over-freaking-joyed at the apparent meltdown of what was left of McCain's sanity. Could he have picked a WORSE vp if he had tried??

Must. Do. Happy-Dance!!

What's this "both sides" thing? Haven't they heard that Manichaeanism is a heresy?

Please see previous comments on how my high school English teacher dealt with "non sectarian" school prayer directives by having Norse, Shinto, Muslim, Navajo, ... morning prayers. That got shut down so fast that the wind blew away the fig leaf.

Same here. It would take at most one teacher with a spine to teach lots of creations myths. More to the point it won't get that far because the courts will bring the hammer down, again, as usual.

Which is the whole point.

This is just a case of pumping up the tanned skin of the horse for another round of flogging. It gets the faithful all charged up to go to the polls, which is the secret of winning elections when the overall turnout is as low as it is in the USA. More to the point it's infinitely reusable precisely because it will never go away.

I think it is quite germane to ask Palin "Do you support giving all of the children of America exclusively the type of abstinence-only education that you gave your pregnant 17-year-old daughter?" Nothing shows the idiocy of her policies as their failure in her own home.

I blogged about this as well, also linking to Nisbet.

I've been engaged in an interesting and long-running debate with an acquaintence of mine with some questionable political stances--like most stereotypical Texans, the only issues he seems interested in talking about are immigration and the oil economy. Whenever I raise issues about politicians making statements like this, however, he tends to become conspicuously silent, as though it "doesn't matter" what politicians think about issues like science education.

But the fact of the matter is that you can't ignore this kind of crackpottery, and it's become the standard defense for politicians put on the spot about teaching creationism in schools. "Let the public decide." A fantastic non-answer. I don't know which is worse--the fact that admitting that ID is BS would be damning for many politicians or the fact that many of them believe the BS themselves.

While we're doing "local options" and "let(ting) the public decide," how about we have some say in whether it's OK to carry a bottle of shampoo onto an airplane?

Sudden silence.

Federalism is only for when you can't get your way at the national level.

A) Keep it in your pants only works if you, uh, actually do keep it in your pants.
B) Creationism must be taught in schools... As theology not in a science course. (Although my one science teacher in high school threw his chalk at me when I said, "Oh, that's how God did it!" when he was talking about the Big Bang.
C) A preacher in Baltimore outraged his congregation when he said that condoms are everywhere... Except on the penises of the young men, where they should be. Oh, the outrage!
D) I fear an exponential growth in the number of posts about the upcoming elections.

Could he have picked a WORSE vp if he had tried?

Ignoring possibilities who are not eligible (like Bush II, who couldn't resume the generalissimoship should McCuckoo croak), some worse choices might be:

* A rock.
* Your favorite cartoon character.
* Cheney.
* The lump of green putty found by a Vogon in his armpit.
* My dinner.
* ... uh, er, ...?

blf | September 2, 2008 4:31 PM wrote "Could he have picked a WORSE vp if he had tried?"

I have two words for you- "Dan Quayle," comparable to your rock.
Until proven otherwise, she cannot be that ignorant. On the other hand, maybe she is.

Palin could be the best thing that ever happened to evolutionists. Let the creationists turn back progress and destroy America's competitiveness. Those of us who support science and a reality-based approach can simply form our own nation, now that Palin's candidacy has brought secession into the mainstream.

Scientific results may not be local, but the management and operations of public schools are. --sw

SW, local government has to follow the constitution just like federal government, so teaching religion as though it were a scientific theory is still not allowed. Comparative religion class, fine. Putting religion in science class, not fine.

What you call "Creationism" is the teleological argument, an idea with a provenance that predates the introduction of the Abrahamic tradition in the West. What it is most certainly not is "Creationism," whether or not you or Judge Jones chooses to display your ignorance in so bold a manner as to declare it so.

Additionally, can any of the commentariat aver with certainty that no daughters of politicians who support other-than-abstinence education have ever been pregnant during the politician's active political life? Do you know, for certain, that Bristol Palin's pregnancy was the product of consensual sexual relations, as you presume, and that the prospective father did not force or otherwise coerce the sexual encounter leading to the pregnancy? Are you certain that you have adequate information upon which to base a reasonable belief supporting your allegations and condemnation of Governor Palin's preferred policy?

Ooh! Big words! I've never been called a commentariat! That's an awful lot of blah blah blah to say "they do it too! Wah!"

WATB.

Sir, that distinct whirring sound is a rather obvious point soaring freely over your noggin.

Read the words and attempt to understand them so that you might fail better at your next attempt.

Oh! The WATB thinks he can zing me! I'm wounded!

I get your so-called point. Your first "point" was the usual "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "That's not REALLY Creationism." It's bullshit, and you know it. The teleological argument is so much phlogiston. It may have explanatory value for primitive minds, but it's really meaningless at its core.

Your second "point" was the usual "But, but, but, Clinton..." crap. You know it. I know it. Hell, even my dog knows it.

Dressing bullshit up in fancy words does not make it palatable. It's still bullshit.

Well, you know, Genesis and Plato haven't much to do with one another, and last I checked, there is no explicit or other prohibition in the United States Constitution relative to the teaching of Plato. Your alleged Scotsman appears to be named Zorba, no?

Apparently you are quite thick, as the "second point" was a comment as to the relative success of other-than-abstinence sex education, as well as an objection to your perfect knowledge of the sex life of Governor Palin's daughter. The younger Palin wears the alleged failure of abstinence education in the form of her baby bump, whilst the failure of comprehensive sex eductaion is most often disposed of in a hazardous materials bag, never to have been admitted into evidence. I don't know if the daughters of those politicians who support the distribution of condoms to eight year olds have been pregnant, and then later not pregnant - but neither do you.

Shorter Alec Leamas:
"Wah! I don't like when Republicans get picked on! Wah! Abortion! Wah!"

You do realize that there are other ways to handle sex ed, right? Very, very few women ever get abortions. "Safe, legal, and rare." remember?

Ooh! The "distribution of condoms to eight-year-olds" tripe! Haven't seen that one in a while.

"Creationism" is what creationists say it is. You say it's not. Therefore, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Trying to foist it off on Plato is still the Scotsman. Plato has no place in science class, and neither do the collected oral histories of a tribe of pig-ignorant nomads.

Do learn to read before trying to impress girls with big words.

I'll demur and allow your last post to stand as a comprehensive statement of your position, and a testament to its fatal deficiencies, as the same have become self-evident.

Plato, now a fundie Godbotherer it appears.

Forgive Alec, I'm sure he's some teen or tween that has just discovered a thesaurus and still hasn't matured adequately to understand that no one is impressed by flowery nonsense. If anything it just means you come across as an egotistical jackass. An amusing one to read however.

And if everyone will pardon me if I stoop to a vulgarity, "you can't polish a turd" I believe is the appropriate response to your attempts to dress up the usual creationist claptrap with excess verbiage.

*giggle* Tweener with a thesaurus... I'm going to be chuckling at that all night!

Do you know, for certain, that Bristol Palin's pregnancy was the product of consensual sexual relations, as you presume, and that the prospective father did not force or otherwise coerce the sexual encounter leading to the pregnancy?

If Bristol Palin is being forced to marry her rapist, then Sarah Palin has one hell of a lot *more* to answer for.

I get it. Mr. Leamas could not have been serious unless he started off by calling you names or using the really short words that you understand.

Sarah Palin never advocated Creationism be added to the curriculum or taught in schools. She merely stated it should be okay to debate it in the course of teaching the scientific theories.

Bristol Palin attended a public school with a comprehensive sex education plan and Sarah Palin's approval. She managed to get pregnant anyway.

This facts are readily available with a little research. You do get the concept of research, right? It is a science thing as I understand it.

Sarah Palin never advocated Creationism be added to the curriculum or taught in schools. She merely stated it should be okay to debate it in the course of teaching the scientific theories.

That's a problem. Teaching creation myths in science classes as viable alternatives is WRONG. Teaching it in religion or social studies classes is RIGHT.

Ooh! Another WATB! Anyone wanna bet he's a sockpuppet?

Mr. Leamas was so far divorced from reality as to be "Not Even Wrong". When challenged on his use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and the "But, but, but, Clinton..." whine, he failed to respond in any coherent manner.

Wrong is as wrong does, and he was WAY wrong.

"That's a problem. Teaching creation myths in science classes as viable alternatives is WRONG."

Is explaining that in the classroom wrong? The issue was should creationism be debated. I don't see how allowing it to even be discussed advances the cause of science, use it as an example to teach what the scientific method is, how it works, and why creationism isn't science. You don't have to have a deep understanding of creation mythology to be able to explain the difference between a faith-based belief and a legitimate scientific theory do you?

"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Since when is denying open debate part of the scientific method? Freaking out and demanding it be banned from even being discussed does not seem like a rational approach to me.

What the hell is a WATB? And I will take your bet on me being a sock puppet, how much you want to lose?

WATB

There is nothing to debate regarding creationism. It is a bankrupt idea that has failed repeatedly. It has no place in science, especially when we are falling behind in science education. At a college level "History of Science" course, perhaps.

We've had this discussion before. Creationism is religion. Religion has nothing to do with science. There is no controversy to teach. "Anyone who says differently is selling something."

For a bunch of scientists, you guys seem to be lacking in reading comprehension.

There is nothing to debate regarding creationism.

Yes there is, and it is a such a simple argument I don't know why you are being such contrarians about it. Explain what science is, explain why creationism isn't science, debate over. That is a much more constructive approach than screaming insults and telling people to shut up.

It has no place in science, especially when we are falling behind in science education.

We are falling behind because science in academia is getting as dogmatic as the religions you freak out about. The scientific method is the foundation for an education in science, creationism vs. the big bang/evolution is the perfect place to teach this.

But you would rather burn the heretics at the stake than try to teach them. Sound familiar?

Ooh! The "Scientist are Fundamentalists!" ploy!

You obviously don't understand the issues. See the Talk.Origins FAQ for more information. "Teach the Controversy" is nothing more than a wedge (see Wedge Document) to get creationism and religion into the schools. There really is nothing to teach. The discussion you propose happens every time creationist talking points are brought up in the classroom. Giving them any more time only strengthens their obstinacy. There *IS* no controversy. Maybe you didn't catch that...

The "Controversy" doesn't exist. Period. It is a pack of lies formulated and spread by religious fundamentalists to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about evolution among the uneducated. There is no controversy. They made it all up. Any other questions?

You have been told where you are wrong. If you persist, we will have to classify you as a troll, or a liar, and we will mock you accordingly.

Explain what science is, explain why creationism isn't science, debate over.

Well, that's rather different from what Palin was saying, and what you seemed to be supporting in your previous post, which was to let the students debate about it. Which is bad and wrong for the reasons LanceR gave. It is absolutely wrong to let students debate evidence vs. lies, as if they were on equal footing. It does everyone a disservice to pretend creationism has any standing in a serious debate.

Now, your second post is a different kettle of fish. You say a good teacher can use creationism as a teaching tool: to show, by contrasting creationism vs. evolution, what is bad science and what the scientific method actually entails. That's more reasonable. I've considered that idea myself, as has any science educator.

It doesn't work in practice, though. If you think it would in any way placate the "teach both sides!"-ists, you are dead wrong. It has the opposite effect. You are, in effect, directly challenging them to their faces, and, to them, you are using the "bully pulpit" of the science class to tell them that their deeply-held beliefs are dumb and wrong and dumb. That is a recipe to get called before the principal/superintendent, or just flat-out dismissed.

Making it protected or even mandated by law, or at least by including it in the standards established by your state or local school board, is itself a recipe for abuse. By the time it gets out of committees, the language will be watered down enough that it'll effectively be "teach the controversy", and a creationist teacher will be free to spread that kind of nonsense in class -- only with the force of law behind him.

The best, and as far as I'm concerned only way, is to make clear that the students understand that you respect their beliefs (and/or you at least have no intention of deconverting them), but this is how science is done in the real world, so dang it, this is how it will be taught. Teach them good science, but teach them the process of good science, not just a collection of dry facts.

There is no need to confuse issues, and inflame tempers, by introducing "bad science" as a contrast. Good students will understand and take it as given. Bad students and dogmatic creationists can ask their questions, and you can deal with them in or out of class, as time allows.

mm, that should have been "...in your third post" (referring to September 11, 2008 3:00 PM). I knew I should have double-checked that.

There *IS* no controversy. Maybe you didn't catch that...

That is why I said this: "it is a such a simple argument I don't know why you are being such contrarians about it. Explain what science is, explain why creationism isn't science, debate over." Because it shouldn't be a controversy, so let's calmly explain that.

"You have been told where you are wrong. If you persist, we will have to classify you as a troll, or a liar, and we will mock you accordingly."

LOL. Let me guess, I smell of elderberries. Do you have a little flow chart that you use to help you with this?

Well, that's rather different from what Palin was saying...

No, read the exact quote at the link I provided. All she said was it should be open for discussion. She quite specifically said it didn't need to be on the curriculum.

It is absolutely wrong to let students debate evidence vs. lies, as if they were on equal footing. It does everyone a disservice to pretend creationism has any standing in a serious debate.

How do you establish the validity of the evidence, and separate the evidence from the lies, if you don't debate it?

Teach them good science, but teach them the process of good science, not just a collection of dry facts.

Exactly. If is constant experimentation and observation to learn more. It is constantly challenging and defending what we presume to know. The status quo should never be unassailable, that isn't science, that is dogma.

The status quo should never be unassailable, that isn't science, that is dogma.

And that, dear Moe, is why we know you to be either a troll or a Liar for Jebus(tm). Anyone who understands the slightest things about how science *actually* works knows that the status quo is *always* being challenged. That is how science works.

Crack a book, for pete's sake.

And it should be noted, they are always being challenged in the scientific community, and always by scientists.

And the debate over evolution was settled within the scientific community over 150 years ago. Creationism has brought nothing to the table since then -- nothing but lies and distortions. And they have never brought it to the scientific community, preferring instead to prey on schoolchildren's pliable minds.

And keep this in mind:

There has not been a single scientific advance, nor any serious scientific debate that was ever settled, in a goddamned elementary school classroom.

Precisely. The place for scientific debate is in the scientific arena. Published papers, peer-reviewed journals, academic conferences... all good places for the "controversy". Mrs. Goodteacher's third grade classroom? Not so much. Mr. Sciencenerd's 12th grade Biology class? Not so much. Professor Myers' class on Philosophy of Science at UMM? There we go! That's where we can discuss what is or isn't science! Still not a good place for revolutionary new scientific theories, but a good start.

Anyone who says "Teach the Controversy" is a Liar for Jebus(tm) or a troll. On further reading, Moe may just be a concern troll. If so, your concern is noted, filed with all the others, and rejected.

Anyone who says "Teach the Controversy" is a Liar for Jebus(tm) or a troll.

I am not advocating teaching the controversy, just acknowledge it and address it if it comes up.

What do you call someone who says "Deny the Controversy", by the way?

That's it for me, I am tired of beating my head against this particular wall.

One last time, for the morons among us:

There.
Is.
No.
Controversy.

Read a book. Learn something. The "controversy" is a lie made up to wedge fundamentalist Xtianity into the schools.

All right, I lied, I was going to quit but Lance's continued moronic arrogance has pissed me off. I have read plenty of books, and probably know as much or more about evolution and the history of Christianity than you ever will. I am not a Christian, and I believe in evolution. There is no controversy in my mind about these things, or apparently in the little world you inhabit, but that is not the issue here.

We are talking about schools. Places where uneducated children and pre-adults go. Many of these same children also spend a great deal of time in church and Sunday school, and are being taught various forms of creationism and intelligent design. It is very controversial and confusing to them, and calling their parents and church leaders morons and absolutely refusing to even discuss the issue is not a productive teaching method. As far as the child is concerned, YOU are the one driving wedges. Teaching the scientific method involves dealing with children in THEIR world, not yours.

No go ahead with the ad homs about me being a Jesus troll, you sad little myrmidon.

Ooh! I pissed him off... I'd better be careful...

Teaching the controversy is the quickest way to confuse children. Let them learn whatever they want in Sunday school, at school they get real science. Anything else just clouds the issue.

Teaching science does not involve getting bogged down in debates over settled science. If a child brings it up, the odds are they have been coached with one of the many lies about "How To Stump Your Evolutionist Teachers" or the like. They should be told to study the facts, and if they continue to disrupt classes they should be disciplined.

Teachers do *not* have the time or the energy to discuss every cockamamie nonsense idea that some child comes up with. They barely have enough time to deal with the necessary curriculum as it stands. Asking them to waste time "teaching the controversy" is stupid and wasteful.

"Teach the Controversy" is a code phrase. If you don't want to be mistaken for a Jesus troll, perhaps you would want to avoid that phrase. It screams "I'm a troll!" to any science-minded person.

You may also want to look up "Ad Hominem". I do not think it means what you think it means. Saying that you're wrong, *and* you're a jerk is not an Ad Hominem. Rude, yes, but not Ad Hominem. Saying that you're wrong *because* you're a jerk would be an Ad Hominem. Do you see the difference?

Your concern is noted, and rejected.

very intesting!