Sarah Palin, Creationist???

[LuciferSam]

Nobody should want to waste their time guessing your name....you are insignificant. Seriously, what an attention-seeking loser to name yourself after the most evil.

Whoever said it is right. I'm wasting my time with folks who believe in fairy tales.

 

[dunefrog]

There are many more nuanced views of "creationism" out there than the fundamentalist Christian view. For example, most Catholics don't believe that God created the world in 7 days. They do, nonetheless, believe that the world has a Creator.

This belief in a creator can be quite scientific. Science is an attempt to answer questions around us in a rational and systematic way. Rationality requires first principles (Aristotle), and these first principles are "pre-scientific," i.e., not determined by the scientific method itself.

Some scientist's first principles include, for example, the belief/observation that every effect in this world has a cause, meaning that the things that we see around us don't just pop up out of thin air. They come from somewhere or something. This has led the bulk of scientists and philosophers over the course of history to believe in some sort of "Creator." How else could the world (the effect) exist without a cause?

But the important thing for public education is to clarify the QUESTION, not to suggest or impose one particular answer. The questions are real for anyone who wants to open his/her eyes. These questions about the root and meaning of our existence are what need to be discussed in school in my opinion.

Not sure where Palin stands on all of this.

 

[NoHall]

There are many more nuanced views of "creationism" out there than the fundamentalist Christian view. For example, most Catholics don't believe that God created the world in 7 days. They do, nonetheless, believe that the world has a Creator.

This belief in a creator can be quite scientific. Science is an attempt to answer questions around us in a rational and systematic way. Rationality requires first principles (Aristotle), and these first principles are "pre-scientific," i.e., not determined by the scientific method itself.

Some scientist's first principles include, for example, the belief/observation that every effect in this world has a cause, meaning that the things that we see around us don't just pop up out of thin air. They come from somewhere or something. This has led the bulk of scientists and philosophers over the course of history to believe in some sort of "Creator." How else could the world (the effect) exist without a cause?

But the important thing for public education is to clarify the QUESTION, not to suggest or impose one particular answer. The questions are real for anyone who wants to open his/her eyes. These questions about the root and meaning of our existence are what need to be discussed in school in my opinion.

Not sure where Palin stands on all of this.

Defining the question is philosophy. The problem is that philosophy is not taught as a separate discipline at the preparatory level; it is embedded into other classes. In the case of creationism vs. ID vs. evolution, it is most appropriately embedded into a science class. A good teacher will teach his/her students to ask the questions whether s/he teaches science, math, literature, art, or percussion.

I had a lovely philosophical debate with my drum line this week...:roll:

 

[elgordoboy]

King Tut was reportedly born 1341 years before Jesus was born, so I wonder about the accuracy of that statement. The Bible wasn't even written until thousands of years after people were walking the Earth. ;-)

I believe "assembled" is more appropriate than "written", after all, it is an Anthology.

According to the dictionary, "creationism" fits some definitions of "theory."

the?o?ry

Audio Help /ˈθi

ə

ri, ˈθɪər

i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ?noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6.contemplation or speculation. 7.guess or conjecture.
American Heritage:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

scientific theory for science class:
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

 

[dunefrog]

scientific theory for science class:
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

This is the "positivist" definition of the scientific method. And positivism was a very popular philosophical paradigm from the mid-nineteenth through the mid-twentienth centuries. Sir Karl Popper was the last great Positivist thinker. "Falsifiablity" is positivism's most important methodological principle. Unfortunately, this principle is reductionist and human beings keep stubbornly asking questions about things that are not exactly falsifiable (like "how did our world come to be the way it is"). Many in the philosophy of science would say that these questions are still valid and the "answers" we come up with are more or less "fitting. "

The theory of evolution is a great example of a non-falsifiable theory that has been accepted by the scientific community. There is literally no way to go back in time and verify/falsify that such a process occurred in the way that the evolutionists say it did. To me this is not a problem, so long as we recognize the theory of evolution as a materialist story of how the world might have come to be. Nothing wrong with it so long as we see it for what it really is.

It's unfortunate that all of this has to be so politicized. Science should be about understanding reality, not making reality fit conveniently into an ideological framework.

 

[CiaoBella]

Personal attack.

At least I am open about it instead of being a slithering snake like several EXTREMEISTS on this board! Look at all the personal attacks on Palin by the insecure liberals. Attacking her actions during one of her pregnancies. Come on. Wow, you guys must be scared that the Demoncats will lose huh?

 

[NoHall]

At least I am open about it instead of being a slithering snake like several EXTREMEISTS on this board! Look at all the personal attacks on Palin by the insecure liberals. Attacking her actions during one of her pregnancies. Come on. Wow, you guys must be scared that the Demoncats will lose huh?

She meant that you were personally attacking another person on this board. We attack candidates on both sides and Britney Spears freely.

 

[CPort]

It doesn't matter what's in the curriculum. My students already know everything (according to them.)

I've been there!

 

[30A Skunkape]

King Tut was reportedly born 1341 years before Jesus was born, so I wonder about the accuracy of that statement. The Bible wasn't even written until thousands of years after people were walking the Earth. ;-)

Don't you dare try any of that 'Jesus really looked like an Egyptian' stuff here, buddy!:angry:

 

[Bob]

There are many more nuanced views of "creationism" out there than the fundamentalist Christian view. For example, most Catholics don't believe that God created the world in 7 days. They do, nonetheless, believe that the world has a Creator.

This belief in a creator can be quite scientific. Science is an attempt to answer questions around us in a rational and systematic way. Rationality requires first principles (Aristotle), and these first principles are "pre-scientific," i.e., not determined by the scientific method itself.

Some scientist's first principles include, for example, the belief/observation that every effect in this world has a cause, meaning that the things that we see around us don't just pop up out of thin air. They come from somewhere or something. This has led the bulk of scientists and philosophers over the course of history to believe in some sort of "Creator." How else could the world (the effect) exist without a cause?

But the important thing for public education is to clarify the QUESTION, not to suggest or impose one particular answer. The questions are real for anyone who wants to open his/her eyes. These questions about the root and meaning of our existence are what need to be discussed in school in my opinion.

Not sure where Palin stands on all of this.

science is based on observation, not beliefs