Matt Damon on Sarah Palin

[Atropine Mama]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk

I want to have Matt Damon's concisely sarcastic little babies. Really, on KT were mostly above par in our political awareness, but the average Joe doesn't do the research. Campaigns bank on the votes of those who pay attention to the floof and horseshit served to them. Get to the fucking political stances, people. Right on, Matt.

[Radu]

Once you're done having Matt's babies, can I have some manbabies with him next?

I couldn't watch that video but a quick google turned up the CBS interview. Matt was pretty calm, but phrased his objections very clearly.

"Does she really think dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago? Because I want to know. She's going to have the codes, the nuclear codes, and I want to know."

True.

[Pigs in Space]

Maaaat DAAAAAMOOOOOOOOON!!


Matt DAAAamon!

MAAAAT DAAAAAAAAAAAAMOOON!

Maaat Daaaaaaamooon!

Matt daaamon.

[Utrecht]

Nice video - and overall well thought out by Mr. Damon.

As far as the Dinos - no she does not believe they were here 4000 years ago and she has never tried to ban a book (two common concerns about Palin that have since been disproven by factcheck.org)

But the man has a point - 1/3 chance and will 8 weeks (where she will spend significant portion of the time away from the press) be enough to vet her? (unlikely) 18 months of Obama campaigning and he still faces the question.

My personal thought is that if McCain makes it through the first 12 months of his presidency Palin will be OK (or at least as good as any other VP in similar situation) less than 12 months - could be scary.

[Varaj]

As far as the Dinos - no she does not believe they were here 4000 years ago

I can't find where factcheck says that. I can find where she hasn't forced the issue to be taught in school but not what variant of creationist she might be.

[FeatsofClay]

Nice video - and overall well thought out by Mr. Damon.

As far as the Dinos - no she does not believe they were here 4000 years ago and she has never tried to ban a book (two common concerns about Palin that have since been disproven by factcheck.org)

.

She DID ask about banning books. And that is all I saw alleged in that letter.

She DID call for Creationism to be taught alongside evution in the Gubernatorial debate. Creationism centers largely on a 6000-8000 year old world.

[Sobek]

That's an over all pretty good blurb from Damon and quite a few valid concerns. I've got to agree that I'm not convinced Palin good stare down Vlad Putin. I am convinced, though, that Obama couldn't.

Now, whether it's better to have someone who rolls over or someone who tries and fails to stand up is certainly a valid discussion.

[SpikeyFreak]

That's an over all pretty good blurb from Damon and quite a few valid concerns. I've got to agree that I'm not convinced Palin good stare down Vlad Putin. I am convinced, though, that Obama couldn't.

Now, whether it's better to have someone who rolls over or someone who tries and fails to stand up is certainly a valid discussion.
Or how about whether or not someone is stupid enough to think that creationism is valid in any way shape or form? That's a bigger question than either of your other questions, since your comparing the mayor of a tiny city who was governor of a tiny state for less than two years with a fucking senator.

--Blowd Away Spikey

[Freedom Canadian]

Or how about whether or not someone is stupid enough to think that creationism is valid in any way shape or form? That's a bigger question than either of your other questions, since your comparing the mayor of a tiny city who was governor of a tiny state for less than two years with a fucking senator.

--Blowd Away Spikey

Why do you hate executive experience ?!?

:rolleyes: :D

[FeatsofClay]

9 responses with noone mentioning that "Matt Damon on Sarah Palin" could easily be the number one porno title in the world 3 minutes after its release.

We are slipping folks!

[Utrecht]

I can't find where factcheck says that. I can find where she hasn't forced the issue to be taught in school but not what variant of creationist she might be.

She has also stated that she is the daughter of a high school science teacher and beleives what she was taught by her mother - so yes, I am inferring a bit there - and there is no evidence to suggest that she belives in Dinos 4,000 years ago. Just like there is no reason to believ that Biden as a practicing Roman Catholic believes in Dinosaurs 4,000 years ago.


She DID ask about banning books. And that is all I saw alleged in that letter.

Yes she did ask about it - as a theoretical discussion (she incorrectly used the word Rhetorical) Further, while you may not have seen it, there is a list of books floating around that she supposedly asked to have banned (which included the Harry Potter books - none of which were released at the time)


She DID call for Creationism to be taught alongside evution in the Gubernatorial debate. Creationism centers largely on a 6000-8000 year old world.


Perhaps we are getting into semantics - But this is the gist of her argument (from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html)

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."

So, there are things that you can ping her on - but I just dont see these two as amoungst them.

[FeatsofClay]

She has also stated that she is the daughter of a high school science teacher and beleives what she was taught by her mother - so yes, I am inferring a bit there - and there is no evidence to suggest that she belives in Dinos 4,000 years ago. Just like there is no reason to believ that Biden as a practicing Roman Catholic believes in Dinosaurs 4,000 years ago.


Perhaps we are getting into semantics - But this is the gist of her argument (from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html)

So, there are things that you can ping her on - but I just dont see these two as amoungst them.


How about an exact quote? "In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."


Yes she did ask about it - as a theoretical discussion (she incorrectly used the word Rhetorical) Further, while you may not have seen it, there is a list of books floating around that she supposedly asked to have banned (which included the Harry Potter books - none of which were released at the time)

I haven't seen anyone here mention the bogus list. It doesn't matter in my bargument. You discuss, consider or ask about banning books you are evil. Period.

[Merganser]

Just like there is no reason to believ that Biden as a practicing Roman Catholic believes in Dinosaurs 4,000 years ago.

Why would he? The Catholic Church doesn't specifically advocate short-earth creationism. The Catholic Church doesn't have any problems whatsoever with evolution. All they require, theologically-speaking, is the belief that at some point in the whole process, God creates and inserts the rational soul into human beings. Evolved from some sort of proto-primate? Sure, whatever - but the soul didn't evolve, it was created.

[Utrecht]

How about an exact quote? "In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."


Yep that jives with what I have said - she is a proponent of teaching both - but has never introduced (through a surrogate) or backed any sort of push for creationism to be taught in school - demonstrating an understanding of seperation of personal belief vs public implementation (again, this is caveated with a big thus far)



I haven't seen anyone here mention the bogus list. It doesn't matter in my bargument. You discuss, consider or ask about banning books you are evil. Period.

I can appreciate the relexive horror towards the question being asked - but you are ascribing motive to something without any sort of proof. Perhaps Palin was asking the librarian so that she understood the proceedure (for example if a resident asked to have a book banned) Perhaps she was testing the loyalty of the librarian, Perhaps she was asking to see if it was necessary to make book banning more difficult or perhaps she was wanted to ban Grapes of Wrath.... the only one who knows is Palin.

However, the facts we have is

1) she asked about it (up to three times)
2) she never requested a single item be banned


Why would he? The Catholic Church doesn't specifically advocate short-earth creationism. The Catholic Church doesn't have any problems whatsoever with evolution. All they require, theologically-speaking, is the belief that at some point in the whole process, God creates and inserts the rational soul into human beings. Evolved from some sort of proto-primate? Sure, whatever - but the soul didn't evolve, it was created.

You are one of the first to make use of the specific teminology of short-earth creationism - and I agree that Catholics dont specifically adhere to that dogma (but your are painting a pretty broad brush to say that Catholosims has no problems what soever with evolution - because you start to get into very sticky situations about what creature first qualifies for a soul)

I have never seen anywhere that Palin was a short-earth creationist (and if she has, then I retract all of this) - so the people that assign her this beleif are being as dishonest as if they said "I want to know if Biden believes in Dinosaurs being around 4000 years ago" It is a sleazy trick that has no place in the debate (and one that Obama wins by it being held)

[AZRogue]

Or how about whether or not someone is stupid enough to think that creationism is valid in any way shape or form? That's a bigger question than either of your other questions, since your comparing the mayor of a tiny city who was governor of a tiny state for less than two years with a fucking senator.

--Blowd Away Spikey

I wonder what type of creationist I am if I consider evolution to be true but that God got the ball rolling initially when he started the process, way back in the depths of time?

[Radu]

You know, Utrecht, you do have some points. She may not be a young earth creationist, but she's still scientifically suspect.

Why?

Sarah Palin: "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

The funny thing is, no one but you is afraid of education, Sarah. Healthy debate IS important--- but to have a healthy debate, both sides need to have something worth debating. Evidence. A sound basis from which to build their argument from. Evolution has got one- a phenomenally strong base, in fact. Creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on in this arena. We can't have a debate when one side doesn't agree to play by the rules.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Sure, teach creationism in schools-- in PHILOSOPHY class. Perhaps in a HISTORY class, as in, "Here's what people used to believe." Definitely not in a science class. There simply is NO ROOM for a debate on this issue. One side has a clear, rational explanation, with mountains of evidence and beautiful simplicity. The other side has... effectively nothing. Some opinions. Some old superstition. Neither of which are scientifically valid, nor debate worthy.

That quote alone is enough to invalidate Sarah Palin as a legitimate candidate in my mind. From it, I can gather that she lacks a proper understanding of evidence, scientific method, and logic. Those are pretty important traits for a VP to have, especially if one believes there's more than a slight chance she'll be President. I'm sorry, but I don't think we can afford another 4 years of faith based leadership.

[Utrecht]

You know, Utrecht, you do have some points. She may not be a young earth creationist, but she's still scientifically suspect.

Why?

Sarah Palin: "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

...

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Sure, teach creationism in schools-- in PHILOSOPHY class. Perhaps in a HISTORY class, as in, "Here's what people used to believe." Definitely not in a science class. There simply is NO ROOM for a debate on this issue. One side has a clear, rational explanation, with mountains of evidence and beautiful simplicity. The other side has... effectively nothing. Some opinions. Some old superstition. Neither of which are scientifically valid, nor debate worthy.

That quote alone is enough to invalidate Sarah Palin as a legitimate candidate in my mind. From it, I can gather that she lacks a proper understanding of evidence, scientific method, and logic. Those are pretty important traits for a VP to have, especially if one believes there's more than a slight chance she'll be President. I'm sorry, but I don't think we can afford another 4 years of faith based leadership.

Again, I think that people are reading what they want into that quote (on both sides). To my knowledge, she never stated that they had to be taught side-by-side - only that both should be taught. Is it fair to infer that she want them taught in a science class - perhaps - maybe even likely - but to assign her that position without evidence is a leap I am not prepared to make.

Her position could easily be teach evolution, read a 1 paragraph statement saying that there are other beleifs on this such as creationism which we will discuss during our Philisophy class - and entirely reasonable position (IMO) and one that could be inferred from her statements.

Further, from a personal level, I dont have an issue with debatingcreationism during a science class - assuming that it is mentioned that this is a belief system without evidence. The reason that I am OK with it is beacause it reinforces the idea that science is more than just numbers, it has social impacts touches on sensative subject (I think high school kids should have a unit on scientific ethics)

[Merganser]

You are one of the first to make use of the specific teminology of short-earth creationism - and I agree that Catholics dont specifically adhere to that dogma (but your are painting a pretty broad brush to say that Catholosims has no problems what soever with evolution - because you start to get into very sticky situations about what creature first qualifies for a soul)



Well, individual Catholics might have any number of problems, I meant that the authority of the Church itself doesn't have a problem, officially. I don't think evolution makes any claims as to when a species becomes eligible for a soul or anything, so that's not a problem with evolution per se, but rather an interpretation of how evolution works in a Catholic context.

[there_is_no_bob]

You are one of the first to make use of the specific teminology of short-earth creationism - and I agree that Catholics dont specifically adhere to that dogma (but your are painting a pretty broad brush to say that Catholosims has no problems what soever with evolution - because you start to get into very sticky situations about what creature first qualifies for a soul)Go look up what the Pope has to say about evolution. Since it isn't science, it doesn't have to define the first creature to have a soul. It happened, God did it, they`re done. If someone asks, just say the guy wasn`t fossilized and it happened in some large range of time where homo sapiens is known to have existed.


I wonder what type of creationist I am if I consider evolution to be true but that God got the ball rolling initially when he started the process, way back in the depths of time?You are probably a theistic evolutionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution).



Further, from a personal level, I dont have an issue with debatingcreationism during a science class - assuming that it is mentioned that this is a belief system without evidence.Then you fail to understand the level at which science is taught in the school system. "Debate" on creationism (in which both sides were being honest) would consist of "Creationism is wrong and is in no way science. Evolution has been observed, tested, and is used every day in science labs throughout the world. It has withstood 150 years of intense scrutiny, and has yet to fall. It is as established a theory as gravity.". There would be just as much point to debating Euler's formula in 6th grade math class. Less, actually, since Euler`s formula is easier to prove than it is to demonstrate the truth of evolution and the effectiveness of the Theory of Evolution.

Although I suppose I shouldn't care too much if you folks dumb down your science education - so long as it doesn't happen up here.

[Radu]

What Bob said. I don't even think creationism is worth dignifying with mentioning in a science classroom. As for the argument that it "is only a theory," it demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the term "theory."

Sure, evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is only a theory. Should we then open up our physics classrooms to "competing ideas, to debate their merits?" I suggest Intelligent Falling. Items don't fall to earth because of gravity. It is because a grand cosmic force, some Intelligent Creator being, if you will, pushes them down.

So let's stack them up:

Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Intelligent Falling vs. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation
Intelligent Sickness (Better name?) vs. Germ Theory of Disease
Intelligent Disasters vs Theory of Plate Tectonics

You see, on one side of these "debates," there is a massive volume of evidence. All of these theories have been around for at least a century and we have yet to find a better model/explanation for the topics they govern. To allow anyone to suggest otherwise is to play a very foolish game of pretend. Why bother teaching science at all if you allow untested (and untestable!) bullshit to share space with rigorously tested, repeatable, scientifically verifiable concepts? The whole point of science education is to give a basic understanding of the essential way our universe behaves, as well as to give them a basic grasp of critical thinking and logic.

[Harry]

What Bob said. I don't even think creationism is worth dignifying with mentioning in a science classroom. As for the argument that it "is only a theory," it demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the term "theory."

Sure, evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is only a theory. Should we then open up our physics classrooms to "competing ideas, to debate their merits?" I suggest Intelligent Falling. Items don't fall to earth because of gravity. It is because a grand cosmic force, some Intelligent Creator being, if you will, pushes them down.

So let's stack them up:

Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Intelligent Falling vs. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation
Intelligent Sickness (Better name?) vs. Germ Theory of Disease
Intelligent Disasters vs Theory of Plate Tectonics

You see, on one side of these "debates," there is a massive volume of evidence. All of these theories have been around for at least a century and we have yet to find a better model/explanation for the topics they govern. To allow anyone to suggest otherwise is to play a very foolish game of pretend. Why bother teaching science at all if you allow untested (and untestable!) bullshit to share space with rigorously tested, repeatable, scientifically verifiable concepts? The whole point of science education is to give a basic understanding of the essential way our universe behaves, as well as to give them a basic grasp of critical thinking and logic.

God damn, that's gonna make one HELL of a long signature, but... Mind if I use it?

[Radu]

go for it. It's your sig!

[Harry]

go for it. It's your sig!

:(

The following errors occurred when this message was submitted:

1. Your signature can not be longer than 1000 characters including BBCode markup.

[Freedom Canadian]

Her position could easily be teach evolution, read a 1 paragraph statement saying that there are other beleifs on this such as creationism which we will discuss during our Philisophy class - and entirely reasonable position (IMO) and one that could be inferred from her statements.


:laughing:

[Utrecht]

What Bob said. I don't even think creationism is worth dignifying with mentioning in a science classroom. As for the argument that it "is only a theory," it demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the term "theory."

Sure, evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is only a theory. Should we then open up our physics classrooms to "competing ideas, to debate their merits?" I suggest Intelligent Falling. Items don't fall to earth because of gravity. It is because a grand cosmic force, some Intelligent Creator being, if you will, pushes them down.

So let's stack them up:

Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Intelligent Falling vs. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation
Intelligent Sickness (Better name?) vs. Germ Theory of Disease
Intelligent Disasters vs Theory of Plate Tectonics

You see, on one side of these "debates," there is a massive volume of evidence. All of these theories have been around for at least a century and we have yet to find a better model/explanation for the topics they govern. To allow anyone to suggest otherwise is to play a very foolish game of pretend. Why bother teaching science at all if you allow untested (and untestable!) bullshit to share space with rigorously tested, repeatable, scientifically verifiable concepts? The whole point of science education is to give a basic understanding of the essential way our universe behaves, as well as to give them a basic grasp of critical thinking and logic.

Look, I realize that there are few topics that get board memebers as this one - so I realize that I am in the middle of the minefield.

Next - lets be honest here - you did a switch out. The entire discussion has been about Creationism - not ID - they are two different things - and you need to know that.

Further, IMO discussions about Creationism certainly has value mentioning and even debating in a science classroom - if for no other reason than point out what you mentioned above - the concepts of emperical science vs. belief. Second, the idea of teaching science in a vacuum (again) IMO is a bad idea - science exists in a broader social context and as i mentioned above, it is important that kids understand that and what impact it has.

The idea of completely segregating diciplines is silly to me - math touches science which touches ethics which touchs social studies which touchs english......

[Utrecht]

:laughing:

As long as you can ackowledge you are putting words in her mouth.....

[FeatsofClay]

Next - lets be honest here - you did a switch out. The entire discussion has been about Creationism - not ID - they are two different things - and you need to know that.


How? Please state any scientific research backing creationism. Not research knocking on evolution but research backing creationism.

I would love to see how the two differ because I have seen no differences. ID is the term used for Creationism so as not to use the word Creation.

[Varaj]

Look, I realize that there are few topics that get board memebers as this one - so I realize that I am in the middle of the minefield.

Next - lets be honest here - you did a switch out. The entire discussion has been about Creationism - not ID - they are two different things - and you need to know that.

Further, IMO discussions about Creationism certainly has value mentioning and even debating in a science classroom - if for no other reason than point out what you mentioned above - the concepts of emperical science vs. belief. Second, the idea of teaching science in a vacuum (again) IMO is a bad idea - science exists in a broader social context and as i mentioned above, it is important that kids understand that and what impact it has.

The idea of completely segregating diciplines is silly to me - math touches science which touches ethics which touchs social studies which touchs english......

ID is nothing but window dressing for creationism. They are the same thing.
For the rest of what you say I agree creationism should be brought up in the science class room, as long as it is a hot bed topic, to explain why it isn't science why it isn't studied in science class and why it is appropriate in world religions and philosophy.
It is also worth noting that US high schools (where creationism is a wanted to be taught) are not about teaching thinking but teach discipline and facts, overly mixing educational subjects is not inline with that model.

[Ascarel]

Utrecht, go read the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case judgment. That court case established an excellent precedent in this debate in objectively showing without the single trace of a doubt that creationism and ID are the exact same thing. This is not arguable. ID = creationism. Period.

Or let's put this in this other way. What the case has shown is that the initiators of the ID movement actually did just rename creationism. Now, many other people probably wanted/have made ID into something different than creationism just to try being right, but they are deluding themselves.

[Trainz]

Messageboards are bullshit.

We say we like to discuss and debate, but I almost never see anyone change their positions. It's public verbal masturbation.

Utrecht, you have a golden opportunity here to demonstrate that I'm wrong. Just admit (which would be a great show of intellect given the subject matter) that ID/Creationism is just plain wrong and has no place at all in school, except maybe in religious classes.

[Atropine Mama]

Messageboards are bullshit.

We say we like to discuss and debate, but I almost never see anyone change their positions. It's public verbal masturbation.

:melodrama:

[Utrecht]

My point with the creationism does not equal ID was simply this - There are many types of creationism - which can be roughly grouped as such


Young Earth Creationist - reject evolution and believe that both the earth and the universe are less than 10k year old

Gap Creationist - reject evolution (both primate and general fauna/flora) but beleive that the earth and universe are the scientifically accepted ages (great flood did occur)

Progressive Creationist - reject human evolution, but accept general flora/fauna - and accept the scientific age of the earth and the universe (no great flood)

ID - Evolution is accepted by tied into divine intervention - and that the earth's creation is due to divine intevention (some schools also apply this to the universe)

Theistic Evolution - evolution is as science , age of the earth and universe are as science - but that a divine intelligence started the whole thing



So that folks know where my bias lies - I am a Theistic Evolutionist - God stated the whole bloddy thing (laws of nature/physics, etc were set up by him/it/she....)

Now, should any of these be tought as fact in school - no - as has righly been pointed out, none of them pass any type of emperical test. However, I do think have a lesson (no more than an hour or so) where the students discuss the ideas behind science vs. belief (and how this has evolved through the ages) would provide educational benefit - and wont melt any childs mind - and in fact (IMO) lead to exactly the results that many folks here are looking by giving kids a direct application for this kind of critical thinking - where they will realize many creationist ideas just dont make sense.

Ascarel - I did want to directly address your point - I agree ID proponets have tried to take over the creationist label to varying degrees of success - and they have tried to do an end around by putting a science label on it but at the end of the day, ID is simply one form of creationism.

Finally, tieing this back Mr. Damon's question - we simply don't know what kind of creationist Palin is - and until we do - we are inferring/assuming where she stands (and yes, this is a 100% fair question to ask her).

[FeatsofClay]

Which beliefes would the science be compared to?

Planet created by a trickster spider? Blue giant picked people form his hair and his sister cried a river upon seeing them alone? Turtles all the way down?

I have never heard an argument for anything but a JudeoChristian based creation/inttelligent argument. But the average American classroom is going to have people form all of these other backgrounds as well.

[Alpha Ralpha]

Finally, tieing this back Mr. Damon's question - we simply don't know what kind of creationist Palin is - and until we do - we are inferring/assuming where she stands (and yes, this is a 100% fair question to ask her).

wtf?!

why the fuck does it matter how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

She, as a personal belief, chooses to ignore mountains of tested scientific evidence and believe what happened based on faith in a book someone handed to her and said was true because millions of other people believe it to be so. Splitting hairs about what exact brand name of "creationism" she may or may not admit to believing in does nothing to change the basis of the argument.

Whether she or you or anyone else believes that fossils exist because God put them in the ground premade or because god made dinosaurs hundreds of thousands of years ago does not define anything different about whether her support of creationism or faith. Scientific methods applied to existing evidence refutes the timelines presented in the Old Testament. If someone tries to say that "I believe God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life millions of years ago and the life eventually evolved down the line to the present day" then they have made a case AGAINST creationism not one that is for some divergent brand of it.

[Varaj]

My point with the creationism does not equal ID was simply this - There are many types of creationism - which can be roughly grouped as such


Young Earth Creationist - reject evolution and believe that both the earth and the universe are less than 10k year old

Gap Creationist - reject evolution (both primate and general fauna/flora) but beleive that the earth and universe are the scientifically accepted ages (great flood did occur)

Progressive Creationist - reject human evolution, but accept general flora/fauna - and accept the scientific age of the earth and the universe (no great flood)

ID - Evolution is accepted by tied into divine intervention - and that the earth's creation is due to divine intevention (some schools also apply this to the universe)

Theistic Evolution - evolution is as science , age of the earth and universe are as science - but that a divine intelligence started the whole thing



I'm not sure I agree with that break down. Remove theistic evolution from the list completely, rename ID (in the list) to what ever you want and change this sentence "There are many types of creationism" to this "There are many types of creationism/ID" also remove this sentence completely "My point with the creationism does not equal ID was simply this" and then your list will better reflect the real world.

[there_is_no_bob]

Ascarel - I did want to directly address your point - I agree ID proponets have tried to take over the creationist labelNo.

ID was the label slapped on creationism when it was determined that teaching creationism was illegal.


And of your list, if she is anything but a theistic evolutionist she's wrong/against science. All the rest of them are incompatible with science.
Edit:and Varaj is right; theistic evolution is not creationism.

[Freedom Canadian]

As long as you can ackowledge you are putting words in her mouth.....

I am doing no such thing. Her statement can mean a lot of things and I would not presume to tell you what she meant exactly.

All I'm saying is that your proposed interpretation is extremely unlikely. So much so that I feel perfectly comfortable with dismissing it outright.

People who believe "sure, we can mention shortly in class that some people don't believe in evolution" don't, as a rule, stand up and say "I think we should teach both" and leave it at that.


Likewise, when people say they are 100% against the teaching of Creationism in school, they are rarely against this:

However, I do think have a lesson (no more than an hour or so) where the students discuss the ideas behind science vs. belief (and how this has evolved through the ages) would provide educational benefit - and wont melt any childs mind - and in fact (IMO) lead to exactly the results that many folks here are looking by giving kids a direct application for this kind of critical thinking - where they will realize many creationist ideas just dont make sense.

[AZRogue]

I'm of the personal opinion that Creationism, in any form, SHOULD be taught, but only in Sunday School. It's most appropriate there and it's the proper setting for a plea to faith and each church has it's own doctrine on how literal they believe the bible to be.

[cnath.rm]

since your comparing the mayor of a tiny city who was governor of a tiny state for less than two years with a fucking senator.who hasn't had much time as a senator and who said himself not that long ago that he didn't consider himself to be qualified for the job... :rolleyes:

I'm not particularly a fan myself, but good grief man, Obama had been in the job for what, just over two years before he declared himself a candidate? At least he isn't trying for the BS the Kerry was, where you are running for president and to keep your senate seat at the same time...

I'm going to assume that you are meaning that AK is "tiny" as far as population, because the landmass is freaking huge. :lol:

[Utrecht]

wtf?!

why the fuck does it matter how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

She, as a personal belief, chooses to ignore mountains of tested scientific evidence and believe what happened based on faith in a book someone handed to her and said was true because millions of other people believe it to be so. Splitting hairs about what exact brand name of "creationism" she may or may not admit to believing in does nothing to change the basis of the argument.


Except that it is not splitting hairs - if she is a Theastic Creationist - then she would readily accept the mountains of tested scientific evidence (as do I)

I agree the other four do to various degrees ignore mountains of data - and if she is one of them - then your vitriol is valid - right now, you are supposing what she believes based off a broad and politically charged label "creationism"



Whether she or you or anyone else believes that fossils exist because God put them in the ground premade or because god made dinosaurs hundreds of thousands of years ago does not define anything different about whether her support of creationism or faith. Scientific methods applied to existing evidence refutes the timelines presented in the Old Testament. If someone tries to say that "I believe God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life millions of years ago and the life eventually evolved down the line to the present day" then they have made a case AGAINST creationism not one that is for some divergent brand of it.

Alpha, please see my response to Varaj below - the publically accepted definition of creationism is fairly broad.


I'm not sure I agree with that break down. Remove theistic evolution from the list completely, rename ID (in the list) to what ever you want and change this sentence "There are many types of creationism" to this "There are many types of creationism/ID" also remove this sentence completely "My point with the creationism does not equal ID was simply this" and then your list will better reflect the real world.


Varaj - I present to you the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism - particularly section 5.

While I certainly agree that wikipedia is not the end all be all source - but I would accept its definitions over yours (no offense) - and that wikipedia does a good job of reflecting the real world.

No.

ID was the label slapped on creationism when it was determined that teaching creationism was illegal.



Yes that was one attempt - dont disagree


And of your list, if she is anything but a theistic evolutionist she's wrong


Agree with you


/against science.


I believe that one can be both for science and be a creationist - but that is a quibble (for example, one could be a damn good biologist, but also accept Progressive Creationism)



All the rest of them are incompatible with science.
Edit:and Varaj is right; theistic evolution is not creationism.

No varaj beleives that he is correct - but common accepted termology (as demonstrated by wiki) says differently.

[Utrecht]

hmmm, apparently did not click on the multi-quote right

I am doing no such thing. Her statement can mean a lot of things and I would not presume to tell you what she meant exactly.

But you (by all appearances) are leaping to conclusions that are not supported by facts - just opinions.


All I'm saying is that your proposed interpretation is extremely unlikely. So much so that I feel perfectly comfortable with dismissing it outright.


Betting odds says you are correct - but I have difficulty accepting someone who is the daughter of a high school science teacher would roundly reject the mass of scientific evidence


People who believe "sure, we can mention shortly in class that some people don't believe in evolution" don't, as a rule, stand up and say "I think we should teach both" and leave it at that.


except that in Palin's case, this is exactly what she has done - she has never endorsed, encouraged or backed any manner of Creationism in the school - effectively leaving "at that" with her statement of what she thought.

[Radu]

Theistic Creationism seems like a sexy multisyllabic way to say, "Deist" to me. As long as the "God created the laws of physics" part is left out and we focus on the "laws of physics" aspect I'm totally fine with Theistic Creationism in schools. Which would bring us back to:

Teach science as science. Don't go into any crazy (or even not as crazy) alternate conjectures. Stick to what is scientifically known and testable, and you'll do fine in my book. If you want to believe that God set up the laws of the universe, I'm not going to stop you. I'll nod my head and move on my way, because that sort of belief doesn't automatically discount you in my book as a rational, reasonable person. Perhaps as someone who engages in a bit more wishful thinking than I do, but not unreasonable.

I don't really see much of a difference between any of the categories you've mentioned except for Theistic Creationists and the whole rest of the lot. The first few are variants of "a-scientific batshit crazy" and the second seems to be playing a nice semantic game and thus not really a creationist at all. What it comes down to is if you believe in a talking snake, I don't want your crazy rubbing off on American youth.

[Trainz]

A side note:

I highly recommend the book Blasphemy (http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Douglas-Preston/dp/0765311054/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221196409&sr=8-1) by Douglas Preston. I finished it last week. It deals with science versus religion, is action packed, and the ending isn't what you would guess it to be.

Oh, and it has a Supercollider in it in the Arizona desert... Preston is prescient, especially with everything going on with the LHC!

[Varaj]

Varaj - I present to you the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism - particularly section 5.

While I certainly agree that wikipedia is not the end all be all source - but I would accept its definitions over yours (no offense) - and that wikipedia does a good job of reflecting the real world.


Fair enough.


No varaj beleives that he is correct - but common accepted termology (as demonstrated by wiki) says differently.

Can't be that common of a taxonomy if so far you are the only one that agrees with it. :)

[Schizm]

Can't be that common of a taxonomy if so far you are the only one that agrees with it. :)

but Varaj! Wikipedia says so! it must be true! :rolleyes:

[Utrecht]

Fair enough.

Can't be that common of a taxonomy if so far you are the only one that agrees with it. :)

I would hardly say this is the most objective group :)

but Varaj! Wikipedia says so! it must be true! :rolleyes:

Schizm - please, by all means show me something that says differently - but until that time you are spouting opinion - and I am presenting something that has gone through some level of public scrutiny/acceptance - and if i were to play a judge on television - I wouldn't go with the opinion......

[Schizm]

Schizm - please, by all means show me something that says differently - but until that time you are spouting opinion - and I am presenting something that has gone through some level of public scrutiny/acceptance - and if i were to play a judge on television - I wouldn't go with the opinion......

Utrecht, my comment is specifically based upon the repeated and in depth "discussions" of the use of Wikipedia to back any arguments. Given the direct interaction of "the public" with wiki articles, and the examples that we've seen (cough cough, Eric Noah) of intentional and malicious changes made to Wikipedia just to fuck with other people, using Wikipedia as a cite seems to be akin to walking onto a high school campus and accepting an answer from the first fourteen year old you ask.

[Utrecht]

Utrecht, my comment is specifically based upon the repeated and in depth "discussions" of the use of Wikipedia to back any arguments. Given the direct interaction of "the public" with wiki articles, and the examples that we've seen (cough cough, Eric Noah) of intentional and malicious changes made to Wikipedia just to fuck with other people, using Wikipedia as a cite seems to be akin to walking onto a high school campus and accepting an answer from the first fourteen year old you ask.


On that I mostly agree - Wikipedia is pretty good for generalist information and agreeing on definitions - and while not as bad as your 14 year anology, it should be accepted for general teminology - with an eye out for the "fucking with you" element (Which in the case of the creationism page appears to be pretty clear - unlike say the global warming one)

Further, it does server as a good clearing house to follow more specific/less fuckable information.

and since I was simply using it to set definitions -I still like it better than board member opinions. Now if you have a better method of establishing definitions, I am all ears.

[FeatsofClay]

I would hardly say this is the most objective group :)




How is calling for only ideas with evidence to be taught not objective? Objectivity is how we all reached the conclusion that Creationism is ID and they both are useless.

I think, in this instance, your problem with the group is that they are being objective.

[Utrecht]

How is calling for only ideas with evidence to be taught not objective? Objectivity is how we all reached the conclusion that Creationism is ID and they both are useless.

I think, in this instance, your problem with the group is that they are being objective.

I actually think that this is a situation of the Intrawebs causing a lost in translation moment.

my point was simply, that the posters have already come to a conclusion what both ID Cand reationism were (based off previous experience/research) - and even when provided a alternative definition (through a pretty common ground and accepted source) were pretty lukewarm to even accept it - and have not provided alternative sources (with the questional case of Ascarel's court case (and not that the case is questionable - but rather that using a court case as a definition is questionable).

As I have stated - show me common defitions of creationism that does not include Thestic/Deist and I will certainly roll with it.

[Teve]

Or how about whether or not someone is stupid enough to think that creationism is valid in any way shape or form? That's a bigger question than either of your other questions, since your comparing the mayor of a tiny city who was governor of a tiny state for less than two years with a fucking senator.

--Blowd Away Spikey

I am assuming when you call Alaska a "tiny" :boggle: state you are referring only to popluation?
ok, silly subject change, but a valid question I think :)

[Snatch]

I suggest Intelligent Falling. Items don't fall to earth because of gravity. It is because a grand cosmic force, some Intelligent Creator being, if you will, pushes them down.

I absolutely disagree. It is clear that the Creator is pulling things down and not in anyway pushing them! :mad:

[Snatch]

We say we like to discuss and debate, but I almost never see anyone change their positions. It's public verbal masturbation.


But is it cheating?

[Varaj]

I would hardly say this is the most objective group :)


Once again fair enough.

As for Wikipedia, it is a fine place to start and I have zero problem with your reference.

[AZRogue]

Messageboards are bullshit.

We say we like to discuss and debate, but I almost never see anyone change their positions. It's public verbal masturbation.

Utrecht, you have a golden opportunity here to demonstrate that I'm wrong. Just admit (which would be a great show of intellect given the subject matter) that ID/Creationism is just plain wrong and has no place at all in school, except maybe in religious classes.

You know, I've been thinking about this the last day or so and I have to say that I disagree. I know that I've modified beliefs and opinions, sometimes, based on what I've read here and back on NKL/NTL. Usually, though, it's easier when the opinions changed are not "core" beliefs.

A person's core beliefs are not, IMO, easily changed, much less changed by a message board post. However, even if a person's core beliefs aren't altered with each new post, they will still be modified over time. If we take the time to understand each other a bit more, try to avoid painting each other with broad strokes and listen a bit, we may not change our opinions right away, but over time they will drift. Core beliefs are like that, they have inertia. You don't just change course, you have to steer them by degrees, and I think message boards can do that quite easily.

[Trainz]

You know, I've been thinking about this the last day or so and I have to say that I disagree. I know that I've modified beliefs and opinions, sometimes, based on what I've read here and back on NKL/NTL. Usually, though, it's easier when the opinions changed are not "core" beliefs.

A person's core beliefs are not, IMO, easily changed, much less changed by a message board post. However, even if a person's core beliefs aren't altered with each new post, they will still be modified over time. If we take the time to understand each other a bit more, try to avoid painting each other with broad strokes and listen a bit, we may not change our opinions right away, but over time they will drift. Core beliefs are like that, they have inertia. You don't just change course, you have to steer them by degrees, and I think message boards can do that quite easily.


Right. I stand corrected. Thanks for taking the time to make your case and not just dissmiss my point with an insulting smiley.

I don't know... like I said, some things like beliefs, sure, depends on the individual, I like your inertia analogy, it's spot on. But anything that supports, directly or from afar (depending on the degrees of religious/science beliefs like Utrecht and Wiki insist they are) the idea that super tested scientific stuff is wrong just because, well that is called encouraging stupidity, and I was hoping that at LEAST on that topic we could all be of one mind.

[Name Lips]

Right. It's one thing to say that religion can exist without scientific proof, but it's quite another to say that science can't exist without religious proof.