obvious Child

I gotta wonder, Sarah Palin has made it clear that she supports teaching both evolution and creationism in the science classroom.

Fair enough.

Now my question is, what would we teach as creationism science?

There are no experiments.
There is no science based research.
Several elements of Creationism violate physics.

So what the hell WOULD creationism 'science' look like as a teaching plan?

Sunday School?

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

talloulou

If she wants to push to have both taught in science class I have a huge problem with that.

However from all I've read she has claimed she has no intention of pushing anything and when asked to elaborate on what she thought she said she didn't think creationism should be outright banned as a topic of discussion in schools. In other words if it comes up it's ok, in her mind, to partake in a class discussion.

Do you have evidence that I'm mistaken about what I've read? I'd like to see evidence of what you're attributing to her.

jallman

No, she hasn't. In fact, she has stated that she would put no pressure on the school boards to change the curriculum and that she does not think that creationism should be added to the curriculum. Her stance is that if students bring up creationism, that the teacher should not stifle the debate and should allow them to have open discussion.

Factcheck.org

__________________
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...amaSigcopy.jpg

Simon W. Moon

from here:
FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin

"I am a proponent of teaching both."

I may be mistaken as to what exactly 'proponent' means these days. I am old and didn't even know that stupid meant cool nowadays. 'Proponent' USED to mean that you were in favor of, or supported whatever you were a proponent for. Maybe that has changed.

What does 'proponent' mean these days specifically in Palin's statement that's quoted above?

In the old days it would have meant that she supports teaching both evolution and creationism in the science classroom.
Whats the new fangled definition of 'proponent' that you're using, jall?

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

jallman

When you bother to read the entire link, get back to me. I'm not interested in you peddling half assed editorials lifting snippets that are convenient to your idiotic interpretations while ignoring the entirety of the reference.

And I am especially not interested in your assholish sarcasm, which would work if you were even moderately informed on the issue. But since you aren't...

Kernel Sanders

Staying away from the Pailn issue (she is pretty tangential to this), creation science would most likely entail teaching the "alternative" ideas for how evidence of evolution came to be. Things like showing that one fossil that creationists use as proof that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, teaching that the flood is responsible for sedimentary layering and fossilization/oil production, etc. Creation "science" is entirely a superficial thing, but that's what high school education is. I doubt that any public high school bio course goes into evolution (or any scientific concept really) in depth enough to actually gauge its validity. Creation "science" doesn't stand up to any modicum of peer review, but it sounds good enough to fool fourteen year olds.

jallman

I just wish we would abandon this whole idea of calling creationism "creation science". It's not science. It's mythology.

Kernel Sanders

In general I agree with you, but in that particular post I was intentionally using the words creationism and creation science differently. I was assigning the name creation "science" to the patchwork explanations that creationists use to reconcile the real world with the Bible. Creationism is the belief that god created life. Creation "science" is saying that fossils exist because the pressure of the great flood caused the process to happen instantaneously rather than over millions of years.

More generally, though, I agree. Creationism is mythology, not any kind of science. The same applies for Intelligent Design

jallman

I'm with you. I just don't think it's a good idea to indulge that line of reasoning at all though...ever. Creationists would latch on to that word and try to use it to leverage their beliefs into what should be a non-debate.

obvious Child

Okay. I still don't have a teaching Plan for creation 'science.'

But how would there be experiments to prove such ideas?

I can run bacterial vector experiments to show cross transfer of genes in science to support evolutionary changes in traits. (I did this when I was 16)

What can someone do for creation science to show it has at least SOME validity?