Palin Question

[Bee.]

I think that creationism isn't science and shouldn't be taught next to other theories, which can be experimented and proven.

In philosophy or western religion classes, sure, but definitely not science.

[Becca]

Speaking of Google...

Scroll down to read it from the horses mouth. And no I'm not calling her a horse. Granted the story is 2 years old, take it for what it's worth.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/ele...-8243554c.html

'Creation science' enters the race GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools. By TOM KIZZIA Anchorage Daily News Published: October 27, 2006 Last Modified: October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons "religious-based" and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class. The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993. The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education. Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that "intelligent design" be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it. In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said. Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to. "We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS," she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems. The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory." The issue of teaching an alternative to evolution has turned into an issue in the current race for governor in Michigan, where Republican **** DeVos said he wanted to see students exposed to the idea of intelligent design. In 1993 in Alaska, several Board of Education appointees of Gov. Wally Hickel considered adding creation science to the board's list of recommended scientific concepts. The idea was proposed by a member of the school board who taught at a private Christian school in Fairbanks. It failed on a 3-3 tie, with one school board member absent. In 2003 a curriculum reform panel recommended leaving evolution out of the state requirements to avoid controversy. Their recommendation was accepted by the state Department of Education, but the state board -- which had the final say -- reinserted the term. Current state regulations allow local districts to add their own curriculum beyond the minimum state requirements, said Department of Education spokesman Eric Fry. That would arguably include some form of creation science, he said. "They couldn't promote religion, but it's OK to teach about religion," Fry said. But efforts to bring such lessons to the science classroom would likely be subject to the same kind of constitutional challenge that blew up into a national controversy in Dover, Pa., last year. After a six-week trial, a Republican judge appointed by President George W. Bush concluded that intelligent design "advanced a particular version of Christianity" and did not belong in class. Judge John E. Jones III said Darwin's theory of evolution was imperfect. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom." Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives. "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion." That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher. "My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' " Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator." She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact. "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said. Knowles was asked Thursday if he believed in a creator and, if so, how he reconciled that with evolution. Campaign spokeswoman Patty Ginsburg responded by e-mail: "Tony wants to stick by what he said last night -- creationism has no place in public school classrooms as an 'alternative' to evolution." Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Billy Toien, the last candidate to answer the question about evolution at Wednesday's televised debate, posed a question of his own to moderator Michael Carey. "My question is, who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?" "I'm only the moderator, not a theologian," said Carey, moving on to the next topic. Daily News reporter George Bryson contributed to this story. Contact reporter Tom Kizzia at tkizzia@adn.com. • HALCRO: "I think anything that is religious-based in, in concept, you know, really should, needs to be taught in the proper channel -- philosophy, sociology. I don't think it should be taught as a science." • KNOWLES: "... The answer is no. The reason why is we don't want politics in our science. We actually want more science in our politics. We don't want to just teach all things because it may be politically correct. We want to teach the best science there is, and there is overwhelming evidence, there's almost incontrovertible evidence that evolution is the science that, that we know. And that's what we should always teach, to never compromise on the principles just because it's politically popular." • PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

[Astra]

Originally Posted by Loretta Who gets to decide what is "questionable content"?? Books should NEVER be banned. Period.

[CocoaGoddess]

Originally Posted by Teresa The way I read it ( before I researched it ) was that she wanted to ban ALL books which would just be crazy! What do you think of it being a "rhetorical exercise"? Do you think she was doing it just to get opinions on it or was she really wanting to ban books? This is where I found my info, I don't know if there is somewhere better to look, this was just the first thing I found in my search : http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/...ried-ban-books

First of all, can I say that I absolutely LOVE you for linking us to a site where the author in question is pondering how Sarah Palin's stance on book banning would affect the ratings on video games. Because that? Is just awesomeness unrivaled. I am sending this to my husband asap.
It is an angle I truly had never considered.

As for what was quoted in the article:

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through... Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support...

She fired the poor Librarian after she was (rightly) aghast at the Mayor's tactics, and only reinstated her because of public outcry! In her defense, she didn't want to ban all books, but even trying to ban one book is vile and reprehensible. I don't care if it was "rhetorical" she inquired about it and then took action when she didn't get the response she desired.

She was a woman on a satanic mission.

[Becca]

Oh and to answer the original question, I don't really care

This is one of those "non-issues" to me.

[Miss B Hav'n]

Originally Posted by Airman's.Reina I think that creationism isn't science and shouldn't be taught next to other theories, which can be experimented and proven. In philosophy or western religion classes, sure, but definitely not science.

[Teresa]

[QUOTE=CocoaGoddess;3063009]First of all, can I say that I absolutely LOVE you for linking us to a site where the author in question is pondering how Sarah Palin's stance on book banning would affect the ratings on video games. Because that? Is just awesomeness unrivaled. I am sending this to my husband asap.
It is an angle I truly had never considered.

Oops, I guess that wasn't the greatest site, huh? I guess I need to get better at researching things I didn't even look at the name of the site

[DakotaCowgirl]

Creation is a different theory. One I personally believe.

On thing with Evolution, we know that the sun is decreasing and if Evolutionist are true in the statement that the earth was created billions of years ago, then the Earth would have been in the sun. Also, what about the I think it is called the Cosmic dust that would have been on the moon at the first landing. Scientists feared that the moon would have had feet of cosmic dust on it and the landing would have been impossible; when in fact, it was, I think 3/8ths an inch.

In science class, they should be taught all theories and brought all scientific data in to it. There is just enough science that proves part of creation and evolution.

JMO.

[CocoaGoddess]

• PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

This makes her almost sound reasonable, but really she isn't. Creationism should not be taught in public schools outside of a "religions" course. What, are we going to teach kids that landing on the moon was also a "theory"?

[CocoaGoddess]

This is in response to Teresa's post, which is giving me all kinds of problems quoting it:

No, it's cool! I like it. Different argument, different slant, different concerns. I can dig it.