Saturday, August 30, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

by Wired

Reposted from:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html

Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

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."

(Read about Palin's views on ANWAR and polar bears on our sister blog, Threat Level.)

Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

The battle between evolution and creationism -- specifically, Christian creationism -- in U.S. classrooms dates back to the 1925 Scopes trial, when a Tennessee court banned the teaching of evolution. Since then, state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected so-called creation science in public schools, calling it religion rather than science.

The latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism violated the separation of church and state.

Nevertheless, pro-creationism education initiatives driven by Christian conservatives have flourished, and defenders of evolution -- and, more broadly, scientific integrity -- worry that Palin's pick will give momentum to this church-over-state push.

"It's unfortunate McCain would pick someone who shares those particular anti-science views, but it's not a surprise," said Barbara Forrest, a Southeastern Lousiana University philosophy professor and prominent critic of creationist science. "She's a choice that pleases the religious right. And the religious right has been the chief force against teaching evolution."

In February, Florida's Board of Education narrowly defeated a bill calling for evolution to be balanced by "alternatives." The language is widely regarded as a euphemism for creationism engineered by the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute, whose "wedge strategy" calls for the gradual dilution of classroom evolution and its eventual replacement by "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Armed with courtroom-friendly language, Texas is currently considering creationism-friendly revisions to its own curriculum. In June, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, encouraging schools to provide alternative critiques of global warming, human cloning and evolution. Similar initiatives were defeated in South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Missouri and Michigan.

Palin's statements track with the official Alaska Republican Party platform, which support creation science and intelligent design by name, and says that "evidence disputing the theory should also be presented."

According to Fordham Institute science education expert Lawrence Lerner, Palin's nomination is less worrisome in terms of education than the broad relationship of science and government.

"In the direct sense, vice presidents don't have much to do with what goes on in classrooms. But a person who's a creationist doesn't understand science and technology at all," said Lerner. "It doesn't bode well for science, and doesn't bode well for interaction between science and government."

President Bush has been publicly skeptical of evolution, while Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has professed support. "I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teachings of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry," he said in April.

John McCain's campaign did not respond in time for publication.

When asked about Palin potentially being a step removed from the White House, Forrest responded, "We'd have a creationist as President. But that's not new -- we've already got one."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, August 30, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 197 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #239915 by Richard Dawkins on August 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm

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.

Ignorance is a kind of weak defence. The creationist propaganda has been so effective, it is possible for reasonable people to think there really is a controversy, in which case "Teach both sides" would be reasonable. But ignorance is not a VERY good defence. You don't want a person that ignorant of the real world to get anywhere close to the presidency.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

2. Comment #239917 by Count von Count on August 30, 2008 at 2:51 pm

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be"

Then she should be ready to reject the claims of creationism. Luckily, nobody has to pretend anymore. That's the whole point of promoting evolutionary science. Indeed, it is one of the major gifts of science itself.

Other Comments by Count von Count

3. Comment #239918 by Matt7895 on August 30, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Couldn't have put it better myself. Most of my comments are whines, anyway. I just find it immensely irritating how so many people who might seem reasonable-minded at first glance turn out to be 'teach the controversy' supporters once you dig a little deeper.

For example, in a discussion with friends recently I was shocked to find one of them was a creationist. I pointed out just how absurd his views were, completely without evidence, and another friend said, 'Yeah, but you probably have beliefs that others would find just as weird'.

There's some kind of obsession right now of 'balancing out'. For example, the following: Evolution MUST have an opposing argument that is JUST as rational, right? Yeah, creationism isn't true but evolution probably isn't true either, is it? Ok, there might be no god, but atheists probably believe in something just as ridiculous, right? Everything must have an opposite argument, and the two sides of the debate are exactly 50/50.

Of course, the question that immediately springs to mind about the 'teach the controversy' campaign is, do you also want to 'teach the controversy' about astrology when teaching about the solar system?

Other Comments by Matt7895

4. Comment #239925 by BryanEvans on August 30, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Republican Sarah Palin, being a politician is more interested in gaining support from a credulous public than using her position to educate and enlighten. I do wonder whether she is fully aware of what she is doing or whether she is just plain ignorant. I wish there was a law against people like her who use their position to harp on about 'teaching the contoversy' when there really is none. There is nothing healthy about teaching both sides when really there is no scientific debate to be had. Insisting on perpetuating the myth that there is a debate only contributes to confusion and ultimately human suffering.

Other Comments by BryanEvans

5. Comment #239929 by Spinoza on August 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Look, it's very simple, there just isn't enough time in a biology class to talk about anything but biology.

Period. It's already a shitload of information to digest as it is... adding "debate" to a science class is a waste of time.

Teach the "controversy" in a POLITICS or HISTORY [Scopes, Kitzmiller, etc], or RELIGION class, though!

Other Comments by Spinoza

6. Comment #239930 by WilliamP on August 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

I'm willing to bet that she has more certain opinions when it comes to other debates that could be discussed in the classroom. What about Holocaust denial, or 9/11 conspiracy theories? US Conservatives draw a clear line at sceptical inquiry well before reaching these topics.

Other Comments by WilliamP

7. Comment #239935 by bachfiend on August 30, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I wonder if we are going about this the wrong way. As far as I can see, there are two viewpoints. Either God created the Universe 6000 years ago with the Earth virtually as it is now (ala Philip Henry Gosses's "Omphalos" of 1857) or the Earth is immensely old and the fossils can be believed. Either there is a god who is so malicious as to create an Earth which just appears to be 4.5 billion years old, to deliberately mislead humans, or (as the fossils show) life has changed in form over the eons, and hence evolution is fact. Darwin's genius was in proposing a mechanism for the fact of evolution, the (scientific) theory of natural selection. The IDiots don't seem to be rejecting change, and appear to be accepting natural selection over the short term at species level (they would be pretty silly if they didn't), so why not just add ID as yet another mechanism? So you would have evolution by natural selection, evolution by genetic drift, evolution by gene flow and evolution by intelligent design, where from time to time an intelligent designer (presumably a god, but it could also be the extraterrestrial aliens from Stanley Kubrick's and Arthur C Clarke's "2001 A Space Odyssey") gives a helping hand. As such, when evolution is being taught in the schools, you would go on and discuss the evidence for each model (I expect the discussion for ID would be extremely short). As proponents of the theory of evolution by means of intelligent design, the IDiots would then either have to do some real research or admit (as I suspect) that they are just creationists in disguise.

Other Comments by bachfiend

8. Comment #239940 by Matt7895 on August 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm

bachfiend, there are lots of other viewpoints. The Hindu myth that the world was created by the gods churning milk, the Aztec myths of the world being created through music etc. It's just a coincidence that the creation myth given any serious thought in America today is the Christian/Jewish one (and by serious thought I mean by politicians and school boards, not scientists). ID is just a poor masquerade for it.

It's a logical fallacy to say, 'There are two viewpoints. If one is false the other must be correct'. Let's leave the fallacies to the creationists.

Other Comments by Matt7895

9. Comment #239942 by NMcC on August 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm

RICHARD DAWKINS:

"You don't want a person that ignorant of the real world to get anywhere close to the presidency."

Indeed you don't. But as Barbara Forrest pointed out in the article, you already have. And look what a great success that was. Has it occurred to anyone, though, to ask just how bad Bush's presidency would have been if he hadn't had God on his side?

Other Comments by NMcC

10. Comment #239943 by mordacious1 on August 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil and she's dramatically inexperienced. She also doesn't see the difference between teaching creationism and evolution in public schools. She was once runner up in the Miss Alaska beauty contest though. Not much competition up there in Alaska it seems.

Other Comments by mordacious1

11. Comment #239946 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I was confident that McCain would pick a woman for VP, but thought it would probably be Kay Bailey Hutchison. Palin got her start going to those PTA meetings to see to it that kids (she now has five) got the kind of education that did not stray from her conservative views. Yes, she needs to be pinned-down on the Kitzmiller issues at every stop on the campaign trail, until she admits her agenda, and it is exposed to the light of day.

Other Comments by Quine

12. Comment #239947 by Vaal on August 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said

Well, how about learning then, instead of giving an opinion on something you know nothing about. There is NO controversy. Evolution is a fact, it is not a debate. If you have evidence that evolution can be proved to be untrue, then I am sure that the whole scientific world is waiting for it with bated breath.. "sound of wind whistling"

I suggest that she reads the trial transcript of the Dover trial for a start, perhaps THAT should be taught in school.

Richard is right unfortunately, that the creationist propaganda is very effective. We need more scientists to be more outspoken and a few more Carl Sagan type of communicators in the US. Education, education, education is the only way that this inanity can be defeated.

To be honest, it is quite depressing hearing this junk coming from somebody who should have more sense, as she is obviously not stupid.

EDIT: Perhaps politicians should take a basic science test before they are allowed to take office and make decisions which effect education.

Other Comments by Vaal

13. Comment #239948 by bujin on August 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm

I haven't really been following the election all that much, but on attitudes towards science alone, Obama *must* win. I'm sure there are probably reasons why McCain would be a better choice than Obama, but at least we know Obama isn't quite as ignorant about science.

Other Comments by bujin

14. Comment #239949 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Okay, I hate being Pollyanna more than anything else, but this may not be as bad as it sounds. The ADN article says the following:

"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.

What is true, however, is:

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."

That's why I think that this is a good sign - because it shows that even creationists are beginning to get the fact that you can't argue for creationism without making a fool of yourself.

I'm with Hitchens on this: I sharpened my own knowledge of evolution by studying the debate. Heck, my final high-school philosophy essay was based on attacking creationism.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

15. Comment #239951 by heafnerj on August 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Ahhh...the Wedge Strategy is coming along nicely. The theocracy is here and I'm very afraid we can't stop it. I had an encounter with a fundamentalist at work last week. I'll spare you the trite details, but it ended with her whipping a Bible out of her purse and lecturing me on how all science is in the Bible (including knowledge of unique human fingerprints, trade winds and ocean currents, and a round Earth). America may not be getting any dumber, but it certain is getting more and more superstitious.

Other Comments by heafnerj

16. Comment #239952 by chewedbarber on August 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Has it occurred to anyone, though, to ask just how bad Bush's presidency would have been if he hadn't had God on his side?

Ha, ha, ha, it hasn't even occurred to these people to set a deadline for Jesus, apparently they are prepared to pass the waiting on to the next generation indefinitely.

More on point, I think creationist have created enough smoke that most people think there is a fire somewhere.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

17. Comment #239955 by SilentMike on August 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I don't see what the fuss is about. This lady doesn't hold a candle to old Dubya as far as I can see, and she's only up for vice president (on the underdog ticket). Sure, I'd prefer to not have any religious weirdies on the ballot, but that's US politics for you. You don't choose your family or your free world leaders.

Other Comments by SilentMike

18. Comment #239958 by NMcC on August 30, 2008 at 4:02 pm

SILENTMIKE:

"You don't choose your family or your free world leaders."

Are you sure? I rather fancied that that was the whole point (the only point?) of calling it 'the free world'.

Other Comments by NMcC

19. Comment #239959 by Border Collie on August 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Can't say the repubs are stupid ... in an electioneering sort of sense. She is a pre-packaged-looks-good-on-TV chick utilized to appeal to the younger female vote ... just like a frozen microwavable dinner. She will appeal to the we-are-afraid-of-and-hate-science crowd. She already has the party line down pat on the environment, religion, everything. She has the 'perfect' little smiley faced family, etc., etc. And, my goodness, she was Miss So and So runner up or something like that, has been a news or sportscaster ... the perfect VP candidate for utter, despicable vote pandering.

And, oh, please teach cretinism in SUNDAY SCHOOL or your parochial school only OR please allow us to teach evolution at your church and parochial school. OK?

Other Comments by Border Collie

20. Comment #239961 by mordacious1 on August 30, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Another interesting thing about Palin Drone, is that she sued the Bush Administration over putting polar bears on the endangered species list. This is stupid in itself, but an obvious move if you want to protect and enhance drilling rights.

Also, since she is the governor of Alaska, she should study one of her state's most majestic animals. The evolution of polar bears from brown bears is fairly well documented in the fossil record. I suppose she wants to teach that it was nice of god to make them white and larger so they can exist in the snow. But why is god now destroying their habitat and the artic bears with it? What a douche he is.

Other Comments by mordacious1

21. Comment #239963 by Border Collie on August 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Here's a link to a little story about Ms. P ...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/51169.html

Other Comments by Border Collie

22. Comment #239964 by NMcC on August 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I wouldn't worry too much over her garnering many votes for McCain. Not once Obama-Biden, Laden with meaningless election promises, get on the road.

Other Comments by NMcC

23. Comment #239965 by Riley on August 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm

If McCain thought that he needed to select a Christian fundamentalist / creationist to join him on his ticket in order to increase his chances of getting elected President, then that's a real problem.

This seems to be the perfect opportunity for that largest of American minorities, the godless crowd, to organize and make a point of keeping the McCain/Palin from getting elected.

Other Comments by Riley

24. Comment #239966 by quantum_flux on August 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Since she is pro-drilling for oil, it won't be too long before the USA finally discovers that the origins of life is actually from abiotic oil. Oh, sure, "God-done-it" will be her explanation for everything, but oil is good for the economy. We've always been purchasing oil from other countries, and it's about damn time we start producing our own oil on a large scale. Oil and nuclear, the two technologies that are so far proven, and then we can have business capitalism take care of the energy switch with a strengthened economy.

Abiotic Oil and the Origins of Life on Earth:

http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/08/abiotic-oil-and-origins-of-life-on.html

Other Comments by quantum_flux

25. Comment #239969 by utelme on August 30, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Comment 239964 by NMcC

Obama-Biden, Laden

*chortle

Other Comments by utelme

26. Comment #239970 by AfraidToDie on August 30, 2008 at 4:38 pm

With IDiot logic so evident, I can't wait for the debate between her and Biden!

Has anyone ever asked those wanting to "Teach both" for the material they wish to use? I have a funny feeling it will look very much like "Of Pandas and People" and easily expose them as ID'ers. They should NOT be allowed to propose teaching both unless they provide the material they are proposing. Besides "Of Pandas.." and the bible, it would be interesting if they had anything else in mind.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

27. Comment #239971 by ~manic-depressive on August 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Do you think it might make any difference to creationists (i.e. ID believers) if it were pointed out to them what would actually happen if they won politically?

Suppose every bright student in the U.S. was really taught all this nonsense. What if we told the IDists:

"Go on and keep attacking the basis of biology" but don't then expect any development in the medical sciences. Perhaps we could remind them that one day it may very well be their children dying because of antibiotic resistant bacteria and then it will be too late to realize that it was they themselves who screwed it all up.

The Abraham and Isaac story all over again. Don't worry, Yahweh will provide a ram.

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

28. Comment #239972 by Matt7895 on August 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm

People here seriously found that funny? New low.

This isn't Rapture Ready. I wasn't expecting to find a horde of racists hiding away at RichardDawkins.net

Other Comments by Matt7895

29. Comment #239977 by cowalker on August 30, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Comment #239930 by WilliamP:

....What about Holocaust denial....

Funny you should mention that.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/

McCain picked Palin who has no foreign policy experience and was a strong Pat Buchanan supporter.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/

Pat Buchanan is apparently an avid reader of Holocaust denial publications.

Perhaps Palin would be all for having the Holocaust "controversy" taught.

Other Comments by cowalker

30. Comment #239978 by mrgoodjob on August 30, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Someone should teach this ignorant voodoo witch how to tie a noose...

Other Comments by mrgoodjob

31. Comment #239980 by zoomlines on August 30, 2008 at 5:19 pm

I don't understand this "teach the controversy". If there really was a controversy it should be debated by scientists and at university, not in schools.

All other areas of science are resolved by real scientists and then brought into the classroom. Not the other way round.

It's important for school students to learn the scientific method, which means learning about real scientific debates is important. But they could better learn this by studying an old controversy that has been resolved by scientists. Perhaps something like tectonic plate theory.

Presenting students with a 'controversy' doesn't seem like an effective way to teach Science.

Other Comments by zoomlines

32. Comment #239981 by Shrommer on August 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Nicky Clayton and her team at Cambridge have found what they believe "is the first example of future planning in animals other than humans."

http://www.physorg.com/news91286409.html

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/231/1/

http://www.science.org.au/sats2007/clayton.htm

When did this discovery come about? In the 21st Century!

This particular kind of intelligence was ruled out as an impossibility during 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century science. It was thought that birds like the scrub jays only did their caching based on instinct.

Intelligent Design Theory includes the idea that DNA may do its own type of future planning when it mutates, instead of DNA simply being an information tank like a page that only has words on it but doesn't think. If we only devised experiments to test for this kind of intelligence in scrub jays in the 21st Century, - centuries after the first scientific studies of these birds - it is reasonable that there would be no tests devised to discover future planning in DNA molecules for another several centuries, since DNA (unlike scrub jays) was only first observed and labeled in the 20th Century.

How could DNA be intelligent when it doesn't have a neural system? Well, that is kind of like asking how we can create energy without chemical reactions / combustion. We never dreamed that a hydrogen atom could store more energy than a barn full of coal, and today it is hard to dream that a DNA molecule could be more intelligent than an animal brain. And that is even in a day and age where we have seen computer chips that perform processes that our brains can't match, and those computer chips are smaller than a pinhead!

There are many different ways that we can have energy, or flight (think lighter than air, rocket propulsion, airplane wings, bird wings, insect wings, helicopters, ... all so different.) You don't need feathers to fly, so maybe you don't need a neural system to have intelligence.

How are the school children of today going to be prepared for that kind of research into Intelligent Design hypotheses tomorrow, if they are taught that it is all religious junk science based on the supernatural?

ID need not be anti-evolution, and may fall squarely within the realm of natural science. All ID is saying is that certain natural observations are better explained when we consider intelligent causes than when we consider only random causes.

It is a shame that the Dover school district made the ID label synonymous with creationist coercion, and another shame that Judge Jones did not recognize how ID can be a natural science based purely on observation and reason.

Other Comments by Shrommer

33. Comment #239982 by ChicagoMolly on August 30, 2008 at 5:47 pm

1. The fact that Palin is from Alaska is important because Sen. Ted Stevens is up to his butt in corruption charges and the Party wants to distract voters from that long enough to save -ahem- his seat. That's worth more than the 3 electoral votes Alaska throws in the pot.

2. Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. Expect her to jump all over Obama's quote earlier in the year which made an unconsidered implication of dark psychological reasons behind gun ownership. I think all the gays and blacks need to buy guns and join the NRA so we can neutralize them (and I mean that in the kindest and most supportive way, of course!)

3. In his acceptance speech, Obama missed a point regards the Drill America Now crowd. The oil companies already own leases on huge offshore oil tracts which they are not drilling! Why? Because the price isn't high enough to bother with yet. When will it be high enough to incent them? $175? $200? When the price hits $200 a barrel, why should they sell it for $50? And as any Milton Friedman fan will tell you, the only reason a corporation exists is to make as big a profit as possible for its shareholders. So if they get a real good offer from the People's Republic of China, guess where they'll ship "our American oil"?

Other Comments by ChicagoMolly

34. Comment #239983 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 5:51 pm

"All ID is saying is that certain natural observations are better explained when we consider intelligent causes than when we consider only random causes."

That statement shows not only a complete ignorance of darwinian evolution, but also of the ID mythology that is fighting to be taught in schools.

As far as your speculation about "thinking DNA" it is absurd. It is not an unknown that would surprise us if it came to be true, rather it is a known false. There is a difference. That said even if it wasn't a known false, if it was just an unknown and unimaginable we don't teach wishful thinking in schools. The "thinking DNA" idea would be taught when and only when there was some shred of evidence for it.

We don't teach things that MIGHT BE in some possible future, we teach what there is evidence for.

While the opening of your post caught my attention, and I look forward to checking out those links as the speciesist idea they refute is especially repugnant to me, the remainder of your post was complete nonsense.

Other Comments by J Mac

35. Comment #239986 by Diacanu on August 30, 2008 at 6:01 pm

J Mac-

your post was complete nonsense.

Well, that's Shrommer for you.

Y'know, in my Deist phase, I probably would've fought for a fuzzy watered down version of ID.
In fact, I think I probably did.

And, I would've been stunned and hurt when people pissed on the idea, and called me a fool.

Buut, I don't see a way of mitigating that, even with my experiences.

So, screw it.

Shrommer, I piss on ID, and you're a fool.

Go read some books.
And take the Jesus glasses off when you do.
He's an imaginary friend.
You don't read magazines with Superman talking to ya do you?

Other Comments by Diacanu

36. Comment #239987 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Shrommer, you're an idiot. And that's being kind. Your "argument" has a great, gaping hole in it. Please examine it, discover the flaw and get it back on my desk by Monday 9a.m.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

37. Comment #239990 by zoomlines on August 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm

How could DNA be intelligent when it doesn't have a neural system? Well, that is kind of like asking how we can create energy without chemical reactions / combustion. We never dreamed that a hydrogen atom could store more energy than a barn full of coal, and today it is hard to dream that a DNA molecule could be more intelligent than an animal brain.

This kind of thinking never made any sense to me. Maintaining an "open mind" to all possible future discoveries slows down progress towards the truth. Do you keep an open mind just so you can say "I told you so" for any future discoveries?

The best position is to find the explanation that best fits the evidence. Your articles are not evidence for intelligent DNA. Future planning in organisms is vastly different from future planning in DNA.

Intelligent Design Theory includes the idea that DNA may do its own type of future planning when it mutates

How could this possibly occur? We know enough about DNA to know what causes it to mutate. Mutations aren't controlled by organisms or DNA. You need a mechanism to explain your theory.

Other Comments by zoomlines

38. Comment #239991 by Broshiesq on August 30, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Fairly clever play on words, why are you getting all hot about it, Matt7895? And how exactly does that evidence racism? In my experience, credibility/intelligence is inversely proportional to the ease with which one lobs the "racist" charge. Racist. One of the most over-used and misused words.

Zoomlines: All other areas of science are resolved by real scientists and then brought into the classroom. Not the other way round.

That's a really good point. Like if there existed a legitimate "controversy" regarding the origins of human life, that top scientists were devoting their lives to researching, yeah maybe some schoolchildren could, you know, provide us with new insights. The whole clamor to "teach the controversy" is bullshit anyway. It's such a tiring and frustrating euphemism for "teach religion." How about "Mention the Controversy." I wouldn't have a problem with that. Science class: On one side you have mountains and mountains of evidence proving evolution and supporting its steering through natural selection, such as…..But then there are people who still believe instead that goddidit. Ok? Alright, back to science.

Other Comments by Broshiesq

39. Comment #239992 by Hellene on August 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm

32. Comment #239981 by Shrommer

If we only devised experiments to test for this kind of intelligence in scrub jays in the 21st Century, - centuries after the first scientific studies of these birds - it is reasonable that there would be no tests devised to discover future planning in DNA molecules for another several centuries, since DNA (unlike scrub jays) was only first observed and labeled in the 20th Century.

I've been watching animals (other than homo sapiens) do this kind of stuff since I was a toddler. Apparently we (living beings) are all cut from the same cloth.

Intelligent behavior does not mean intelligent design.

How are the school children of today going to be prepared for that kind of research into Intelligent Design hypotheses tomorrow, if they are taught that it is all religious junk science based on the supernatural?

I'm sorry but this has to absolutely be the most agonizingly stupid thing I have ever read on this site. I actually winced when I read it.

Malaka...

Other Comments by Hellene

40. Comment #239994 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:28 pm

"Intelligent behavior does not mean intelligent design."

Actually there seems to be an inverse relationship in those who subscribe to it.

Other Comments by J Mac

41. Comment #239995 by vesihiisi on August 30, 2008 at 6:31 pm

As I already posted in thread "Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum", Palin does not want to teach creationism in schools. She would allow it to be discussed, but not taught as science. This is a big difference, but WIRED has decided to cut that part off. Read the whole story here:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

Other Comments by vesihiisi

42. Comment #239997 by Diacanu on August 30, 2008 at 6:31 pm

zoomlines-

Do you keep an open mind just so you can say "I told you so" for any future discoveries?

Sounds fun, let's try it out.

I believe solid holograms can/will be made with light in the infra-green spectrum.

Hey, hey, don't close your mind to the possibility, that's intolerant.

Open your mind.

Let the idea sliiiide in.
Iiiin and oooutt.
Iiiin and oooutt.
Slow at first, then fast..then slooow, fast again.....

And now I withdraw the idea, and dangle it before you, making you beg for more.

Man, that sure is some good science, ain't it?

Other Comments by Diacanu

43. Comment #239999 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Sounds like a real mind-fuck to me.

Other Comments by J Mac

44. Comment #240000 by Diacanu on August 30, 2008 at 6:35 pm

J Mac-

*Badump-ching!*

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #240001 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Comment #239943 by mordacious1

Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil and she's dramatically inexperienced. She also doesn't see the difference between teaching creationism and evolution in public schools. She was once runner up in the Miss Alaska beauty contest though. Not much competition up there in Alaska it seems

In other words, Mord, she's either stupid or evil. Or possibly both. In fact, definitely both. I'm wondering if the U.S. will ever find a Republican with intelligence again, or are the two mutually incompatible?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

46. Comment #240002 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:39 pm

"She was once runner up in the Miss Alaska beauty contest"

Oh there's a criterion for public office "not as ugly as a polar bear."

Yeah, thats great.

Other Comments by J Mac

47. Comment #240004 by vesihiisi on August 30, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Democrats are now saying she supports gay marriage

Sarah Palin (GOV-Alaska-Republican), supports gay rights, says Anchorage Daily News.

Quote "Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples."

Quote ""It is the Governor's intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin's administration said."

Coghill said he's interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person �" maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate �" who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to his or her benefits."

Sarah Palin's veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska.

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage.

http://www.sarahpalingayrights.com/ redirects now to wikipedia.

Other Comments by vesihiisi

48. Comment #240006 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

J Mac - have you seen her? Polar bears by a mile in both looks and brains.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

49. Comment #240008 by mordacious1 on August 30, 2008 at 6:45 pm

vesihiisi

She wants ID to be taught as an alternative "theory" in a SCIENCE classroom. This is why she is an idiot.

Other Comments by mordacious1

50. Comment #240010 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

"Polar bears by a mile in both looks and brains."

Damn species discrimination, they must not have let the bears in the competition. They probably couldn't get them to wear those fancy clothes.

They obviously don't have the right to bear bare bears.

(sorry, couldn't resist after that other thread)

Other Comments by J Mac

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 | Next | Last