Sarah Palin - "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time"

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: QED

You guys are being willfully ignorant. Her comment was simply asking people to pray that we are on God's side, it wasn't a declaration that He was on our side. I know both probably sound equally insipid to someone who doesn't believe in God in the first place, but there is a difference between the two-- and it's nothing new...

When asked what she believes about teaching creationism in public schools, Palin replied:

"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."

The "debate" over the validity of teaching creationism or "creation science" in public schools on any kind of equal footing with science is over. Science won, and Palin's reality checks are bouncing.

Edwards v. Aguillard

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists,[1] 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations filed amicus briefs which described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

 

[palehorse]

lest we forget:

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think He calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted." - Barrack Obama

The fact of the matter that there is not much of a gap between the faiths of the candidates; at least, not as much of one as some here would have you believe...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: palehorse
The fact of the matter that there is not much of a gap between the faiths of the candidates; at least, not as much of one as some here would have you believe...

Except that Obama is faking it because he knows he can't get elected without such pandering. McCain is pretty practical about this too, and at least he personally believes in evolution and thinks ID shouldn't be taught in science. But make no mistake, Palin is a true believer.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse
lest we forget:

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think He calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted." - Barrack Obama

The fact of the matter that there is not much of a gap between the faiths of the candidates; at least, not as much of one as some here would have you believe...

One is a young earth creationist, one is not. That's a pretty big difference to me.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jonks
But make no mistake, Palin is a true believer.

Trust me, Barrack is too.

But, like Palin, I've yet to see any evidence that being a "true believer" affects his policies or "executive" decision-making abilities -- hence the fact that I'm still voting for him.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: palehorse
The fact of the matter that there is not much of a gap between the faiths of the candidates; at least, not as much of one as some here would have you believe...

Except that Obama is faking it because he knows he can't get elected without such pandering. McCain is pretty practical about this too, and at least he personally believes in evolution and thinks ID shouldn't be taught in science. But make no mistake, Palin is a true believer.

Again, even supposing Palin is a "true believer" of ID and thinks evolution is a complete crock of shit (we have no evidence this is actually her core beliefs, btw) , if she really wanted it taught in schools why aren't Alaska school-children attending their ID classes right now? Palin appoints the people who set the State's education policies and requirement. She could've hired 3 academic ID proponents to head the board and set the policy if she so desired. She could've pushed the legislature to write the ID class requirements into law. She did none of those things... she never even proposed anything like that. Her stance has fairly consistently been to teach evolution in science class, but she didn't see a problem with ID or alternative theories being discussed and/or debated in class if brought up.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: palehorse
The fact of the matter that there is not much of a gap between the faiths of the candidates; at least, not as much of one as some here would have you believe...

Except that Obama is faking it because he knows he can't get elected without such pandering. McCain is pretty practical about this too, and at least he personally believes in evolution and thinks ID shouldn't be taught in science. But make no mistake, Palin is a true believer.

Again, even supposing Palin is a "true believer" of ID and thinks evolution is a complete crock of shit (we have no evidence this is actually her core beliefs, btw) , if she really wanted it taught in schools why aren't Alaska school-children attending their ID classes right now? Palin appoints the people who set the State's education policies and requirement. She could've hired 3 academic ID proponents to head the board and set the policy if she so desired. She could've pushed the legislature to write the ID class requirements into law. She did none of those things... she never even proposed anything like that. Her stance has fairly consistently been to teach evolution in science class, but she didn't see a problem with ID or alternative theories being discussed and/or debated in class if brought up.

There's so many others reasons why nobody in their right mind would want her as a VP that this ranks about 5th on the list.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Harvey
When asked what she believes about teaching creationism in public schools, Palin replied:

"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."

The "debate" over the validity of teaching creationism or "creation science" in public schools on any kind of equal footing with science is over. Science won, and Palin's reality checks are bouncing.

Sweet, time to send her the FSM letter that was sent to the school board in Kansas. Arrrr!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dude, my entire point was that she is willing to ignore science in her viewpoints, her statement that she believes in ID makes that indisputable. I know that she hasn't tried to force ID into the state schools, for like the 30th time that's not what this is about.

She is willing to ignore reality if it doesn't fit her ideology. Anyone who believes in ID is doing exactly that. You are right that she's not trying to teach ID in the schools, sorry if my post said something that effect. If you read all my posts in this thread though my problem with her is that you simply can't trust the judgment of someone who is willing to ignore objective scientific evidence.

I think your overall concern about Palin ignoring scientific evidence has some merit, but your argument really doesn't work for ID (and I say that as someone who thinks ID is nonsense). If one agrees Palin's belief in God is acceptable, you really can't fault her for believing in ID as well. Given an omnipotent god of some sort, ID is not only feasible, it is probable, and it simply does NOT contradict the scientific evidence. There is nothing in the evolutionary record to refute the belief that an outside force influenced natural selection.

The argument is far stronger if one focuses on the belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. This is much more difficult to rationalize in the face of extensive scientific evidence. It requires a willful rejection of the data in front of you, coupled with some twisted intellectual gymnastics. I agree that if this level of denial extends to Palin's work and policy positions, it's a legitimate area for concern. I simply haven't seen any evidence it extends beyond her church.

That is why I'd prefer to focus on her more critical shortcomings. As we've seen in this thread, many people will interpret this line of criticism as petty at a minimum, and potentially as an attack on religion in general. That's not a good election strategy. For better or worse, the majority of Americans are religious.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jonks
But make no mistake, Palin is a true believer.

Trust me, Barrack is too.

As eskimospy already has replied:

One is a young earth creationist, one is not. That's a pretty big difference to me.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dude, my entire point was that she is willing to ignore science in her viewpoints, her statement that she believes in ID makes that indisputable. I know that she hasn't tried to force ID into the state schools, for like the 30th time that's not what this is about.

She is willing to ignore reality if it doesn't fit her ideology. Anyone who believes in ID is doing exactly that. You are right that she's not trying to teach ID in the schools, sorry if my post said something that effect. If you read all my posts in this thread though my problem with her is that you simply can't trust the judgment of someone who is willing to ignore objective scientific evidence.

I think your overall concern about Palin ignoring scientific evidence has some merit, but your argument really doesn't work for ID (and I say that as someone who thinks ID is nonsense). If one agrees Palin's belief in God is acceptable, you really can't fault her for believing in ID as well. Given an omnipotent god of some sort, ID is not only feasible, it is probable, and it simply does NOT contradict the scientific evidence. There is nothing in the evolutionary record to refute the belief that an outside force influenced natural selection.

You misstate the premise of ID. It proposes man "poofed" into existence as is. Look it up, I thought as you did once, that no one could seriously want to teach that in a science class. I was wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dude, my entire point was that she is willing to ignore science in her viewpoints, her statement that she believes in ID makes that indisputable. I know that she hasn't tried to force ID into the state schools, for like the 30th time that's not what this is about.

She is willing to ignore reality if it doesn't fit her ideology. Anyone who believes in ID is doing exactly that. You are right that she's not trying to teach ID in the schools, sorry if my post said something that effect. If you read all my posts in this thread though my problem with her is that you simply can't trust the judgment of someone who is willing to ignore objective scientific evidence.

I think your overall concern about Palin ignoring scientific evidence has some merit, but your argument really doesn't work for ID (and I say that as someone who thinks ID is nonsense). If one agrees Palin's belief in God is acceptable, you really can't fault her for believing in ID as well. Given an omnipotent god of some sort, ID is not only feasible, it is probable, and it simply does NOT contradict the scientific evidence. There is nothing in the evolutionary record to refute the belief that an outside force influenced natural selection.

You misstate the premise of ID. It proposes man "poofed" into existence as is within the last 10,000 years. Look it up, I thought as you did once, that no one could seriously want to teach that in a science class. I was wrong.

Link? You're talking about young-earth creationsim. Intelligent design doesn't require a literal, "God created the Earth in seven days" interpretation of the Bible. It merely states that some external intelligence influenced natural selection to produce the various species we have today. ID is the "non-religious" dodge creationists use to justify teaching something as an alternative to wholly random evolution.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dude, my entire point was that she is willing to ignore science in her viewpoints, her statement that she believes in ID makes that indisputable. I know that she hasn't tried to force ID into the state schools, for like the 30th time that's not what this is about.

She is willing to ignore reality if it doesn't fit her ideology. Anyone who believes in ID is doing exactly that. You are right that she's not trying to teach ID in the schools, sorry if my post said something that effect. If you read all my posts in this thread though my problem with her is that you simply can't trust the judgment of someone who is willing to ignore objective scientific evidence.

I think your overall concern about Palin ignoring scientific evidence has some merit, but your argument really doesn't work for ID (and I say that as someone who thinks ID is nonsense). If one agrees Palin's belief in God is acceptable, you really can't fault her for believing in ID as well. Given an omnipotent god of some sort, ID is not only feasible, it is probable, and it simply does NOT contradict the scientific evidence. There is nothing in the evolutionary record to refute the belief that an outside force influenced natural selection.

The argument is far stronger if one focuses on the belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. This is much more difficult to rationalize in the face of extensive scientific evidence. It requires a willful rejection of the data in front of you, coupled with some twisted intellectual gymnastics. I agree that if this level of denial extends to Palin's work and policy positions, it's a legitimate area for concern. I simply haven't seen any evidence it extends beyond her church.

That is why I'd prefer to focus on her more critical shortcomings. As we've seen in this thread, many people will interpret this line of criticism as petty at a minimum, and potentially as an attack on religion in general. That's not a good election strategy. For better or worse, the majority of Americans are religious.

Maybe I should clarify my statement. You're right, ID is not a case of ignoring scientific evidence so much as it is a case of simply ignoring science altogether.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: palehorse
The fact of the matter that there is not much of a gap between the faiths of the candidates; at least, not as much of one as some here would have you believe...

Except that Obama is faking it because he knows he can't get elected without such pandering. McCain is pretty practical about this too, and at least he personally believes in evolution and thinks ID shouldn't be taught in science. But make no mistake, Palin is a true believer.

Whatever makes you sleep better when you vote for someone whose world views is a fantasy.

 

[sportage]

Palin "is" correct you know...

Here is her proof!!!!!

Proof Palin is correct

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think your overall concern about Palin ignoring scientific evidence has some merit, but your argument really doesn't work for ID (and I say that as someone who thinks ID is nonsense). If one agrees Palin's belief in God is acceptable, you really can't fault her for believing in ID as well. Given an omnipotent god of some sort, ID is not only feasible, it is probable, and it simply does NOT contradict the scientific evidence. There is nothing in the evolutionary record to refute the belief that an outside force influenced natural selection.

You misstate the premise of ID. It proposes man "poofed" into existence as is within the last 10,000 years. Look it up, I thought as you did once, that no one could seriously want to teach that in a science class. I was wrong.

Link? You're talking about young-earth creationsim. Intelligent design doesn't require a literal, "God created the Earth in seven days" interpretation of the Bible. It merely states that some external intelligence influenced natural selection to produce the various species we have today. ID is the "non-religious" dodge creationists use to justify teaching something as an alternative to wholly random evolution.

I got the 10,000 years part wrong, though there are some who believe that too. In fact ID proponents strenuously avoid stating how far back man was actually created to avoid offending the young earthers. The 'textbook' ID tries to get into biology classes is Of Pandas and People which states:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

No evolution guided by god, no evolution or natural selection period. Poof! Man. Done.

I know, you rail against believing this is what they want to teach. You can't comprehend it, that in the year 2008 people want to tell our children a fairytale in a science class, so you seek to find a rational explanation. There is none.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sportage
Palin "is" correct you know...

Here is her proof!!!!!

Proof Palin is correct

Here's more proof. Do you think the governement of the United States of America wouldn't make a stamp about it if it weren't true? Would they LIE to us? :shocked: :laugh:

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

This is just the republicans trying to solidify their base.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think your overall concern about Palin ignoring scientific evidence has some merit, but your argument really doesn't work for ID (and I say that as someone who thinks ID is nonsense). If one agrees Palin's belief in God is acceptable, you really can't fault her for believing in ID as well. Given an omnipotent god of some sort, ID is not only feasible, it is probable, and it simply does NOT contradict the scientific evidence. There is nothing in the evolutionary record to refute the belief that an outside force influenced natural selection.

You misstate the premise of ID. It proposes man "poofed" into existence as is within the last 10,000 years. Look it up, I thought as you did once, that no one could seriously want to teach that in a science class. I was wrong.

Link? You're talking about young-earth creationsim. Intelligent design doesn't require a literal, "God created the Earth in seven days" interpretation of the Bible. It merely states that some external intelligence influenced natural selection to produce the various species we have today. ID is the "non-religious" dodge creationists use to justify teaching something as an alternative to wholly random evolution.

I got the 10,000 years part wrong, though there are some who believe that too. In fact ID proponents strenuously avoid stating how far back man was actually created to avoid offending the young earthers. The 'textbook' ID tries to get into biology classes is Of Pandas and People which states:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

No evolution guided by god, no evolution or natural selection period. Poof! Man. Done.

I know, you rail against believing this is what they want to teach. You can't comprehend it, that in the year 2008 people want to tell our children a fairytale in a science class, so you seek to find a rational explanation. There is none.

I don't want to belabor this too much because it's really drifting off topic. You are using a specific example to make overly-broad generalizations. It's like saying all apples are red because you found one or two red apples. The book you reference appears to have come from the young Earth creationist camp. While it represents one faction of ID supporters, indeed the most vocal faction, ID as a whole has expanded beyond that and now has a broader base. There are far more Christians who believe in the general ID concept than believe in that specific creationist version.

When you attack "ID" generally, you're attacking millions of religious Americans who agree that creationism is bunk, that the Noah story isn't meant to be taken literally, etc. Nonetheless, they do believe in God, they do believe God influenced evolution, and they resent being mocked by people they see as anti-religious. If the left wants to avoid alienating these voters, it would be best to avoid attacking their beliefs, especially when it's not intentional. I suggest leaving Palin's religious beliefs alone except when you can tie it to her actual record as a public official.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ID as a whole has expanded beyond that and now has a broader base. There are far more Christians who believe in the general ID concept than believe in that specific creationist version.

When you attack "ID" generally, you're attacking millions of religious Americans who agree that creationism is bunk, that the Noah story isn't meant to be taken literally, etc. Nonetheless, they do believe in God, they do believe God influenced evolution, and they resent being mocked by people they see as anti-religious.

Please find a link, any link, that states the version of ID that proponents want taught in schools is a form of "guided evolution." That is not ID. You are ascribing to ID credibility it does not have. ID says there was NO evolution. If someone believes god influenced evolution then they are adherents of evolution, not ID. Evolution makes ZERO claims as to the origins of life or the existence of a creator; ID does, and those are only two of the reasons why it is not science. If someone is offended by secularists and scientists pointing out why ID is not science, then they are merely ignorant and need to be educated on the issue.

Palin, by claiming that "both should be taught" is parading her ignorance on the issue, particularly upsetting as she claims to be the daughter of a science teacher. There is no real debate in the scientific community over evolution.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ID as a whole has expanded beyond that and now has a broader base. There are far more Christians who believe in the general ID concept than believe in that specific creationist version.

When you attack "ID" generally, you're attacking millions of religious Americans who agree that creationism is bunk, that the Noah story isn't meant to be taken literally, etc. Nonetheless, they do believe in God, they do believe God influenced evolution, and they resent being mocked by people they see as anti-religious.

Please find a link, any link, that states the version of ID that proponents want taught in schools is a form of "guided evolution." That is not ID. You are ascribing to ID credibility it does not have. ID says there was NO evolution. If someone believes god influenced evolution then they are adherents of evolution, not ID. Evolution makes ZERO claims as to the origins of life or the existence of a creator; ID does, and those are only two of the reasons why it is not science. If someone is offended by secularists and scientists pointing out why ID is not science, then they are merely ignorant and need to be educated on the issue.

Umm, you go first. Please show us where I said anything, anything at all, about teaching ID in schools. If you follow the thread back to my original reply to Eskimospy, he specifically states that is not what this is about:

• "I know that she hasn't tried to force ID into the state schools, for like the 30th time that's not what this is about.

My comments are about ID as a belief, not a curriculum.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I don't want to belabor this too much because it's really drifting off topic. You are using a specific example to make overly-broad generalizations. It's like saying all apples are red because you found one or two red apples. The book you reference appears to have come from the young Earth creationist camp. While it represents one faction of ID supporters, indeed the most vocal faction, ID as a whole has expanded beyond that and now has a broader base. There are far more Christians who believe in the general ID concept than believe in that specific creationist version.

When you attack "ID" generally, you're attacking millions of religious Americans who agree that creationism is bunk, that the Noah story isn't meant to be taken literally, etc. Nonetheless, they do believe in God, they do believe God influenced evolution, and they resent being mocked by people they see as anti-religious. If the left wants to avoid alienating these voters, it would be best to avoid attacking their beliefs, especially when it's not intentional. I suggest leaving Palin's religious beliefs alone except when you can tie it to her actual record as a public official.

I'm sorry, but your definition of ID is simply not correct. Guided evolution is not ID.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: jonks
[ ... ]
Palin, by claiming that "both should be taught" is parading her ignorance on the issue, particularly upsetting as she claims to be the daughter of a science teacher. There is no real debate in the scientific community over evolution.

To reply to your edit, there is no scientific conflict between evolution and the general concept of intelligent design. There are many Christian biologists who will tell you they believe God had a hand in shaping evolution. Science offers no support for ID, but it also doesn't preclude it.

I'm agnostic and do not believe in ID, but I'm not going to ridicule people for their faith as long as they don't try to impose it upon others. That has been my point throughout this thread. Unless you can show Palin's faith is tainting her responsibilities and actions as a public official, it's a non-issue that only makes the Obama camp look hateful and bigoted. With so many substantive reasons to criticize Palin, why spend any time on something inconsequential that could easily backfire?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry, but your definition of ID is simply not correct. Guided evolution is not ID.

I'm also sorry Mr. Webster, but I believe you will find millions of Americans have a more generalized view of the concept than you're willing to acknowledge. If you're willing to shoot yourselves in the foot by refusing to recognize your opinions aren't some immutable law of nature, so be it. It's exactly that kind of arrogance that keeps so many Christians pulling the little 'R' lever each election.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I'm sorry, but your definition of ID is simply not correct. Guided evolution is not ID.

I'm also sorry Mr. Webster, but I believe you will find millions of Americans have a more generalized view of the concept than you're willing to acknowledge.

That "generalized view" those "millions of Americans" doen't conform to the recognized legal meaning of the term, "intelligent design" (ID). The issue was addressed under another Supreme Court decision that held that ID is just another name for creationism invented in an attempt to circumvent Edwards v. Aguillard:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.