wjfox2004 wrote:What is your source on SP and Creationism? I only find this quote, with which I, an Evolutionist, have no problem: "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 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."martinr wrote:I find it terrifying that a woman who believes that the Earth is only 6-12,000 years and ignores all the evidence to the contrary could potentially be President of the most powerful nation on the planet.
Especially at a time when our civilisation needs to embrace science more than ever - global warming is THE single most important issue facing the world right now.
Neil wrote:Executive experience, life experience, achievements, coherent political philosophy, character, ability to speak without a teleprompter, judgement. Things which don't qualify someone include: race, gender, your own Presidential seal, the opinion of media and Hollywood elites, a record of zero legislative achievement, zero executive experience, dubious and corrupt mentors and associates like 'Goddamn America' Wright and 'We didn't do enough bombing' Ayers and 'Let me subsidize your mansion' Rezko. A further non-qualification is to kill a bill to help babies who survive abortions.markadams99 wrote:Maybe the attitudinising stems from insecurity about Obama's farcical lack of qualification.
What qualifies someone for the post of President of the United States?
wjfox2004 wrote:God, you're one angry fellow! Creationism's better version, Intelligent Design, isn't science, but it's perfectly arguable philosophy, the mirror image of Unintelligent Design which I infer to be your position.Creationism isn't science. It's a loony bronze-age dogma that's been thoroughly debunked, with utterly overwhelming evidence against it. If it must be taught, keep it in the church, NOT in classrooms.
America has a massive global influence in scientific research. Time spent teaching this batshit insane myth about talking snakes and magic gardens could instead be spent teaching kids about real science, biology, the environment, nature, etc. - i.e. things which are useful and relevant to the 21st century. We are facing a global crisis of unprecedented scale... I suggest you read "6 Degrees" by Mark Lynas. Even a 2 degree rise is going to be catastrophic.
jackie rokotnitz wrote:I watched a different speech. So did this liberal commentator:"Several moderate-Democrat friends of mine have been emailing—few if any would ever vote for McCain—but all agree that Palin was very strong. The more liberal among them are a little panicked."I think the woman is shrill and mediocre, she knows how to read off an autocue a speech which someone else wrote. Her digs at Obama were redolent of sixthform name calling, and making out that because Barak Obama wasnt old enough to fight in Vietnam it makes him less competent to be President than John McCain is just ridiculous. Barak Obama has twenty years' record of public service. He has gravitas and class. This woman has a BABY for heaven's sake. How does that fit her so marvellously for "that three am. call"? Get real!