Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

huh?

In proposing the amendment, Santorum addressed the Congress:

This is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss. I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences—frankly, two rather innocuous sentences—that hopefully this Senate will embrace: "It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.


you do realize that people of faith generally believe that there is an intelligent design to our planet and universe rather than some amazing coincidence/accident that we as humans are slowly figuring out, being the only accident capable of or even attempting to figure it out as the most intelligent accidents in the universe unless you believe in space aliens or something crazy like that

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.

Yup, that's what a good educational curriculum is all about, looking at all the data, theories, ideas, etc.
not just pick and choose what some burecrat thinks should be studied or not.
Freedom of information so each can come to their own conclusions.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

not just pick and choose what some burecrat thinks should be studied or not.

Which is what he was doing. He is the "burecrat" (sic), in this case. He wanted science classes to teach that certain things are "best explained by intelligent design as opposed to natural selection." That is different than a discussion that certain religions believe in creation and has no scientific basis or business in a science class; it belongs in a theology class or Sunday school. If you want your kids taught creationism, take them to church.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If you want your kids taught creationism, take them to church.

Or a religious based private school.

[justplugit]

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

1. Gravity is a 'theory' as well... theory is a good thing in science... theory means tested and tested and tested over and over again and found to be valid.

2. Any time you introduce a religious doctrine (i.e. the bible) into a science class, it triggers that. If you want to teach it in a theology class (which a broad religious class would be part of a 'well rounded' education imho.)

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

theory means tested and tested and tested over and over again and found to be valid.

Remember, you're talking to mostly non-scientists here. The layperson usually regards a "theory" as something that is supposed but not yet proven. Scientists on the other hand would more likely use it for something that's successfully gone through the process.

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

This is a good point.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

the fact that you are the only creature of the millions on this earth capable of pondering these questions and perhaps the only creature in all that we see out there beyond that has "evolved" beyond
eating and crapping ....should tell you that it is certainly a valid scientific discussion

the climate change discussion should tell you that science and scientists are not only quite fallible but highly imperfect human beings subject to the same whims, biases and dishonesty motivated by agenda as anyone else

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

Obviously the other two beat me to it, but creation isn't a theory. The big bang is testable and has yet to be disproved. It is based on mathematics and observable phenomena. Its validity is repeatedly strengthened with continuing observation. I am curious how creationism should be taught in science classes? Would I have to say some people who have very limited scientific knowledge think the Earth is 6000 years old even though that is impossible? Would I have to mention the Hopi's believed Earth was held up by turtles? What about the religious belief that if one doesn't live their life properly, they may be reincarnated as a snail? I encountered a group of school students at the grand canyon who were sharing that some of the fossils in the sedimentary rock there were actually Cheerios placed there by the government. I don't know who to credit with the quote, but someone said it well, "Rick Santorum is one of the finest minds of the 13th century?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The big bang is testable and has yet to be disproved.

When it is proved it will be a fact, until then it is still a theory.
Until then, imho, there are other theories that should be studied as part of a good educational curriculum. It is not my purpose to argue one theory over the other here, but to say a truly educated person should want to know and study all of the theories in a field. Until it is proven, a theory is speculation.