http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/9.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
An article in the Anchorage Daily News dating back to when Palin was running for governor of that state (hmm, a mere two years ago, talk about experience and being fit to be commander in chief), reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

"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."

Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having "kids debate both sides," since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.

According to criterion (a), "teaching both" isn't going to cut it, because creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity. On the contrary, it is superstitious nonsense that harks back to an earlier era of ignorance about how the world works. But things aren't much rosier for creationists under criterion (b) either, despite all the talk about "teaching the controversy." Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a "fair and balanced" view of everything and be told "you decide." Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard. If students really do assimilate all of that, just one look at creationist claims would make it painfully clear that they don't need to be further entertained.

Unlike Mike Huckabee (who is also now campaigning for McCain), Palin was at least smart enough not to outright claim that she does not accept evolution. The former governor of Arkansas plainly stated that "I believe god created the heavens and the earth," and that he "wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know." These are lines straight out of the Institute for Creation Research talk book, which explains why "Left Behind" author Tim LaHaye said during the Republican primaries that Huckabee was "the most electable candidate who shares our commitment."

And therein lies the problem: exactly what are Republicans committed to when it comes to science and education? To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago? To allow individual states to decide just how misinformed about science their citizens can be? That way if you are from Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi or a variety of other places along the Ignorance Belt you can keep falling behind in quality of life and ability to compete in a world where science plays an increasingly central role in our lives. Now, there's a platform worthy of LaHaye and his readers.

These are questions that Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain have to answer to voters before the November election. But considering that they disagree about some of those answers, perhaps the two should first get better acquainted and straighten things out a bit. They've got two months to do it.

[/quote]

[url]http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html [/url]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/594.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/594.page GMT
Gary is correct. It should have been edited beforehand. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/601.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/601.page GMT I am disappointed that he chose this
forum to characterize a group of states as the "Ignorance Belt". Such bigoted comments
have no place in a forum of scientific discussion, and I'm disappointed that "The Scientist"
choose to include such comments on its front page.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/600.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/600.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/602.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/602.page GMT
Note: Items on the community are not approved by The Scientist before being posted. I admit that I work for the Scientist (as director of Web Development), but as with anyone in the community - you can post any items of interest. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/603.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/603.page GMT
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2680/nearly-half-the-u-s-population-believes-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old

I absolutely [u][b]do not accept [/b][/u]the proposal above that an ignorant idiot serving up pious horsemanure should be coddled for his or her blithering idiot beliefs. Contempt is the only appropriate communication to such people, and I totally support this blog entry in "The Scientist". The USA is a laughing stock outside our borders now when we aren't looked at as frightening.

Sarah Palin is a dangerous demagogic woman who I am quite sure was hired on with the idea that she would the hatchetman to attack Obama because a pretty woman with a nice smile learns very young that she can tell the most outrageous lies and get away with it. I have watched this fundamental primate behavior from the beauty queen fraction of my sex for many years. Sarah's views on science are between scary and mind boggling. She deserves to be publicly humiliated for her ignorant stands. The problem with so-called liberals, and with most scientists today is that we don't scream at the top of our lungs in response to such ourtageous rubbish. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/604.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/604.page GMT
So, to prevent any miscommunications in the future, may it be suggested that for everyone wishing to provide already published material, it would be best to provide a short introduction with the link at the beginning.

My comment about editing still holds, however.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/605.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/605.page GMT around when you are out drinking with your friends, then that's one thing. However, if you are
participating in a discussion about scientific education policy, you can state that most people
in Mississippi believe in a young earth, lament the situation, but refrain from name-calling.

It is rather amusing that one of the last acceptable forms of bigoted name-calling among our enlighted fellow scientific readers is that directed toward Evangelical Christians, especially those in the Southern states. I would imagine that if Scott had shared a blog entry characterizing Muslim or Hindu lands as "belts of ignorance", his employers at The Scientist would have packed him off to a
sensitivity training course.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/606.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/606.page GMT
Beverly, politicans of every party will pander to whomever to stay in power. But I do like your other ideas. To many children these days are not taught to think.

FYI, I consider myself a Christian, who thinks the world is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe much longer. I don't have a problem with evolution.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/609.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/609.page GMT
But I am quite sure my analysis of you will be much more accurate. You are about half my age, which I can determine by the fact that you are as functionally illiterate as 80% of the students in my freshman science classes. Your generation has grown up on sound bites and the drivel you send to each other on your text messages. This has resulted in your being unable to comprehend English when it is composed of more than two sentences. I come to this conclusion because you asked me "Why do you hate her so?" And yet, [u]exactly [/u]why I am appalled by her nomination was written in the post.

My dear boy, a nation such as ours will not survive with analytical abilities such as you displayed.

Further, Michael, I will deduce from your whining paen that you are a person with Christian identity. But I am certain that you have never studied Christian history and theological development. Have you even so much as read Pagels on the Gnostic Gospels? Have you so much as the slightest clue about where certain so-called Christian ideas even came from?

But let me clarify my position for you Michael. I consider Sarah's nomination for the vice presidency appalling because she is a professional liar and anti-science. If she wants to be "Christian" that's her business. I do not hate her personally. I simply think she is less qualified to lead this nation than my gardener. Now, is that clear enough for you? Or is the sentence structure too complicated?

If you feel a little singed, good. Your generation has far too many fools in it who actually think that their near brain damaged reading abilities are just fine. Hopefully, you might actually pick up a few thousand books and educate yourself a little. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/612.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/612.page GMT
But yes your royal highness I am just a stupid pumbkin who lives in the rust belt, I should know enough to question my betters.

In fact we should make you queen of the world, and all would love you and despair.

You must be brilliant to see me so well from just a few words. Amazing.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/613.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/613.page GMT
Try going to a library and learn a few things. If you dare to, start in the section on global warming. Read up on it.

Look, Michael, I am not evil, but I have developed a razor for stupid baloney that comes my way. You would too if you had to deal with the incredible stuff that comes across my desk, some of it from PhDs who want to publish things that are just not supported by their work. Other stuff is from freshmen who literally cannot string more than 5 words together.

I am curious now how you could ask me that question when I had explained precisely?

Regarding Sarah and her lies, I watched the speech and every statement she made about Obama was a lie. I may not agree with Obama on everything, but I cannot abide lies. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/614.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/614.page GMT Maybe its a guy thing.

I am well aware of the origins of many Christian traditions, and if I am wrong then I won't even realize it.

I do read a lot about global warming, like "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. It is my opinion (for what it is worth) that a temp increase of about 0.7C over the last 100 years is not significant. Besides CO2 is plant food (see www.co2science.org).

I looked over Palin's speech, and there may have been some streaching of the truth, but I did not see any outright lies.

Sorry you have to deal with stupid people. One of Murphy's laws states "there are two things univeral on earth, hydrogen and stupidity." Sometimes I think the latter is more abundant than the former.

I won't vote for Obama because he will want to raise my taxes because I am part of "the rich" meaning I have a full time job. But that is my take on things, right or wrong.

As far as being wrong about things, science or otherwise, Dr Harold Eggerton said that the failures (of an experiment) are more important because you know not to do it that way again.
Isn't that what makes science fun?

FYI. I have a MS in biology. My favorites are diatoms, but I work as a Microbiologist.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/615.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/615.page GMT
They can certainly teach creationism in church if they like. It may be a good approach to allow for the possibility of a larger pattern that we are a part of, even if we don’t give it a name (which name would we use?). This may help some people appreciate the forces of nature without “pulling the rug out from under” their core values. But let me be clear; public schools are not religious institutions. Religion and ethics are college courses. Social sciences and civil behavior may be interesting topics, but only marginally manageable to teach in public schools without even more conflict.

Evolution shows us that creation is ongoing, and science is one way that we get to participate. Social and cultural evolution should be of concern to scientists. Our employment futures and the advancement of sciences and health are at risk

Worst of all, Sarah would like to ban many books, and perhaps burn them after they are banned. Where does that stop?
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/616.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/616.page GMT
- She claimed to be a reformer against earmarks.
Reality - She hired a lobbyist to get earmarked funds. She did this as mayor of Wasilla and again as governor, obtaining for Alaskans the highest per capita such spending of any state in the nation.

- She claimed that Obama had never authored any legislation.
Reality - Obama got 4 major pieces of legislation into law. Obama's contributions on a per year basis are more than most legislators.

- She claimed Obama's tax proposal would raise taxes by $100's of billions of dollars.
Reality - The Brooking's institution evaluated Obama's and McCain's tax proposals for impact on the middle class:
Obama: Increase of 5% in net income (i.e. less taxation)
McCain: Increase of 3% in net income. (.e. less taxation)

Net? A pack of lies for the gullible, but delivered with that beauty queen smile of gracious insincerity. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/617.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/617.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/618.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/618.page GMT am an observant Catholic, so I believe what my Church teaches
(it's easy to look up for those who are interested; the Catechism is
online). But in the very improbable event that we all found out that
the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how would it change the way we do
science? Probably not much; proteins, genes, and cells would still
work the same way, and the same drugs and medical devices would still
be invented. The reason many scientists are so scared, and people like
Ellen are practically foaming at the mouth, is that Creationism is a direct
spit in the face of the hallowed religion of Philosophical Materialism.
Like any religion, this one also requires a certain amount of faith,
which is why its adherants tend to get very defensive when challenged.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/619.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/619.page GMT
Like Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project, and author of the book “The Language of God” I believe that God created the universe in a way that neither atheists nor creationists can force their opponents to believe. Creation is complicated, beautiful and beyond the full comprehension of any of us. What we do know of the mechanics of creation, we know from the work of scientists—pursuing truth whether they are believers or not.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/620.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/620.page GMT
Do not knock Sara Palin. As a politician, she has all the qualities required for being a great leader of our country. Remember the world is not an isolated place , not an island with scientists alone living in it. Remember she has children who get sick, who need to get vaccinated; she faces challenges just like every body, challenges that only good science can solve. Stop considering Republicans as enemies of science. It is childish, imbecile! They are a part and parcel of our great democratic political system. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/621.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/621.page GMT
There is more science than evolutionary biology, you know? Probably Palin will increase the attention for research in developmental disabilities.

Maarten Otter, psychiatrist with interest in sepcial needs kids.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/622.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/622.page GMT the interplay of God's work, natural selection, and beneficial mutations are probably very similar to his.
On the other hand, I fail to see how the theory of evolution, especially the version one might call
"blind evolution", contributed to the technology that allowed the bone in his neck to be replaced.
Our knowledge of tissue typing and the technical details of spinal surgery do not depend on
any religious explanations, either deistic or materialist, on how the world came to be. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/623.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/623.page GMT
Ellen, I believe she said significant legislation, but I will check the transcript. As a mayor and Governer she was working for certian people. I do think she is a reformer in the sense she went against the good ol boys. I have a hard time believing that socialized medicine like Obama is proposing won't cost me more $ in taxes. (I do not know what the agenda of the Brookings Institute is.) But most important is that I do not think that Obama will protect this country like McCain would. He is an elitist who looks at most of normal people with contempt (because we cling to our guns and religion).

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/624.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/624.page GMT I agree with you totally. Do not be surprised if she already has made personal contributions to the welfare of kids with special needs. Evolution is only one of several scientific disciplines.
Dr.S.Raam]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/625.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/625.page GMT
As a mayor and Governor she was representing her constituents. I do know she went after the corruption that she saw in her own party. That takes guts. Did Obama root out any corruption while he was in Chicago? Nope. No guts there.

I do not know what kind of agenda the Brookings Institute has. But I do know Obama is promising carbon taxes (with his buddy algore) and that will make everything more expensive (and Obama's cronies including algore will get very rich). I am sure the BI did not figure that in. At least McCain said he won't do anything like that if China and India don't go along.

So I guess the way I see it, there were no lies.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/626.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/626.page GMT
What I wrote used the word PERHAPS:

“Worst of all, Sarah would like to ban many books, and perhaps burn them after they are banned. Where does that stop?”

Sarah could bring us into the type of world portrayed in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. I have no trust of those that seek to ban books. And I doubt her ability and willingness to ”preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

One source for this information is at Time/CNN:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

“Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.”

If Baker speaks she certainly will be fired.

Read more & search the topics yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.republicans20088
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/628.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/628.page GMT
Fahrenheit 451!!! Please get real.

I wonder why the media is not discussing Obama's link with a terrorist? Or maybe his admiration of algore, who wants to silence everyone who does not follow his alarmist opinions. There is more danger to free speech there than from Sarah Palin.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/629.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/629.page GMT
If you feel that the “Patriot Act” is aptly named you must not consider the Constitution to be patriotic. If you accept those that would even suggest that books be banned you must not be much of a supporter of the notion of free speech or a free press. It is obvious why Mary Baker would not be interviewed, she wants to keep her job. If you feel that this is a good sign for our future with Palin then we have vastly different notions of what a brighter future looks like.

I never imagined that something like the “Patriot Act” could pass. Who wrote those 900 pages, why, and when?

The press has become quite lame, major issues are ignored. For example; Phil Gramm was an Enron executive and so was Wendy Gramm. Wendy was also an auditor for Enron. Wendy Gramm was a commissioner of the CFTC when the “Modernization Act of 2000” created the London Dubai loophole, allowing banks and pension funds to participate in futures trading and “investments” outside of existing Federal regulations.

You may not recall McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal, or how Lincoln S&L was responsible for a $2.3 billion taxpayer bailout related to illegal speculative investments. The financial losses that we have seen recently as a Nation have come from places like UBS that bought up the investment arm of Enron. UBS has been involved in mortgages in the US. Phil Gramm had been their lobbyist and economic adviser to McCain. McCain has said that Phil would be a good choice for Secretary of the Treasury due to his experience as an (Enron) executive.

So, pardon me if I am skeptical. But the smell of rotting fish has filled the air. Palin is simply a distraction from the issues that we should be paying attention too.


]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/630.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/630.page GMT
I do believe that part of the patroit act went too far. And I never much cared for Mr. Gramm. But given what happened on 9/11 I could see why someone would maybe be over zealous about protecting the country.

Obama has his own scandels, so we could go back and forth all day.

back to the topic, "creation science" by whatever name doesn't belong in a scienct class. But by the same token, evolution needs to be taught as a science not a religion.

and no I don't have a pin.
Have a nice day.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/631.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/631.page GMT Yes, it is important to teach evolution as science and not religion, but there are not any biologists trying to teach a Godless universe in Sunday School at my Church. Dover made it very clear that there are religious people who want to dictate subject matter in science classrooms.
In America evangelical Christianity is much more a matter of experience than a settled habit of virtue. So it is no wonder those believers gravitate to the ends of the Bible. It is much more fun to speculate about the end of the world or put saddles on dinosaurs than to do the dull stuff in the middle--feed the hungry, care for widows and orphans.
We act as we believe. I do not want to have national science and environmental policy set by someone who thinks the world is going to end within her lifetime or that the science that underpins is wrong and the true "Deep" science is on the Answers in Genesis Web site.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/632.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/632.page GMT
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/633.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/633.page GMT ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/646.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/646.page GMT Since no one made any observations, we can not really make any experiments on what DIDN'T get observed...therefore we must take either theory on total faith...either you will believe that we evolved from monkeys and apes, or you're going to believe we were created by a supreme being with a design.
Almost sounds like the same science that has people convinced there is a global warming going on when 30 years ago every one in the science realm was worried about a new ice age. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/654.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/654.page GMT
If you belive that we were made in God's image then you might feel that it is your duty to act like it. If you believe that there is no God, but want to live in a better world, then you also would choose to act in a Godly way.

Ultimately, we would all do well to make an effort to rise to the occasion and be who we are, as well as engaging in enlightened self interest. Our thoughts and deeds should embrace others as we would ourselves no matter how we think that we got here. It is all about what we do here.

Sarah's personal issues and beliefs seem like a distraction from the issues that are important to us all. Let's try to keep this issue based.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/655.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/655.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/658.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/658.page GMT
Something deeper. Science is science. When she, and everyone else, Democrat or Republican, say that our country should develop more alternatives for energy production, this means more scientific and engineering investigations. This is good. But at the same time, with a push towards creationism, she is automatically saying that a major chunk of biological science is bad.

History has shown that advocating some science while repressing other science only leads to disaster...and I'm not talking about funding.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/659.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/659.page GMT
Whether a belief of one individual will have a profound affect on science shows that the science was weak to begin with, or the scientists are not secure in their theories and feel they are going to be "under attack". It has been a fact in the scientific community, which is a cutthroat community, that personal bias, jealousy and over protectiveness for Personal theories, no matter how scientifcally sound or how far fetched, will adamantly be protected by the person or people who thought up the ideas in the first place.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/660.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/660.page GMT
I am inclined to think that beliefs affect policy and issues. Clearly, my point has been taken that we should avoid personal distractions. Funding of science, economic decay, alternate energy, wars for oil, totalitarian government, and the biased editing out of scientific data from government studies are all issues that impacted by concerns. My greatest fears are that if we get four or eight more years of belief over evidence that America can decay to a point of no return. Our economy is being gamed to death, emotion is dominating over reason, tangential non-issues are moving to the forefront. Hate radio is on 24-7.

McCain’s now acts like he is for alternate energy while he has voted against it at every turn for twenty five years. Sarah is not ready to meet the press, let alone Putin. She will only be a heartbeat away from being President. She has not done well with her own family to my taste, but she will be in a position to enact laws that can subserviate us all.

I want representatives that embrace science and sound philosophy as the path to human betterment. I want someone that offers a vision of hope and can come up with the right words all by themselves. I want our brightest and best to work for us to build a better future. McCain and Sarah scare me.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/661.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/661.page GMT
Who we need are not available any longer...we need someone with FDR's outlook, Teddy's "in your face" and Kissinger's diplomatic tact.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/662.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/662.page GMT
Obama's associatin with algore, to me, is more of a problem. Global warming has stopped and now the temperature is on a downward trend. But you still hear the politicians call for reduced emissions of CO2. If you look at the science (FYI computer models are not science) CO2 increases after the temperature starts going up.

It is a democrates dream, you can increase taxes while making it appear you are doing something to save the planet. In reality all it will do is to destroy our economy.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/663.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/663.page GMT
"separation of Church and State" - Isn't this why the pilgrims left England in the first place? ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/666.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/666.page GMT
As usual a lot of stuff on both sides are taken out of context.
[/quote]

As a christian, do you deny that your religion has started to mix in with government more than ever? Presidents, congressmen, etc have all made decisions based on religion. I have no problem with people having religious beliefs but don't make national decisions based on your religion. I'm a non practicing catholic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I would just prefer the two entities to remain seperate. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/670.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/670.page GMT
As far as scientific evidence...I have studied the issue of origins for over 30 years and the evidence available actully supports a young earth more than an older earth...according to the actual and TRUE scientific evidence, the earth is approximately 10,000 years old.

Scientists have been overheard to say that the reason they don't want to accept that is because that means they are going ot be responsible for what they do with a "supreme being" and that is "not acceptable" to them. Even Darwin himself realized there were flaws with his origins theory and said so in his book.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/668.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/668.page GMT
As usual a lot of stuff on both sides are taken out of context.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/669.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/669.page GMT state must not have an established church and people must not be kept from practicing their religion. On the
related note, I do not follow current events closely enough to know Sarah Palin's own beliefs on the young-earth
theory. Just because her pastor believes it does not mean that she does - I think we figured that one out
this summer with Barak Obama's pastor. However, I am curious - does anyone out there know her
beliefs on the subject or can refer me to a quote?
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/671.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/671.page GMT
I try to be supportive of personal beliefs that help people get along and make a better world. I don’t believe that those that believe that we are in the “End of Days” are helping us move in that direction. Palin’s involvement in the “The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation” is worth looking into, before the videos of Sarah disappear from all web sites. The notion is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form "Joel's Army" to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.

We have reason to have serious concerns about the near future. Deeper involvement in ongoing war and Enron executives running our economy are larger issues than funding of science and medicine. Our whole house of cards can fall with these policies. We have been bouncing downhill for eight years now. We could easily go into freefall that leads to global conflict based on belief.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/672.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/672.page GMT
StephenTS, there is more than enough scientific evidence that the world is indeed very old. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/673.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/673.page GMT
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

The only sources that refute it are funded by the oil industry.

Not all plant growth helps prevent global warming:

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1205-caldeira.html

Not all species do well in elevated CO2 environments. Nor does short term capture assure long term sequestration.

California gets more than CO2 from China, like sulfur, soot, & heavy metals:

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss]link[/url]

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20060731/NEWS/60731006

These impacts are easily noticed. We can expect more of this as they industrialize. Their issues are becoming our problems.

If we are saddled with the assumptions and dogmas we will be distracted from issues that require intelligent responses. I dislike political parties and prefer issue and science based decision making. But now that science is being thrown out the window, it is time to become political.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/675.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/675.page GMT
That there is evidence showing the world is very old, there is just as much evidence that can be used to show it is not that old. Science has questionable ways of daing things. Carbon Dating is not accurate as it is based on how much carbon is being emitted...a living mollusk was found to be dead for thousands of years by carbon dating. Telling how long ago a man died is questinable as strata is different in many areas of the world and people have a habit of burying their dead. In one place, the burying could place the person in recent years past, but in another area where erosion has taken its toll, it could put the person in the Cambrian strata.

There is no real reliable way to measure the age of the earth accurately, so science relies on circular reasoning to establish how "old" the earth is.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/677.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/677.page GMT http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php). also see http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Some of the other links are about computer models, which are unreliable at best. One of the things about models is that they assume all of the feedbacks are positive when they are really negative. See http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html, which explains a lot about global warming.

Recent research shows that in the past it was much warmer than it is now. (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N37/C3.php). The "Hockey Stick" has been totally destroyed as science. (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/the_hockey_stick_scam_that_heightened_global_warming_hysteria/)

I wonder if all 31,000 + signers of the Oregon Petition are on the payroll of Big Oil?
(http://www.petitionproject.org/). That is pretty much an urban legend. You might want to check out the articles at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ to see who really is going to make tons on money on this.

Dr. Singer (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html) has said "to solve the greenhouse gas "problem," there are really only two ways: Collapse the world economy, or destroy much of the world's population."
Which one would you choose?

All the talking heads in the media keep talking like we are on the brink of diaster. It seems the new environmentalism has replaced communism. You still hear that there is "consensus" but when ever has science been run by consensus. Science is all about being a skeptic. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/678.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/678.page GMT
There is no debate over evolution that can include creationism in the science classroom. You don't have to believe in evolution. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/685.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/685.page GMT
Many of us have been advocates of clean renewable energy since long before there was any talk of global warming. We had acidified our Wisconsin lakes reducing sport fishing and shifting the lake’s biology, creating a problem with mites that now bite swimmers. The clouds of coal pollution that sweep over California from China are very real. Wind power is operating very well here at a cost that is slightly less than coal burning. CO2 sequestration would increase the cost of coal power $0.02 a kW/hr, making wind less expensive than coal power. We do need better energy storage systems.

Solar panels are being made here and now, but are largely being exported. The technology has improved greatly using plasma re-crystallization processes and glass substrates. This technology was developed for TFTs used in the production of LCD panels. The process would lend itself to the same methods used in creating architectural glass, such as those used by BOC in their existing continuous vacuum deposition system designed for that purpose. Americans are currently designing the hardware that will be built and used in China.

You can debate how old the world is, how we got here, what science should be taught in schools, if ice core data is correct, who funded the studies, or whatever. These are all more rotting red herrings to me. Every time I hike in the Sierra the remaining glaciers are smaller and the air is worse than the years before. Stances against renewable energy seem to only be a reflection of political beliefs and a sort of religion related to fears of change. I embrace positive change and seek to develop core technologies as a way to make a living.

I have made a portion of my living working on energy projects including coal, nuclear, and solar. I have a preference for solar and nuclear. There should be a great future for natural gas in the near term. Bio-energy is probably best derived from algae, producing a thousand times more fuel per acre than corn ever could, while using CO2 from coal burning facilities that will not go away anytime soon. There are great opportunities for jobs and investment in reconsidering how we obtain our energy. It is time to move on into a future that we create.

I find most arguments against renewable energy to be childlike. Such discussions are typically shallow and superficial, based on only one or two biased articles, generally lacking in realism, and as part of political dogmas preached from only two opposing perspectives. There is a very low level of intellect applied to the most important issues in the modern world. I have some hope that open forums can cause a shift in this sorry condition. There is a very real hope that science and ongoing experimentation can offer real solutions to real problems. However, it seems that even on a science blog we each are burdened by our own preconceptions.

America suffers from a lack of faith in the ability of science to provide true solutions to real problems. We also suffer from a lack of investment in workable technologies here in America. The political inactivity of those with science backgrounds can allow matters to get much worse. There is a possibility that we can engineer our way out of difficult circumstances, but it requires that we put our faith in science over dogmas.


]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/688.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/688.page GMT
A fellow graduate student stated to me three decades ago, "No one has ever lost a penny underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Whether or not he came up with the quote I do not know. However, I have never doubted it.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/689.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/689.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/690.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/690.page GMT
Surveys show that scientists are a group viewed by people in very high regard. Somehow, we need to figure out a way to convey the facts so that correct measures are taken, everywhere on everything demanded by everyone. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/693.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/693.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/694.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/694.page GMT
[quote]Sarah Palin - creationism, God and Country: separating fact from fiction. Just what does sarah palin believe and if elected, how will those beliefs impact America and its citizens.

[u]First of all, does she wants creationism taught in public schools. [b]TRUE[/b][/u]

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain’s presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

She’s in favor of teaching both creationism and evolution in the public schools. "Teach both," she said in a 2006 gubernatorial debate. "Don’t be afraid of information." McCain believes the issue should be decided by individual school districts.

It will be interesting to see what position they ultimately take should they be elected. Palin is called “the Barracuda” in Alaskan politics because she fights for what she believes and does not back down easily.

As for her personal views on evolution, Palin has said, "I believe we have a creator." But she has not made clear whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

The one thing to note is that a fact is a fact what Sarah Palin believes. One primary distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of creationism or Intelligent Design is the former is science and the latter is a belief!

"I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.

McCain said during a debate last year that he believed in evolution when it came to the origin of life.

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "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 Lang Report concurs but is firm on the need to make the distinction that all information is not created equal as there is a difference between science, science fiction, folk lore and religious beliefs, etc.

"It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

In other words, I have no problem in reading the “Wizard of Oz” as long as it is made clear that there is no such thing as flying monkeys!

In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed 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 said.

Creationism is the belief that the Earth and its creatures were created by a deity. It’s an alternative to the origin of life explanation taught in public schools under the theory of evolution, which puts forth that all living organisms descended from a common ancestral gene pool.

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

At a GOP presidential debate in May 2007 in Simi Valley, Calif., McCain said he believed in evolution.

"But," he added, "I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

I repeat….evolution has been scientifically accepted while the elation of witnessing a beautiful sunset is a feeling. And FEELINGS ARE NOT FACTS!

Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin’s socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska’s chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

[u]She called the Iraq war "a task from God." [b]TRUE[/b] [/u]

Palin told congregants at her evangelical church in Wasilla in June that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and part of "God’s plan." She also urged congregants to pray for a $30 billion natural gas pipeline project she wants to build.

[u]She opposes abortion in all cases. [b]FALSE [/b][/u]

Palin makes one exception - if the life of the mother is threatened. But she opposes abortion in cases of rape. Asked at the 2006 debate what she’d do if her daughter were raped and became pregnant, she said, "I would choose life." McCain supports a rape exception.

Much controversy has been generated over Sarah Palin’s beliefs and their relevance to the election and her ability to fulfill her duties as Vice President of the United States. Actually, as per our Founding Fathers, one should have no bearing on the other.

And that is as it should be! [/quote]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/695.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/695.page GMT
The comment about the Iraq war was taken out of context. I saw the video in question and that is not what she meant.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/712.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/712.page GMT
An article in the Anchorage Daily News dating back to when Palin was running for governor of that state (hmm, a mere two years ago, talk about experience and being fit to be commander in chief), reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

“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.”

Now this is disingenuous at best. Education is not about having “kids debate both sides,” since most kids would probably conclude that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe (after all, the sensorial evidence is overwhelming in favor of the flat-earth, Ptolemaic system). Education is, at its core, about two things: a) We want our students to have access to the best of what humanity has produced, be that in science, philosophy, literature, economics or what have you. b) We want to provide students with the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking and serious analysis of whatever claim comes under their scrutiny.

According to criterion (a), “teaching both” isn’t going to cut it, because creationism is simply not even in the ballpark of the best ideas ever produced by humanity. On the contrary, it is superstitious nonsense that harks back to an earlier era of ignorance about how the world works. But things aren't much rosier for creationists under criterion (b) either, despite all the talk about “teaching the controversy.” Learning critical thinking is not a matter of being exposed to a “fair and balanced” view of everything and be told “you decide.” Rather, it proceeds through learning about logic, about assessing evidence, and about the many ways in which human senses and reasoning abilities can fail us if we are not on guard. If students really do assimilate all of that, just one look at creationist claims would make it painfully clear that they don’t need to be further entertained.
Unlike Mike Huckabee (who is also now campaigning for McCain), Palin was at least smart enough not to outright claim that she does not accept evolution. The former governor of Arkansas plainly stated that “I believe god created the heavens and the earth,” and that he “wasn’t there when he did it, so how he did it, I don’t know.” These are lines straight out of the Institute for Creation Research talk book, which explains why “Left Behind” author Tim LaHaye said during the Republican primaries that Huckabee was “the most electable candidate who shares our commitment.”

And therein lies the problem: exactly what are Republicans committed to when it comes to science and education? To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago? To allow individual states to decide just how misinformed about science their citizens can be? That way if you are from Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi or a variety of other places along the Ignorance Belt you can keep falling behind in quality of life and ability to compete in a world where science plays an increasingly central role in our lives. Now, there’s a platform worthy of LaHaye and his readers.

These are questions that Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain have to answer to voters before the November election. But considering that they disagree about some of those answers, perhaps the two should first get better acquainted and straighten things out a bit. They’ve got two months to do it.[/quote]

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/722.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/722.page GMT
Ignore the men behind the curtain. Trust Bush with $700 billion to hand out to the global bankers! Trust Phil Gramm and his good economic sense, after all, he’s rich. If you can’t trust royalty, than whom can you trust?

Palin is a red herring. This is the dumbing down of America. We will let our fears of a black President override our sensibilities. I once thought that we were smarter than this, but now I think that McCain can say one thing while doing another and get away with it. Be prepared for the new King and Queen.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/726.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/726.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/727.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/727.page GMT
ScottICN, If a person has religious beliefs and they are part of their world view, how do you separate that? My religion says do not murder, and that is against the laws of most civilized nations, but that is also part of my religious beliefs. It is one thing to push my particular religion but I do not think you can ever separate them completely.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/748.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/748.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/2434.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/2434.page GMT
I am a believer in SArah Palin, I think she could get something done.

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/2711.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/2711.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/2942.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/2942.page GMT ATOMIC CONCEPT OF QURAN VS SCIENTIST'S ATOMOS
http://oqasa.org/YEA/Archieve%201/YEA020.htm]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/4075.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/185/4075.page GMT