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.
Comments

- Reply to This »
- Link
You accuse ignorance and bigotry because someone does not support your position. Your action is the very definition of bigotry. Then you show astounding ignorance of the understanding of others.
ROFL
Jerry, I'd say the author was right on target. Palin is a bigot.
I would love to see public education engage the students’ natural curiosity by exposing them to the frontiers of science. There are plenty of questions out there but science is taught by sleep inducing power point slides and out of date textbooks. Of course students need the basics, but expose them to the mysteries and puzzles and get their minds engaged and quit obsessing over whether they believe in a god or are a dreaded “creationist.” Getting the students excited about science is a bigger problem in my mind that worrying over their personal beliefs. We already have laws to keep religious instruction out of the science classroom anyway.
As to the first commenter who wrote:
“The masses are so ignorant, and it is evident in our politics. We can have a better world and country if we just had some conservative scientists and few radical ones thrown in for abstract ideas running the show.”
I have much more confidence in the democratic republic and the “masses” than you do. I certainly don’t want any one group “running the show.” For all of their intellect many scientists seem to lack common sense and discretion. I cannot believe someone would write the arrogant piece above and expect it to resonate with a broad audience but maybe it was only directed at like-minded fellow scientists.
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.
Well put! I'm going to have to steal that quote (with attribution, of course).
That's the meat of the meat of the matter.
It's evident from the other comments that people don't understand that this issue of teaching creationism is not about making room in your life for both religion and science. It's about teaching only science in science class.
Even if we did teach critical thinking well, deliberately pitting religion against science in a public school science class is not really a great idea.
Mike
Of course, you (Mike) and I have discussed whether or not it's a Republican issue or a convenience/tolerance issue. Both parties have created their own 'coalition of the oppressed' umbrella contingents and whether or not people believe America is going to hell (or Hell, if I must) because of Republicans or because of Democrats can almost certainly be correlated to who they will vote for in the fall.
For someone like me, it's trickier. Would someone who is a devout PETA member, for example, not vote for Obama if he supports the cattle industry? I bet they wouldn't. There is a scale and it has weights.
Palin being misguided (or perhaps catering to the crowd) on exactly what a science class is designed to do wouldn't cause me to not vote for her any more than Joe Biden's plagiarism would cause me not to vote for Obama. It's a talking point, and has to be considered, but not a veto issue.
Biden cost himself a Democratic nomination so he learned a lesson. I am betting Palin can learn too.
We try (consciously) to be politically/ideologically neutral here, but evolution is the one area where there can't be real neutrality and still be science. We can't let the opposing side speak because it invariably falls outside the realm of science.
But on this Republicans/Democrats stuff, people can say whatever they want because it's all basically made up. No one knows what they think so we can project virtually anything. Obama said in an article 3 years ago he was a proponent of evolution but in the ScienceDebate2008 questionaire no one asked him about one of the most important science topics today - namely should creationism be allowed in a science class. Palin said 2 years ago she was okay with the 'debate.'
If I ran ScienceDebate, I would have asked them that as my number 3 question (funding and political interference being 1 and 2) for one simple reason - there is zero chance two months before an election that Obama or McCain will come out publicly and say creationism should not be in schools.
So it more concerns me that people think it is just a Republican issue. But again, that just tells us how people will vote. They are choosing not to see a problem on both sides.
The difference is that the democrats are not actively against religious beliefs, while the republicans are clearly courting the evangelical vote. It is this latter issue that clouds the debate. I agree that both sides will pander to whoever they think will turn in a vote, but the republican-evangelical relationship seems to be growing more than simple vote-pandering would account for. There is no question that the religious test of office is becoming increasingly acceptable to people which is extremely disconcerting. For some reason people have gotten the idea that their personal views should be elevated and supported in the public domain. As a result we see this false sense of persecution by religious groups that have taken it upon themselves to be offended at every perceived slight. In general I see this as a dangerous trend for the country and it is not reassuring to see how willing people are to go down this path.If someone religious or Republican comments here, they may say that they see Democrats becoming the 'atheist' party or maybe that they already are.
there is zero chance two months before an election that Obama or McCain will come out publicly and say creationism should not be in schools.
I understand your point that everyone has different veto issues. To me, the creationist stance says something about people's approach to intellectual problems in general.
But I'm not arguing that it should be a veto issue for everyone. I'm expressing concern that, inevitably, whenever it comes to actually pushing creationism in public schools in this day and age (Yes, William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat, as someone pointed out, but that was before the South went Republican), it's always a Republican legislator or school board member.
So Obama may not come out and explicitly condemn creationism again in the next 2 months (although I don't understand why you think he wouldn't if explicitly asked - most committed creationists aren't voting for him anyway), but members of his party aren't the ones that are trying to push creationism in the schools.
Mike
Plus, even if they do, it's not like school directors will suddenly start claiming that dinosaurs helped build the Pyramids.
Oh wait, some already do say that.
P.S. Leave it to Massimo to seagull in here with this non-science article, get it syndicated on Livescience to boot, and then never bother to respond to any comments.
This isn't possible when the religion is being presented as science. It's absolutely true that people have their personal beliefs and those are not being challenged, but when they are used as a bludgeon to bring science into submission with those beliefs there is a problem. An earlier question asked:I have faith in my religion and able to allow both perspectives into my life. She was right on with her position, kids should not be taught one position without the other. I think it's very important to allow children to explore their curiosity and religious freedom along with the facts that science has developed.
That's simple. The individual declares it as such because those are the views they're espousing. This isn't about whether one has religious beliefs but whether they feel compelled to elevate them to science. That is a huge difference. As stated in the article, science isn't about allowing students to debate. It's about establishing what the current thinking is about a subject. If someone disagrees then it is incumbent on them to engage in research and produce evidence and introduce an explanation which builds on the current evidence. It isn't about engaging in a debate and simply letting people decide for themselves. Bear in mind that it is science which is under attack and not religion. Individual religious beliefs would not be discussed if it were not for the insistence that they be viewed on an equal footing with science.I’d like to know what the scientific criteria is for determining who is a creationist.
Get off your high horse. Before your diatribe, no one was challenging anyone's right to express an opinion, including the original author. The only one that is telling people to be quiet is you.Unlike you, I respect everyone’s right to speak. But with this right comes a responsibility.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
By DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writer
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
That may be so, but on my planet that issue has already surfaced. In case you've been away, the reason for this discussion is precisely because there are political idealogues and religious groups that have already intertwined their beliefs into the legal system and want to use it as a lever to dictate the course of science education. As for being emotional, I think you need to review your postings to see who has been insulting, and who has been ranting. You seem to be fond of espousing the "freedom of speech" issue, so let's look at it. Science and teachers are free to teach science, and religious leaders are free to teach their beliefs. However, the latter have taken it upon themselves to propose that their beliefs should now be elevated to the level of science. So teachers are being deprived of their "freedom of speech' by having politicians determine what can or can't be mentioned in the classroom. In addition, it seems that if evolution is to be taught, there is a political push for equal time to a belief system. It seems that your concern for "freedom of speech" applies only to those that are already abusing it. You might have a case if you showed that scientists were telling churches what to preach, but that isn't happening is it? So in case you haven't been paying attention, when science is told what to teach by political leaders, it's well beyond any philosophical "freedom of speech" issue because that right will have been twisted beyond meaning.If you want the discussion over science to become intertwined with social ideologies perhaps you and Mr. Pigliucci should find a more appropriate platform for your rubbish.
First, I fail to see how the article was biased. It was certainly written as an opinion, but that isn't bias. In addition, government encroachment by religious groups isn't a "perception", it is real and it is happening. I'm not sure why you are so insistent that a scientist isn't allowed to have or express an opinion on political matters that directly affect their work. There is a great concern in this country that at a time when we should be looking for better ways to teach science and mathematics and to encourage more students to enter these fields, we are engaged in a pseudo-debate over religious beliefs. You may feel that this article was too politically slanted to be included in this forum and, as you indicated, more suitable for a public policy discussion. However, let me remind you of the original quotes:I don't obsess or write biased articles over the perceived encroachment of government doctrine in the scientific arena. I am annoyed and put-off by these types of articles written by an ideologue parading in the robes of a scholar. Why don't you waste your time attacking the author for making a mockery of your vocation?
Why are you so juvenile and insecure over political ideology? Don't you realize that you represent the real threat to free speech and unfettered dialog?
Does this sound like a rational response to an article you feel was simply in an improper forum?You disgust me, and I am ashamed that people like you are even given the opportunity to make a living off real Americans who practice freedom of religion and speech without the fear of retribution. Natural selection can't move quick enough to drive people like you into extinction.
If the non-scientists are trespassing on scientific turf to get a political advantage, aren't scientists permitted to fight back?
These people have made US science the worst laughing stock since Soviet-era Lysenko. Our national prestige has been seriously damaged by creationists. Doesn't that upset you?
Insult those that believe differently? Are you really not listening? A creationist doesn't merely have a difference of opinion. Their viewpoint is that virtually EVERYTHING that science represents is wrong and can be overturned without the minimal requirement of presenting evidence. Besides attacking Biology (evolution), there is an attack on almost every other discipline through the "young earth" view. Yet, the scientist isn't supposed to feel insulted. Instead these interlopers, into a discipline they don't understand, are supposed to have immunity from criticism because the origins of their viewpoint are a belief system? We see the same kind of politicized behavior around "climate change". There is no discussion about the science or whether the models are accurate or not. Instead we get blanket pronouncements from politicians or layperson's that, not only is climate change wrong, but that its actually a scientific liberal conspiracy. Against this kind of idiocy, one hopes that scientists will speak out and not remain quiet. There won't be any "inspired" youth in these programs if they are taught that science is wrong and their religious views are what counts. There is no basis for physics in a "young earth" viewpoint. This isn't a matter of debate but science that requires hard work and not simply a layperson's opinion. A student that is "taught" both sides of these debates is not getting an education and they are even served worse when it comes time to follow in the curriculum necessary to pursue these scientific endeavors. As for insulting people ... well that wouldn't happen if they didn't advance their beliefs into the debate and demand they be listened to and automatically achieve credence. I don't have the time or inclination to concern myself with every psychic, ESP buff, and UFO abductee that is "insulted" by my lack of belief. If religion wants to focus on the spiritual and well-being of the human experience on earth, then there is no problem. However, when they insist on moving into the scientific realm then they join the former list and had better be prepared to be rebuffed.Growing up in the sixties, the new commitment to human exploration will do more to inspire our youth than teachers who alienate half of their classroom with the dangers of ideology. My point is simple: why are scientists going out of their way to insult those who believe differently?
You don't think that creationism trashes America's scientific reputation. You somehow think that fringe Moral Majority values are more important for America's scientific reputation than science. And you tell me that advocacy of science doesn't belong on a science website.
Massimo Pigliucci should be on a list of self-declared scientists who wish to return tax payer's money. Below is a link that documents the amount of money that Massimo Pigliucci received from the National Science Foundation alone: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSearch.do;jsessionid=94103AC8C920CFD4F9...
While you can apologize to whomever you like, enough is enough. This article was never presented as a scientific article. There was no devaluation of anyone's values except those individuals that insist on foisting them on someone else. Those that are offended by this, need to examine how tolerant they are to other's with different views, especially those that don't share their beliefs at all. You'll find no such tolerance from that quarter. Let's also remember that religious organizations are tax-exempt, so they benefit from such work without contributing anything to it. While you may feel the need to be apologetic in this respect, but I am personally offended at the notion that any professed belief is accorded tax-exempt status because of the separation of church and state, while the rest of us have to shoulder the burden. If you don't think this is a problem, just bear in mind that one can become "ordained" in as little as three days and be awarded an honorary doctorate degree for the trouble. That's apparently how important these beliefs are. Religious leaders feel free to engage in all manner of political debates and seek legislation to advance their agendas, the whole time not paying a dime to the government they want to exploit. I've had enough of this self-righteous drivel and the apologists that think they are owed something for their beliefs.I would like to express my personal apology to Louise and other like-minded people for Massimo Pigliucci's outrageously non-scientific and arrogant devaluation of human values and his disregard for religious taxpayers who fund his work, and most of the work of other scientists in the U.S.
For all you people that think this topic should be "debated". Are you really prepared for what that means? Consider that creationism starts off too far downstream to be anything but an opinion. If it were to be scientific the first thing that would need to be proven is the plausibility of a creator (and why that should be considered a legitimate "first cause"). In addition, the bible must also be examined to determine if it is a credible document with respect to scientific principles because it also cannot be "assumed" to be correct simply by assertion. At this point, chaos ensues, because to even raise the question would be considered challenging an individual's religious belief. However, the point remains that when a belief is raised to this level it has to be challenged if it is to be considered a viable replacement explanation for science. The point is that this would rapidly become a debate about religion and not science because in the end, creationism is simply one segment of one religion's view about how things occurred. I'm also incredulous that people would even suggest that such a debate occur, since science isn't about debating opinions, but rather about gathering evidence in support of a position. Even if one feels that a current theory doesn't provide adequate explanation, it hardly entitled someone to come in with alternate explanations that offer even less. In addition, to engage in such a debate would require expertise far beyond the student's ability to truly understand all the evidence and will simply serve to create the illusion that it is an open topic. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like and it is their private matter. However, when such a belief is being offered up as "evidence" for a scientific viewpoint, then it must be subject to scrutiny and criticism. At this point, most creationists believe they are entitled to a free pass because such scrutiny is considered bad form, but that isn't a legitimate position. Believe what you want, but when you propose it as a scientific theory then be prepared to have it poked and prodded. If you're offended by such scrutiny then keep your beliefs private.Also Sara Palin said that she would not force this issue into the schools in Alaska but that it should not be prohibited from being debated if brought up in class.
I heard the same sound bite all over the media, so that is a pretty good indication that it didn't originate with any analysis you've done. However it illustrates precisely how "debate" has degenerated into name-calling, sarcasm, and entitlement. Instead of considering the merits, it becomes "my guy" at all costs. The other side isn't simply wrong, but they're considered evil. This is the heart of the problem .... people feel entitled to elevate their opinions to truth regardless of how little of it they may possess. We all have opinions, and we may be right or we may be wrong. In truth, we're all be more likely to be partially right and partially wrong. But that kind of consideration isn't allowed these days. Just like the creationist argument, the point isn't to offer an alternative explanation, but it is ultimately to offer the only explanation. Since their principles are considered above challenge (because they're religious), the assertions of truth are apparently supposed to be accepted on their word alone.As far as your comment on her experience of only 2 years ago being elected governer of a state to me that is experience at least more than any obama supporter can say that their candidate has oh wait he is a community organizer
As far as your comment on her experience of only 2 years ago being elected governer of a state to me that is experience at least more than any obama supporter can say that their candidate has oh wait he is a community organizer
Are you serious? Do you happen to know what the guy's job is now? (Here's a hint).
Mike
Tell ya what, lets let the scientists decide what to teach in a SCIENCE class and we'll let the crazy nut-job fanatics decide what to teach in crazy nut-job fanatic school (aka Bob Jones University and Fox News). Most of you need to go to a school that'll remind you that McSane is as old as dirt(his words), will kick the bucket while in office and leave us with someone less experienced than the guy McCains been making fun of since July for being inexperienced. Yeah cuz let me tell thats just what we need, another 4 years of a right wing radical nincompoop
Jeeze and you wonder why everyone is always laughing at us Americans
It was the first time I ever understood the issues involved. Scientifically, it shows that Galileo's work on mechanics is of much more profound significance than his personal espousal of the Copernican theory. On the debate site, I wonder why Galileo called the advocate for the traditional Aristotelian view "Simplicio". The readers would have known that Simplicius was a late Aristotelian philosopher, but the choice of his name was, de facto, suggesting that the Pope was a clothhead.
Robert H. Olley
Physics Department
University of Reading
England
With regard to the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, it is the individuals who pay taxes and vote, not organizations who decide elected officials. Lets get the facts in order, please.
D R Ripley above got it right: Massimo Pigliucci is an "ideologue parading in the robes of a scholar". Scientific theories and political ideologies don't mix, unless one wants to repeat failed history of other counties (for example see The Lysenko Affair above; many other examples are too extreme to be considered but relevant).
Scientists should understand their limits: our resources are primarily derived from the TAX PAYERS. As a scientist, I have no interest to fight any democratic system - there are more tax payers than scientists.
As a scientist, I think that Massimo Pigliucci should apologize, or return his Government-derived funding to the tax payers.
That sentiment is wrong at so many levels I hardly know where to begin. "Majority thought?" ... what an absolute absurdity. NOTE: Just in case that is a typo and you meant "taught", its still absurd to suggest that that is a majority based decision. Large numbers of people do not convey credibility to information. They can be and largely are usually wrong.Why aren't individual theories thought in schools? Because an individual is not a majority who decides what is to be thought. Tax payers are the majority.
The main point is that scientists are paid, for the most part by the tax payers, and therefore accountable to the tax payers. If one believes that he/she can continue to receive Government-subsidized grant support without tax payers, then such a person does not acknowledge reality.
Moreover, the reality is that Massimo Pigliucci is out of line and he should either apologize, or return his Government-derived funding to the tax payers. Any rational scientist could ask for no less in self interest.
What is taught is NOT politically decided by a majority of people. You might confine that to a general subject, but content is certainly not up for debate. If you're dealing with topics that are subjective then it would be a different matter, but science isn't in that category. Contrary to popular mythology science isn't simply the act of having an opinion, but rather that of having a "qualified" opinion. While some people might bristle at that remark, they need to get over it. Every opinion is not created equal and simply having an one doesn't entitle anyone to an audience (majority or not). Also, you are incorrect in asserting that the scientists are accountable to the taxpayers. Politicians are accountable to taxpayers, and scientists are accountable to the organizations that provide them funds. There is nothing implicit or explicit in such a financial arrangement that allows someone to dictate the terms of what happens. If people are insulted or put out by what happens, then once again, that's the way the game is played. I'm not given a say in how the government spends my tax dollars except through my vote. Beyond that I have no mechanism to gain a right of accountability. Trust me when I say that General Patreus doesn't call me on weekends to give me status reports and I already know I can't demand a tax refund based on the job I think the administration is doing. To suggest that scientists are held to a different standard for receiving funds as compared to the politicians who have taken them is patently absurd. As I stated previously, if people want to maintain their beliefs privately then there is no issue, but when they venture into the public domain then they are subject to criticism and scrutiny as is everyone else. In addition, scientists have as much right as any other citizen of expressing opinions as well. If people are insulted by that well .... "If you can't run with the big dogs, you have to stay on the porch"What is taught is politically decided by a majority. The main point is that scientists are paid, for the most part by the tax payers, and therefore accountable to the tax payers.
That being said, I personally believe Mr. Pigliucci is right to be concerned. While Riply has made a valid point that it is articles such as this that may in fact be prompting political iedealogues into scientific debate, one also has to consider the notion that it may very well be needed. The live and let live philosophy is on the surface, a fine idea. In our present day and age, on the other hand, with our level of technology and the impact our species has on the entire planet, we simply cannot allow the ignorance to continue unabated. Those who would treat our plannet as an interim holiday home to be consumed and forgotten about once the hereafter pops around, need to be stopped. Creationism is the backbone of the fundamentalist christian world view and I personally believe that combating it is all a part of the invaluable social reform the world (and particularly the United States) desperately needs.
So to you Riply, before you attack a scientist for discussing a political issue with regard to a scientific subject he has studied extensively, perhaps you should consider why we even have scientists. One who is either not willing to share their understanding of the natural world, or is content to see their findings brushed aside in deference to the bablings of a few ancient cultists, is simply not worth having. You treat his statements as though he has over-stepped his mark. I say he's doing his job the way it ought to be done.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Pigliucci.
You must not be a scientist, or one who does not appreciate the second law of thermodynamics - there is no free lunch.
One can't expect to receive continued financial support for science from the tax base if one slaps the people in the face. I am a scientist who appreciates the financial support of the tax payers for my research.
Scientific theories and political ideologies don't mix.
I'm sorry but that is simply baloney. Unless you're running a website that solicits and collects funds, the taxpayers don't even know you exist. I want to add something else, but I also want to ensure you that I sincerely do not mean any insult to you personally, so please don't take it that way. One of the biggest problems between science and public perception is the notion that scientists are beholden to whoever is paying the bills. The fewer scientists speak out, the greater the public perception that they are simply "doing what they are told". This is becoming bad enough that it has given rise to the idea that science can be expressed simply as a personal opinion because the trust-factor with scientists has become so diminished that for every controversial topic there's the allegation that they are being paid to give the opinion they are. I, for one, am glad to hear a scientist express a viewpoint, especially one that may not necessarily be favorable to public perception. It's about time the public got a dose of reality and stopped expecting miracles and began understanding that science is hard work and not the same thing as puttering around in one's garage on a weekend.One can't expect to receive continued financial support for science from the tax base if one slaps the people in the face. I am a scientist who appreciates the financial support of the tax payers for my research.
After you call someone's opinion "baloney", please don't expect them to give you the benefit of a doubt when you say that "I sincerely do not mean any insult to you personally, so please don't take it that way".
You clearly doesn't understand that you can't have it both ways with others, irrespective of your own inconsistencies.
Now you have come full circle. Your suggestion that you can evaluate my motives is at best pseudoscientific, as is the theory about the origin of life (not the process of evolution). Also, if you believe that scientists are not accountable to the tax payers then you are clearly inconsistent.
To Scott:
Please inform yourself first about the catastrophic history of mixing scientific theories and political ideology to be able to express an opinion on the subject. For the record, my field of research includes the theory of evolution (the RNA World hypothesis).
You are mistaken, or naive if you believe that scientists are not accountable to the taxpayers. Even Nobel Laureates acknowledge the financial support of the tax payers in their acceptance speeches.
You really don't see the relationship between the theory of evolution and the debate about the origins of life in the discussion about Sara Palin's position? I find that hard to believe.
To assume that you can evaluate someone's motives is extreme. It is a good thing you are not a politician in power, or else Orwellian reality would be upon us, scientists and all.
Now you have come full circle. Your suggestion that you can evaluate my motives is at best pseudoscientific, as is the theory about the origin of life (not the process of evolution). Also, if you believe that scientists are not accountable to the tax payers then you are clearly inconsistent.
To Scott:
Please inform yourself first about the catastrophic history of mixing scientific theories and political ideology to be able to express an opinion on the subject. For the record, my field of research includes the theory of evolution (the RNA World hypothesis).
Whatver your specific field may be; if a polotician were to suggest your work was potentially reduntant due to the contrary scriblings of a long-dead madman, I would say you are doing those that fund your work a grave injustice if you said nothing to refute them.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
***
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise 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 added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
====================================================
Teaching Evolution - Is There a Better Way?
http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=21
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Teaching Origins in Public Schools
by David Menton
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm
===================================================
David Menton bio:
* Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
* Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
* Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)
===================================================
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
[snip]
Dr. David N. Menton is a former Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, now retired. In his September 1995 address ("Evolution: Is a scientific critique possible?") at the Abbey Arts Centre in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Menton commented:
"What I'm suggesting in the classroom is: not teaching creation. What I'm suggesting you consider in the classroom is: teach evolution the way your Minister of Education says you ought to--teach the curriculum the way they say you ought to. I believe in obeying the laws. I didn't come here to tell you to get yourself thrown out of a job or anything like that...Do what you're asked to do."
"But there isn't anyone that's going to stop you from presenting critical evidence against evolution. No one."
"I eagerly look forward to the first test case in court, where they drag a teacher kicking and screaming into the courts who has done the job they're supposed to do. They've taught evolution--they've covered the curriculum--they've covered the points in the book--but they also presented scientific evidence that is critical of these evolutionary views--evidence generated by other evolutionists themselves. I'm waiting for the court case when they take that person in the school and say: 'You have no right presenting scientific evidence from evolutionists critical of evolution.'"
"I'll tell you--the approach that is being taken here guarantees one thing...you're guaranteeing this course is going to be boring--you're going to teach evolution as a 'Just So Story'. Anyone with dissenting points of view is going to get crushed. They're either going to go along with the evolutionary paradigm, or be told that they can't speak out; they're not going to win that round, and neither will you. You're going to bore your kids silly."
[snip]
=========================================================
The following suggested Origins of Life policy, which first appeared in the Buckna/Laidlaw article, "Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?"(http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=411) is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:
"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet."
Personally, I'd rather place my faith in the Creator and not the created. How about you?
" Palin herself is a creationist or not and, frankly, that’s far less important than the policy positions she holds in the matter." In this I would agree, her policy position is much more important than her internal beliefs. I would also suggest that her view, the same as that of George Bush, is much more reasonable than that of Mike Huckabee. I would suggest that her view is more reasonable, in fact, than yours is. The person I am most conserned for is the kid who has grown up being taught creationism, who enters the highschool science classroom. If the "science only" crowd has its way, this kid cannot present his current position for discussion without committing a criminal act. At a minimum the free speech rights of every student must be dilligently protected.
"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). "
Here you make an incredible point -- for your opposition. While it is true that sensory evidence is overwhelming in favor of a flat-earth system, it is hard to find anyone who holds to the view. The few that do seem to do so sarcastically. Why is this? Because the case made for a round earth is great enough to overwhelm the sensory evidence. If the case for neo-Darwinian evolution were made with the clarity that the case for a spherical earth has been made, then the debate would be over, dispite the sensory evidence. I have studied and debated the darwin/ID equation for a few years now, and I have yet to see an overwhelming case for neo-Darwinism. I have seen an overwhelming case for an old earth. I have seen an overwhelming case for the existance of a common ancestor between chimp and human. I have seen a strong (albiet not overwhelming to me) case for universal common descent. I have seen an overwhelming case that both mutation and natural selection play a fundimental role in the tapestry of life. But I have not seen an overwhelming case that environment + mutation + selection can produce true novelty. I have certainly not seen an overwhelming case that unguided causes can produce first life. I have, however, also seen an overwhelming case (albiet not in the science classroom, but in the school of hard knocks) for the existance of providence that goes far beyond what would be expected by an unguided nature.












