Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Why do these idiots keep getting re-elected?

After creationism bill failed, Indiana senator will push 'truth in education' measure

 

He tried to force creationism into curriculum last year, and failed.  This year he wants teachers to be required to "prove" anything they teach.  If a student questions anything in any class, the teacher must be able to provide some sort of proof (like, say, a science book?)

1) an example of another complete moron who does not understand the definition of the phrase "scientific theory"  (here's a hint - it does NOT mean something not proven.  It is a collection of facts which support a claim)

2) an example of another complete moron who does not understand the definition of not making any law regarding the establishment of religion.

But I'm guessing he'd count the Bible as a valid source of fact if anyone wanted to teach creationism?

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 8:46 AM on Dec. 5, 2012 in Politics & Current Events

Level 50 (419,505 Credits)
Answers (39)
  • "You are assuming creationists are stupid. I'm assuming evolutionists are ignorant."

    Ah see... that's where you went wrong. You ASSumed something. You see... I never even suggested such a thing. What I was saying (and shall I type slowly so you understand?) was that it is quite possible that the Creationist-leaning politicians (who are only fools because the keep trying the same stunt and expect different results) were elected and then re-elected because the idiots out there who vote could very well have ignored or not even been aware of what the guy really believes! Never once did I say Creationists are stupid. My thought is that Creationism is a philosophy, whereas evolution does have at least some data to work with making it a part of science.
    anime_mom619

    Answer by anime_mom619 at 1:41 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • So just because it says so in a science book makes it true?

    No, just because it is supported by empirical evidence and is testable (something that must happen before facts are put in a text book) makes it true. That's such a flippant and ignorant question, I have to ask, are you saying it just to be contrarian, or did you really ignore every science lesson in school since kindergarten?
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 1:59 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Then my apologies anime. I jumped too quick! But there is science to creationism, I'm just so used to people ignoring that or just not being aware of it.

    Notpanicking, so global warming in text books is ok? That's not proven science and neither is evolution. Adaptation yes but not the molecules to man evolution. I would like to see science curricula that teaches scientific truth, that's all.

    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 2:37 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • The reason I mentioned a creator is simply to answer the how in the question of the origin of life. Other than that religion need not come up.
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 2:52 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Notpanicking, so global warming in text books is ok? That's not proven science and neither is evolution.

    Once again, you are making incorrect, sweeping generalizations. Global warming exists, as does global cooling. It's part of the natural cycle of any planet in heliocentric orbit. The issue up for debate is how much impact human interference has on the pre-existing global warming and cooling - we're currently still at the end of an ice age, hence the polar ice caps. Whether we were here or not, eventually, those caps will melt, and then several thousand or million years later, they will reform.

    Evolution is also proven science. Even the Pope and Pat Robertson have enough common sense to concede that point. Only people who make an intentional effort not to learn don't understand it. Evolution is evidenced by the simple fact that you inherited your eye and hair color from one of your parents or grandparents.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 2:56 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Oh gosh.
    booklover545

    Answer by booklover545 at 3:58 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Then we agree on the global warming. It shouldn't be taught in schools that these temperature changes are caused by man.

    Our inherent genes has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with "everything reproducing after it's own kind."
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 4:11 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Our inherent genes has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with "everything reproducing after it's own kind."

    Then you don't understand genetics or evolution.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 4:13 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Apparently not if you think simple reproduction is evolution.
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 4:42 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

  • Apparently not if you think simple reproduction is evolution.

    I never said reproduction is evolution. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I said the genetics passed down from generation to generation, and more specifically, the one which do not get passed on, are a very basic example of evolution. You live longer than your ancestors because your family line has passed on strong genetics and weeded out weaker ones - that's evolution. Reproduction is the delivery system, not the be all and end all.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 4:46 PM on Dec. 5, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.