In last Novembers election Oklahoma voted out Gov. Brad Henry (D) for the new governor Mary Fallin(R). Now with republicans in control of Oklahomas House, Senate and governorship they are quickly moving to implement a slew of regressive ideological bills including four bills to redefine conception as the beginning of life (making an embryo a person), a move to allow state funding to be given to churches or religious figures, and a bill to teach creationism as science. http://newsok.com/conservative-ideological-bills-concern-group/article/3...

When given the chance to govern the right proves time and again that they believe government should be used to enforce morality instead of regulating commerce; that laws should be used against individuals but corporations should be given free reign; that they should be more concerned with what happens in the bedroom than the boardroom.

The ideologues on the right live by their own twisted set of "truths" as witnessed daily by viewers of fox "news":

-The earth is flat and you can't convince any repub that it isn't.

-tax cuts for the rich will help the economy.
-More guns are the solution to gun violence.
-Deregulating wall street will keep us from further crashes.
-Bombs are the way to make friends and influence people around the world.
-Supporting dictatorships is the way to promote democracy.
-Cutting social spending will strengthen our society.
-Teaching our children less will better prepare them for the future.

-The way to help the unemployed is to stop paying them unemployment insurance

-Allowing corpirate overlords to spend unlimited funds to influence elections is more honest

-Denying health care to tens of millions of Americans is how to maintain the "best" health care on earth

If you would like to see the repub vision of the future look to Saudi Arabia where the royalty craps in gold toilets and the working poor bust their ass to feed their kids. Look to Haiti where lack of regulation turned a natural disaster into a year of hell. Look to Somalia where guns are everywhere and violence everpresent.
Wake up America.

Comments

dhavid 3 years 38 weeks ago
#1

I don't believe in creationism, as defined by the bible, but I don't believe in the atheistic idea of pure chance evolution, either. BTW, I am almost pure liberal, and am not christian. I believe the concept is called intelligent design. To me it is beyond obvious. Is this taught? Is it not obvious to most? It is very congruent with eastern thought. Just wondering. This is an aside from the main point of your post, but central to it's title.

poolviking's picture
poolviking 3 years 37 weeks ago
#2

While I don't think the teaching of religious beliefs should be completely forbidden from classrooms, when approached from a sociological or historical perspective, religion has no place in science.

leighmf's picture
leighmf 3 years 37 weeks ago
#3

There is no science of creationism, to date. Therefore it can't be taught "as a science or alternate science." There are no hundreds of years of standardized data collected by scholars who published in the same universities alongside our greatest biological and medical minds, no measurements, no experiments, no graphs, no published volumes, no proofs. In fact, there can't be a proof.

Let Creationism be taught as Creationism. Make up whatever you want, as long as you love the earth and all its inhabitants, because that is the created world and every place that's ugly, it's up to you to plant a Bush, Tree, or Shrub. The Light looks down on what's been done and illlumines the ratholes, and places of nasty, and says, "This is MY creation! MY animals, MY People, MY trees, MY water, air and soil. Murderers! You knew I made it yet, you let all this happen."

Oh Lawdy.

XXXXX

RLM8's picture
RLM8 3 years 37 weeks ago
#4

MMMMMMMMMMMMM. I humbly designate you an official writer of rules. You rule!

Dr Knowone's picture
Dr Knowone 3 years 37 weeks ago
#5

Evolution and Creationism Side by Side

What are the evolutionary theorists afraid of? Is it that evolution is just as much of a story of beginnings as creationsim? Remember that science is based on empiricism. That is "...all knowledge is derived from sense experience." The truth is that know one was here to witness the beginning. Of course the atheist must understand this. The god fearing people believe that god witnessed the beginning.

Teaching evolution as fact does not equal teaching science or the scientific method. Does teaching that the steam engine (an excellant example of a result of scientific and technological progress) is how vehicles are powered and electricity is generated equate to teaching science?

In teaching science alternative theories must be presented and reviewed against the criteria of science. I thought we wanted to teach our children how to think and decide for themselves. How better to teach science than to present evolution (with it's multiple accounts - and why these accounts evolved) side by side with the multiple accounts of creationism - including the "space aliens did it" hypothesis. Show what has actually been agreed upon as observed fact and show wha t is really only an assumption. Show and teach good logic skills by building on the facts and assumptions with what must logically follow as fact, even though not observed.

Teaching evolution outside of the true scientific method is nothing more than promoting a story favored by the majority. Remember, the evolution story changes quite frequently

Dr Knowone's picture
Dr Knowone 3 years 37 weeks ago
#6

Artifacts Are All Subject to Interpretation

There are just as many "facts" for creationism as there are for evolution. The science part comes in how the "facts" (or "hundreds of years of standardized data collected..." ) are interpreted. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. Let's review in brief the scientific method:

1) Make observations

2) Hypothesize some explanation of the observations. (Assumptions are nearly always necessary in the beginnig. Assumptions can only go away when an observation makes them provably false or true.)

3) Can you make a prediction based on the above?

4) Test the theory (i.e. new observations)

5) Revise the hypothesis. (How many assumptions were proven correct and how many were proven false)

6) Repeat the cycle until all assumptions have been correctly eliminated.

From Wikipedia: The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Athiests affirm there is no god. Many people have claimed to be instructed by god. Many claim to have information from "space people"

The fundamental difference between evolutionary theory is the assumption about god. Until that assumption is agreen upon fact, creationism is as scientifically valid as evolution.

Dr Knowone's picture
Dr Knowone 3 years 37 weeks ago
#7

Natural Selection Not Equal to Evolution

As an addendum to what I said above, natural selection, a necessary subset to evolutionary theory is not the same as evolutionary theory. This theory of natural selection is used by both creationists and evolutionists. Probability theory and still other theories (e.g 2nd law of thermodynamics) all fit into this category of being accepted by both sides.

God or no god? What happened at the beginning - Origin. If God, then there is an observer of the beginning. If no god, there is yet to be found an observer of the origin.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.