Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[PeterMP]

example?
Certainly science classes should be reserved for science,not religion or political activism

Creationism or intellient design does not suggest any testable hypothesis that would be offered as evidence against said hypothesis.

Everything and anything is consistent with the idea that an extremely powerful being(s) that we have no real hope of understanding created the universe, created humans, etc.

[alexey]

Yay glad to this this issue brought up! Hopefully it will be used to hammer the GOP on the head until they understand that science denying is not just bad policy but also bad politics.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 05:20 PM ----------

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in science class.

But I don't think whether a person believes in evolution or not is a big deal...and it shouldn't be.

What are your thoughts on importance of having a basic understanding of how science works?

btw it's really sad to see Rubio take this route.

[Larry]

For the record, Mitt Romney actually accepted the science of evolution and opposed the teaching of so-called "intelligent design" theory in science classrooms when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Yeah, but I bet he would have renounced that position, if anybody had asked, during the primaries.

[twa]

Creationism or intellient design does not suggest any testable hypothesis that would be offered as evidence against said hypothesis.

Everything and anything is consistent with the idea that an extremely powerful being(s) that we have no real hope of understanding created the universe, created humans, etc.

Is science class for the scientific method or do we include the philosophy of science?....what about metaphysics?

How far you open the door determines what comes in

[nuposse87]

Is science class for the scientific method or do we include the philosophy of science?....what about metaphysics?

How far you open the door determines what comes in

In high school you generally take Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. At the most basic levels they can be taught without introducing philosophy into it IMO, (maybe not astrophysics, but generally astronomy is taught as an elective since the big bang may come into play). I think its possible to keep philosophy and science separate, science is generally testable and observable. Kind of hard to replicate a sisyphus paradox. I'm all for creating more philosophy geared classes in HS, but keep them as electives. If kids want to open up a can of worms, let them do it on their own accord.

[No Excuses]

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in science class.

But I don't think whether a person believes in evolution or not is a big deal...and it shouldn't be.

The POTUS should not be a science mistrusting buffoon. I don't think people seem to realize how embarrassing the modern Republican parties platform on science is.

[visionary]

What are your thoughts on importance of having a basic understanding of how science works?

There are plenty of intelligent people who believe one way or the other on the issue, I don't see any reason to put some kind of evolution/creationism test against people.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 05:52 PM ----------

The POTUS should not be a science mistrusting buffoon. I don't think people seem to realize how embarrassing the modern Republican parties platform on science is.

Not believing in evolution does not make one a buffoon. I know more than a few smart folks of that sort, including those much more into science and tech than I.

[deejaydana]

Here is actually what Rubio said directly after the not a scientist line below. Nice faux outrage GQ. You fail.

I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

[No Excuses]

Not believing in evolution does not make one a buffoon. I know more than a few smart folks of that sort, including those much more into science and tech than I.

Those smart folks are most likely not qualified to commentate on scientific issues because it is not an issue amongst scientists. The POTUS has a direct effect on the science policy adopted by his administration, so it is important that he be well educated on something very important for the present and future.

[visionary]

Those smart folks are most likely not qualified to commentate on scientific issues because it is not an issue amongst scientists. The POTUS has a direct effect on the science policy adopted by his administration, so it is important that he be well educated on something very important for the present and future.

That's an interesting opinion, but I disagree.
I don't think it's any of our business if someone believes in evolution or not, even if they are president or a politician.
Now their policies...that's another thing.

[PeterMP]

Is science class for the scientific method or do we include the philosophy of science?....what about metaphysics?

How far you open the door determines what comes in

I think we should teach the scientific method and the philosophy of science in science classes.

In my opinion, that would clear up a lot of these issues.

In terms of metaphysics, I could see giving it 20 minutes in terms of science developed.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 06:20 PM ----------

I don't think it's any of our business if someone believes in evolution or not, even if they are president or a politician.
Now their policies...that's another thing.

I STRONGLY disagree with this sentiment and NOT just with respect to science.

Understanding WHY somebody supports certain policies is even MORE important than knowing their stance on certain policies because you can not forsee what issues will arise when they are President.

IMO, NOTHING is more important than the very fundamental nature at which the judge and weigh information and make decisions.

AND this isn't limited to science.

In terms of the economy, I do NOT just want to know what policies you will pursue, I want to know WHY you will pursue those policies.

That way if the economy (e.g. goes into a recession or a boom), I have some sort of knowledge what you basis for making economic deicsions are.

[twa]

I think we should teach the scientific method and the philosophy of science in science classes.

In my opinion, that would clear up a lot of these issues.

In terms of metaphysics, I could see giving it 20 minutes in terms of science developed.

can you teach the philosophy of science w/o religion creeping in?
once you go much beyond method and the reasons for them the door opens imo

[Unforgiven]

Here is actually what Rubio said directly after the not a scientist line below. Nice faux outrage GQ. You fail.

GQ isn't feigning outrage...

You crack me up. A conservative politician says something stupid to try and conserve votes in his favor, people laugh at what he said. You come along and quickly try to change the subject from the stupid thing he said to some ridiculous drummed up left wing media conspiracy. It fools no one, stop it.

[visionary]

I STRONGLY disagree with this sentiment and NOT just with respect to science.

Understanding WHY somebody supports certain policies is even MORE important than knowing their stance on certain policies because you can not forsee what issues will arise when they are President.

IMO, NOTHING is more important than the very fundamental nature at which the judge and weigh information and make decisions.

AND this isn't limited to science.

In terms of the economy, I do NOT just want to know what policies you will pursue, I want to know WHY you will pursue those policies.

That way if the economy (e.g. goes into a recession or a boom), I have some sort of knowledge what you basis for making economic deicsions are.

I don't think we need to know everything every politician believes in.
Most people have some fairly different sets of beliefs, and include some pretty weird ones.
I think that singling out something pretty normal like not believing in evolution or even just not coming out strongly against the idea of creationism as terrible and some kind of huge issue, is pretty unfair and ridiculous, edging on bigotry.

[alexey]

There are plenty of intelligent people who believe one way or the other on the issue, I don't see any reason to put some kind of evolution/creationism test against people.

One cannot understand evolution and not believe it. I'm sure plenty of intelligent people do not understand evolution. Understanding of evolution is not a test for intelligence but a test for ability to carry out any public service duty that has anything to do with science.