stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
of course I did save the post. I know how these idiots operate:
| Quote | 8 September 2008
Sarah Palin Unlikely to Push Evolution Issue was ‘Creation Science Enters the Race’
LeeBowman
No sooner was Sarah Palin’s candidacy announced, than the Anchorage Daily republished an October 2006 article giving highlights of the then gubernatorial race between three candidates, Palin being one.
Almost immediately, the paper has been deluged with request for comments, interviews, and transcripts to feed the frenzy, keeping their editors and writers quite busy.
In short order, Rev. Barry Lynn, who along with Jay Sekulow plays tag regarding church and state issues in a mutual column on Beliefnet.com, responded thusly:
| Quote |
… it now seems clear the not only is Governor Sarah Palin historically challenged, but scientifically challenged as well. A number of my pro-science colleagues have pointed out how “intelligent design” played a role in Palin’s gubernatorial campaign in Alaska. Here are all of old stale misunderstandings by the now-Governor about science, good education and acting like students are supposed to be able to distinguish between religion masquerading as pseudoscience.
|
The blog posting HERE:
Sekulow responded:
| Quote |
Gubernatorial candidate Palin had simply stated that debate is important on the issue of evolution and we should not be afraid to discuss information that challenges the orthodox view. Students should be free to question theories that are presented in class. Palin simply stated, “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class.” |
He went on to state that it was consistent with Edwards v. Aguillard, that if done properly it conformed to “secular intent”, and that the nation’s founders would have been receptive to it, under the “unalienable rights” clause.
The blog posting HERE:
Although a hot issue, institutions likely to be the most concerned (ACLU, NCSE, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State) have been largely silent on the issue. That may change. But in the meantime, a weekend article in the York Daily Record has come onboard stating:
| Quote | “Palin [is] unlikely to push [the] evolution issue.”
“As far as I know, Gov. Palin has not been aggressive on this front,” Matt Olson, a biology professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in an e-mail.
“Up to now she has not pushed an agenda to teach creationism in public schools.”
“Palin, a self-described “hard-core conservative,” hasn’t attempted to push her views about social issues into policy as governor.”
“She has basically ignored social issues, period,” Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist with the Alaska Budget Report told The Associated Press.” |
Full article HERE:
So is Sarah Palin’s stance on teaching ‘Creationism’ a viable concern to the science community and their (and our) ’protectors’? Will they rise up to defend the science standards and protecting the American way? At best, the CS issue is in a dead heat with abortion, civil rights, energy & oil, and of course, whether Elk or Moose meat should replace beef on store shelves. I have a feeling that the ‘creation issue’just may finish dead last.
1
BenK
09/08/2008
7:22 pm
I cannot understand how Americans can be concerned that teaching creationism might violate the founder’s intent that government be seperate from religion, and at the same time be comfortable with the idea that the education of their children ought to be an extention of the government.
Candidates for the presidency are concerned that they not be seen as anti-gun. How is there any consistency here - ‘They can’t take my guns, but they can take my children?’
Why does this make sense to Americans? How can a people consider themselves in any sense ‘free’ when the state dicates what will and will not be taught to their children?
|
|
