Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[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.

[Larry]

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.

How about if he has a policy of not offending people who think science and reasoning are the enemy?

[alexey]

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.

Yeah that is it. Age of the earth is only a great mystery for people who are unfit to hold public office.

[visionary]

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.

Thst's your opinion, as offensive as it is.

[MonkFan8]

Another GOP House/Senate member that sits on a scientific committee pointing out how ignorant they are.

Shocking.

[alexey]

Thst's your opinion, as offensive as it is.

Why is that offensive? Understanding basic realities of the world around us is important for public office. Nothing offensive about that.

[Stadium-Armory]

Suggesting that the earth might have been created in 7 days is disqualifying.

[alexey]

Actually while we are here, how come there is all this discussion about evolution being just a theory while from what I understand it is actually a fact as well?

[twa]

Why is that offensive? Understanding basic realities of the world around us is important for public office. Nothing offensive about that.

the basic realities are not bound by scientific theory or law

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

[visionary]

How about if he has a policy of not offending people who think science and reasoning are the enemy?

I do think it's up to us to take into account a politician's behavior, and whether we think they are acting wisely or cowardly in a certain instance solely for the sake of not upsetting their base.

On the other hand I think one may take a similar position just out of honesty, though I can't say that is what he did here.

[Stadium-Armory]

Before we go all the way down the rabbit hole, let me summarize.

Until the unanswered questions of the universe are answered, there's room for the possibility that anything is possible.

[visionary]

Why is that offensive? Understanding basic realities of the world around us is important for public office. Nothing offensive about that.

Because it is. Stop assuming that everyone feels the same way about this as you do.

Anyway, I'll let you all discuss this. I'm wasting too much time on this issue as it is.

Personally I'm a casual believer in evolution, though I don't know or care about the details.

[alexey]

Because it is. Stop assuming that everyone feels the same way about this as you do.

I understand that some people feel differently about it. The question is how to handle those feelings. Everybody gets offended about everything nowadays.

[PeterMP]

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

It is TRIVIAL to each a philosophy of science class w/o having modern and current religious "controversesies" (like creationism and ID) creep in.

And I can tell you it is trivial because I've done it.

It is difficult to teach a philosophy of science w/o refering to other types of thoughts, where religious beliefs are a common approach that people are familiar with.

BUT they can be a minor part of the class.

[alexey]

the basic realities are not bound by scientific theory or law

...

From what I understand scientific laws are observed facts about reality. Evolution is one of them.

[visionary]

I understand that some people feel differently about it. The question is how to handle those feelings. Everybody gets offended about everything nowadays.

I honestly don't think it's something most people think or care much about.

Cleary you and others on here feel very strongly about it.

I'm not sure that's typical of this country or just a certain amount of people on here.

In any case I've spent way too much time talking about this issue, when I should be doing other things.

I should clarify:

(I don't care about the issue itself, but I do get upset when people talk about disbelieving evolution as if doing so makes you an unintelligent, or a bad person)

[Vilandil Tasardur]

It really isn't about evolution itself for me; it's about the age of the earth. How can I expect a politician to make an informed decision on things like global warming, nuclear half lives, oceaninc temperature and sea level, or genetics, if they deny scientific evidence in favor of unproven ideas based on personal preference?

[PeterMP]

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.

I think its outlandish to suggest that by indicating that a person shouldn't be Presidnt based on their own statements bordres on bigotry.

I know and LOVE (not hate) lot's of people that I don't think would be good Presidents, including my mom and wife.

Furthermore, I think when beliefs are likely to directly affect things like policy in terms of education and science funding, they are important.

And as I've already pointed out in this thread there does appear to be a strong correlation between the idea that we should teach creationism/ID in schools and related religious beliefs about evolution. In addition, I think that's completely reasonable.

[twa]

From what I understand scientific laws are observed facts about reality. Evolution is one of them.

Observed facts on all aspects of evolution?....interesting claim

almost dogmatic

[visionary]

I think its outlandish to suggest that by indicating that a person shouldn't be Presidnt based on their own statements bordres on bigotry.

I know and LOVE (not hate) lot's of people that I don't think would be good Presidents, including my mom and wife.

Furthermore, I think when beliefs are likely to directly affect things like policy in terms of education and science funding, they are important.

And as I've already pointed out in this thread there does appear to be a strong correlation between the idea that we should teach creationism/ID in schools and related religious beliefs about evolution. In addition, I think that's completely reasonable.

We all have different criteria.

[alexey]

I honestly don't think it's something most people think or care much about.

Cleary you and others on here feel very strongly about it.

I'm not sure that's typical of this country or just a certain amount of people on here.

Hopefully basic scientific literacy of elected officials is an issue that is important to more people than you realize.

Gap between science and policy making in our country is ridiculously huge. Unfortunately it looks like Democrats wanted to play it safe and not make it a big issue in recent elections.

(I don't care about the issue itself, but I do get upset when people talk about disbelieving evolution as if doing so makes you an unintelligent, or a bad person)

What is the least offensive way to tell good, intelligent people that they do not understand something they oppose?

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 07:45 PM ----------

Observed facts on all aspects of evolution?....interesting claim

almost dogmatic

Evolution is such an observable fact it's catmatic.