Governor Sarah Palin believes Intelligent Design should be taught in school science classes with equal weight to Evolution. Do you agree?

by Nate SD Posted August 31, 2008 16:22:24

152 votes
Read all 651 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes. Sarah Palin is Maveric and this is a change we need for our Schools	39 votes	26%
	No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.	113 votes	74%

+41

Add a comment above

Feck Sodahed August 31, 2008 16:45:56

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

+21
A religious belief does not belong in the public schools. ID should be taught in church...that's it. I don't think anything should be taught in the public schools that flies in the face of science. I don't want my children taught that the Universe id 6,000 years old. It is not! What's next...we should replace sex ed with the idea that babies come from a cabbage patch?

>> See Replies

frenchtoast November 06, 2009 22:53:20

Yes. Sarah Palin is Maveric and this is a change we need for our Schools

tell me stuff and reasons why we should have intelligent designs taught in our schools.

reply
Nate SD to frencht... November 07, 2009 04:21:45

Because there is no evidence for it. That is the only reason.

reply
Naui October 11, 2009 17:48:17
Arky in Y'shua September 19, 2009 22:17:53 (edited)

Yes. Sarah Palin is Maveric and this is a change we need for our Schools

Why not? Darwinism requires more "faith" to believe than does Intelligent Design. Further, Intelligent Design does not require any religious belief, but simply advanced extraterrestrial intelligence.

After all, that even one chain of simple protein could combine from a primordial soup by mere chance is a Scientific Impossibility to the tune of one in ten to the minus seventy-second power. In digits, that is:

1:100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000

reply
Nate SD to Arky in... September 19, 2009 23:10:37

Well then, it is very good that proteins were not the molecules which formed in the primordial soup.

Arky, when you attempt to discredit an idea you should at least know some basic facts about it. First, evolution and abiogenesis (origin of life) are two separate theories, neither of which relies on the other for evidence. Thus your assertion that Darwin is incorrect because you doubt the statistical probability of protein formation is completely ignorant. Secondly, the first replicating molecules were RNA which have 4 base units, not 20 like proteins making their formation easier. Third, your figure for improbability is incorrect because in order to achieve function a protein may have many sequences with wide a variety that achieve the same function, thus reducing your improbability figure by many orders of magnitude. Finally, you failed utterly to offer an opposing theory with a higher probability so the original must be accepted until a more likely one is demonstrated.

Thanks for pretending understand science. In the future you should leave the science to we scientists and/or get some education.

reply
Arky in... to Nate SD September 20, 2009 00:28:00

It was not Darwin, meinherr, whom I dispute - but those who have come after him, and turned his theories into a religion, with the law of the jungle as its only sacrament.

But, in case you were not aware .. .. .. there are plenty of real scientists who give great credence to Intelligent Design.

reply
Taina1205 September 08, 2009 04:10:06

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

+1
These are not my words but I agree with them very much...
It's not science. It cannot be proven or disproven, the main criteria for a scientific theory. It's not history because there is no evidence for or against it ever happening. If you teach it as history you might as well teach about Atlantis as well. I can see it maybe being taught in philosophy, but not in an any more prominent fashion than the classics, maybe only a chapter. I could see it being taught in a contemporary cultures class but only given the same amount of coverage that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism get, which isn't much. Islam may get more these days, I don't know I've been out of high school a long time. It should mainly be taught in church and christian schools. Public schools are for the PUBLIC, all of the public no matter what they believe and public schools should be a neutral place where children learn facts. They don't teach from the Quran in public schools and if they did I would be angry. I would be equally as angry if my kid had to take a course in creationism for a science credit. I could see creationism as a footnote during a discussion on evolution but nothing more than that. It's not science. If you want your kid to learn about creationism then it's your responsibility to make sure th...

These are not my words but I agree with them very much...
It's not science. It cannot be proven or disproven, the main criteria for a scientific theory. It's not history because there is no evidence for or against it ever happening. If you teach it as history you might as well teach about Atlantis as well. I can see it maybe being taught in philosophy, but not in an any more prominent fashion than the classics, maybe only a chapter. I could see it being taught in a contemporary cultures class but only given the same amount of coverage that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism get, which isn't much. Islam may get more these days, I don't know I've been out of high school a long time. It should mainly be taught in church and christian schools. Public schools are for the PUBLIC, all of the public no matter what they believe and public schools should be a neutral place where children learn facts. They don't teach from the Quran in public schools and if they did I would be angry. I would be equally as angry if my kid had to take a course in creationism for a science credit. I could see creationism as a footnote during a discussion on evolution but nothing more than that. It's not science. If you want your kid to learn about creationism then it's your responsibility to make sure they learn it. It's not your responsibility to make sure my kid learns it. Freedom of religion, its in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Science is not a religion. If you don't agree, prove it wrong. And thank science for creating the machines that give you the ability to vote on this poll.
(more)

reply
Bastion August 17, 2009 15:08:24

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

+1
ID is for religion class. If FORMER gov. Palin is given any more power in America we should prepare to be left behind as a third-rate nation. This superstitious religious nonsense is going to destroy everything America once stood for.

reply
American May 06, 2009 04:10:22

Yes. Sarah Palin is Maveric and this is a change we need for our Schools

+1
This is one of the fundimental problems with kids today. They have no spiritual guidance. This would open up a whole new world for teachers. And it just might be fun. Teach both intelligent design and natural science / evolution side by side. Have open discussions.

reply
Nate SD to American May 08, 2009 02:03:58

So you believe that ID is science?

reply
Taina1205 to American September 08, 2009 04:11:22

+1
Why do you need spiritual guidance in your life?

reply
American to Taina1205 September 08, 2009 13:14:44

What do you think love is? All the feelings that you have came from something or someone. I do believe this is evidence that we are part of someone and not just a fish out of water. Think about it. Animals don't have emotions like humans. Ask yourself how we got emotions like love, hope, faith etc. even hate. They just simply didn't evolve. You cannot deny we are part of another. And I choose to accept God as the creator. Jesus is the messiah, savior of the world. It's not muhammed or obama. Don't limit yourself by denying your spirit the chance to be free. Once you accept this you need to get control so you don't run amuck.

reply
Taina1205 to American September 08, 2009 22:53:50

+1
What hell are you talking about?! Animals have emotions just like we do! They get hungry,sad,happy, and so on. People who abuse animals think just like you, that they have no emotions.
I did accept God as a creator once. But I thought about it and honestly, it makes no sense to take the easy way out and say that some guy created it all when you have no proof he is even real.

reply
American to Taina1205 September 12, 2009 03:31:27

Try not to confuse instinct with emotions. There is a big difference. Of course animals feel pain and get hungry. If they didn't they would harm themselves, the same for us humans.

reply
Taina1205 to American September 12, 2009 06:52:34

Yes, but they feel love also. And they feel pain when someone or something they love dies or leaves them....

reply
American to Taina1205 September 12, 2009 12:49:14

They have no reasoning because they do what comes natural. No soul, meaning that we have a body, mind and spirit. The same is true for all animals, but the intelect would vary. When God breathed into our bodies we became a living soul. The spirit gives all things life but not all things have a spirit that lives with them.

reply
Taina1205 to American September 12, 2009 22:08:17

See this is why I don't like God. Apparently only humans are the ones that have feelings, which I think is a shame.

reply
brenk to Taina1205 February 06, 2010 20:36:27

+3
that is incorrect. animals do have feelings and emotions. They do not have the spirit of God. A soul..

reply
Nate SD to brenk February 07, 2010 00:51:20

How do you now they have no soul?

reply
Taina1205 to brenk February 10, 2010 00:51:11

Its called sarcasm. Of course animals have feelings and emotions!! Your also right again. They don't have the spirit of god...that is because he is not real. All animals have souls....that is including us.

reply
brenk to Taina1205 February 06, 2010 20:34:50

+3
God is no just 'SOME GUY'. he is the creator of the world and of you! i hope you figure this out again..your soul depends on it.

reply
Taina1205 to brenk February 10, 2010 00:42:43

+1
Your right...god is not just 'some guy'...he is nothing cause he isn't real.
And why would my soul depend on it? So I don't go to hell? I could be the most innocent girl in the world who never did anything bad....but I'd go to hell because I don't believe in god. That doesn't seem right.

reply
Nate SD to American September 11, 2009 22:18:53

Love is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain. So are all other emotions.

reply
American to Nate SD September 12, 2009 03:36:16

A chemical reaction of the brain? Who told you this nonsence? Are we talking sex or emotions? Lust may be a chemical reaction of the brain. But the true emotion known as love is of the spirit. You my friend have a lot to learn.

reply
Nate SD to American September 13, 2009 21:49:09

I'm a biochemist, so I am afraid it is you who need to do some learning. Emotions are the result of electrical impulses and neural transmitters in the brain.

When you find a spirit that causes emotion, please show it to me.

reply
Julia April 19, 2009 15:29:38

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

+1
well, the answer says it all. its NOT science and its nowhere near a fact, i dont want my future children learning folklore over science.

reply
Adranus January 01, 2009 06:47:47

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

Science is about the proven fact and religion has no place in the school rooms. When someone can actually show feasible proof of intelligent design that does not in any way really on religious faith, then intelligent design might have some chance in the classes. But since the bible is the psychotic ravings of drug induced hallucinations, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

reply
sun1079 "In Nature I Trust" December 05, 2008 18:09:47

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

+1
doesn't that go against separation of church and state? Unless it's a private school.

reply
slowlyspinning November 15, 2008 09:42:22
Nate SD to slowlys... November 15, 2008 21:14:59

Gravity is also a theory.

reply
slowlys... to Nate SD November 16, 2008 06:41:25
Nate SD to slowlys... November 16, 2008 19:53:12

+1
Very nice!

Gravity is at the same time a fact, a law, and a theory. It is refreshing to meet someone who understands that. It is a fact because it is universally accepted, it is a Law because it is measurable, precise, and always constant, and it is a theory because we have failed to prove what causes it.

What constantly frustrates me is the general publics complete inability to understand the difference between hypothesis and theory.

reply
Catinthehat November 14, 2008 19:21:20

No. ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

+5
Evolution IS science. "Intelligent" design is a fairytale made up by those who cannot explain why scientific facts conflict with their religious beliefs.

reply
American to Catinth... May 06, 2009 04:17:04

Even scientist doubt the truth of evolution. Life is a miracle and can't just be an accident. Do you really believe you were a fish, then a monkey and then human. Oh no, it's global warming, were all doomed.

reply
Nate SD to American May 08, 2009 02:06:18

No main stream scientist doubts evolution. It has been accepted as a scientific fact for generations. No one who studies evolution is saying life happened by accident. That is a false assumption. Life happens by natural sections, which is the exact opposite of an accident.

reply
Catinth... to American September 09, 2009 17:17:29

+1
Please, show me even one scientist that doubts the truth of evolution.

reply
American to Catinth... September 12, 2009 03:46:09

There is plenty that doubt the complete theory of evolution. While we agree that things progress over time. They have said that there is too much perfection in nature that it had to be done deliberately. The Galaxy for one the Sun, Moon, Earth all the stars and planets,everything just happened right. That's just ignorant. How can you look at what God made and say he dosn't exist.

reply
Catinth... to American September 12, 2009 18:51:03

ignorant is ignoring science.

reply
American to Catinth... September 13, 2009 16:33:51

Everything has it's place.

reply
Nate SD to American September 13, 2009 21:49:40

+1
I wish there was a downrave for stupid.

reply