WHO Says Someone Who is a Young Earth Creationist and Global Warming Skeptic is Anti-Science? Physicist LAWRENCE KRAUSS Does, and He Says the PAULIN Pick Undermines McCain on SCIENCE ISSUES

Physicist Lawrence Krauss:

The biggest blow to one’s confidence in John McCain’s commitment to sound science . . . came this week with his choice of running mate. Sarah Palin has not only expressed her disagreement with the entire scientific climate science community by suggesting that there is no human induced contribution to global warming, but she has also indicated in interviews that both evolution and its scientifically discredited alternative, currently called intelligent design, should be discussed in science classes.

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to WHO Says Someone Who is a Young Earth Creationist and Global Warming Skeptic is Anti-Science? Physicist LAWRENCE KRAUSS Does, and He Says the PAULIN Pick Undermines McCain on SCIENCE ISSUES

  1. Chip Thompson says:

    What are you afraid of? Discussion?

  2. santitafarella says:

    Chip:

    I’m not afraid of discussion at all. Let’s talk. In the course of a sixteen week semester of a science class, how much of a class’s time would you propose spending on the theories of young earth creationism?

    Do you think, for example, that there is any serious doubt (among scientists) that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

    Or that the fossil record reveals that animal and plant species have changed over time?

    Do you think that there is any merit in the young earth creationist notion that all the fossils found in the Grand Canyon were deposited in a single cataclysm (the Flood of Noah)?

    I think there could be merit in introducing young earth creationism and flood geology to students as a case study in faulty reasoning and inference—but as science—and as something seriously in dispute among scientists? No. How about you?

    As for the human contribution to global warming, do you think that a president should simply blow-off the consensus opinion of his or her scientific advisors as irrelevent if he or she doesn’t like what they have to say?

    In the service of a higher cause, are ad hoc forms of reasoning, denial, and cognitive dissonance virtues?

  3. Chip Thompson says:

    So you do not believe in God.

  4. santitafarella says:

    Chip,

    Okay, so now you’re being frivolous.

    I thought you wanted to dialogue seriously.

    Obviously you don’t.

  5. Chip Thompson says:

    Yes or no? Say it out loud.

  6. santitafarella says:

    Who are you, the grand inquisitor determined to out a non-religious believer?

    If you explore my blog you can see that I’m a proudly “out of the closet” agnostic.

    Now respond honestly and thoughtfully to the questions that I posed to you.

    Should young earth creationism be presented to children as part of the public schools’ science curriculum?

  7. Chip Thompson says:

    What are you afraid of. Why shouldn’t it be presented? Evolution of humans in not a proven fact my dear. There is still a missing link isn’t there. It is still called theory for a reason. Look at the world around you. If evolution were the only force behind life wouldnt everything be the same. Wouldn’t we “devolve” into a mass of amoebic goo? Why does an orange tree produce so much fruit? Why do Penguins march 70 miles to nest. Thats not evolution, that nutty. Its easy to be agnostic. You don’t have to take a stand. You can remain above the fray. You can define morality to suit your mood, not in an absolute.

  8. Rory says:

    I’ll take a stand……..your’e a freaking loon.

  9. Mike says:

    santitafarella was there any question five hundred years ago if the solar system was system geocentric? Just because a theory is accepted does in no way make it right.

    Creationism should use the same amount of time evolution uses in class.

    Science- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Evolution is not science it is like creationism, it is a belief because it can not be observed and experiments can not be conducted to prove it.

    Creationism and evolution both belong in a philosophy class.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s