Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on November 24, 2008, 07:35:30 AM
-
Ship of fools
Nov 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Political parties die from the head down
JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the “stupid party” now belongs to the Tories’ transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.
There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.
The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.
The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.
Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.
This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves “professionals”. McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring “tacit” intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The Republican Party’s current “redneck strategy” will leave it appealing to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.
Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin’s apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.
Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today’s pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.
Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned. They have fallen into constructing cartoon images of “real Americans”, with their “volkish” wisdom and charming habit of dropping their “g”s. Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause.
Time for reflection
How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? There are glimmers of hope. Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote. Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of “white-trash pride”. Anonymous McCain aides complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying “whack job”. One of the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship of the Republican Party to John Sununu, a sensible and clever man who has the added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New Hampshire Senate seat on November 4th).
But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist enough—Mr McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr Obama’s associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled “Ideas have Consequences”; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12599247
I think this article is dead on.
There are people on this board that say, with a straight face, "I hope Palin runs in 2012..."
That kind of earnest ignorance would fit in satire...not real life.
-
I always said that..Republicans turned from the "cool,business savy,shrwed, supersmart, suit wearin, cigar smoking, all business ,real logical bosses to the "bible thumpin, walmart shoppin, illogical, uneducated trailer park living hill billies"...its very sad
-
Republicans lost because Bush left a bad taste in conservatives mouths.
We had a horrible liberal republican candidate.
The wacko left in the media who gave Obama 82% positive new coverage.
If you think the right is done you are wrong.
I am sure you thought the same thing when Carter won.
Uneducated hillbilles lol.
Democrat party is full of slobs who want free handouts, and ghetto gang banging pigs.
-
Decker, TBH, it looks like you're plagiarising a post I made about the anti-intellectual movement within the GOP a couple of weeks ago?
-
Republicans lost because Bush left a bad taste in conservatives mouths.
We had a horrible liberal republican candidate.
The wacko left in the media who gave Obama 82% positive new coverage.
If you think the right is done you are wrong.
I am sure you thought the same thing when Carter won.
Uneducated hillbilles lol.
Democrat party is full of slobs who want free handouts, and ghetto gang banging pigs.
I WASNT BORN WHEN CARTER WON...
-
I think democrats having favor amongst successful business types to middle class families who work hard to working class bible thumpers shows that we are the party for most Americans. Democrats are largely blacks voting on race issues alone, elitists with anti-american socialist agendas, or people who really don't know dick about political philosophies but vote for guys like Obama after buying into all the hype the media throws at em 24/7.
-
Decker, TBH, it looks like you're plagiarising a post I made about the anti-intellectual movement within the GOP a couple of weeks ago?
I cited my source. The story is dated 11/13 so it could be a repeat.
-
::)
Posted on October 3, 2008
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238944.msg3358776;topicseen#msg3358776
-
Do I fit into your inane portrait of GOP voters considering the fact that I have a post graduate degree and have two businesses????
Both parties have their fair share of morons.
-
Mccain/Palin's main focus on the campaign trail was fear and anger.
THey should have been about solutions to the problems facing people - unemployment, 401k blues, etc. Only a hardcore few gave a shit about Palin stumping against Bill Ayers. They could have won if they had been campaigning with ROmney as pre-announced Secretary of Treasury and the all-new "Romney Plan" as a solution.
Instead, they dumped solutions and, as this thread title explains, intellectualism, and ran with fear and anger.
Hopefully the repubs will present a smart candidate with solutions in 2012 so no matter who wins the election, we all win.
-
Mccain/Palin's main focus on the campaign trail was fear and anger.
THey should have been about solutions to the problems facing people - unemployment, 401k blues, etc. Only a hardcore few gave a shit about Palin stumping against Bill Ayers. They could have won if they had been campaigning with ROmney as pre-announced Secretary of Treasury and the all-new "Romney Plan" as a solution.
Instead, they dumped solutions and, as this thread title explains, intellectualism, and ran with fear and anger.
Hopefully the repubs will present a smart candidate with solutions in 2012 so no matter who wins the election, we all win.
Obongo running on the anger over the last eight years and the fear of the next four just like it doesn't qualify?
You're really starting to show your bias, 240.
-
Pretty good article! I think it breaks it down quite clearly. If Republicans know what's good for them, they will use it as a blueprint for re-inventing themselves, ....but as we've seen for a while... Republicans seldom know what's good for them.
-
Snore.
All this "intellectualism" blather means nothing in and of itself. More often than not, the people who are most apt to throw the word into conversation, are not the "intellectuals" they suppose themselves to be. All the "intellectualism" in the world doesn't mean squat unless it's built on a framework of wisdom, principles, morals (yes there is still such a thing), self-discipline and good sense. I'm not at all "anti-intellectual" but it's not the be-all-and-end-all. There is something higher to strive for than mere "intellectualism," that's what I'm saying. So I don't really give a shit if someone fancies themself to be an intellectual and I don't give a shit where someone got their education. it means next to nothing. And labeling the Republican party as "anti-intellectual" is nothing more than stupid liberal spin. Basically the word (in a political context) has been reduced to a propaganda device and I for one am sick of hearing about it. So there.
-
Obongo running on the anger over the last eight years and the fear of the next four just like it doesn't qualify?
Just curious, why do you call Obama 'Obongo'?
-
::)
Posted on October 3, 2008
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238944.msg3358776;topicseen#msg3358776
What the hell are you rollilng your eyes at? I looked at your link and I didn't find the article I posted.
-
Snore.
All this "intellectualism" blather means nothing in and of itself. More often than not, the people who are most apt to throw the word into conversation, are not the "intellectuals" they suppose themselves to be. All the "intellectualism" in the world doesn't mean squat unless it's built on a framework of wisdom, principles, morals (yes there is still such a thing), self-discipline and good sense. I'm not at all "anti-intellectual" but it's not the be-all-and-end-all. There is something higher to strive for than mere "intellectualism," that's what I'm saying. So I don't really give a shit if someone fancies themself to be an intellectual and I don't give a shit where someone got their education. it means next to nothing. And labeling the Republican party as "anti-intellectual" is nothing more than stupid liberal spin. Basically the word (in a political context) has been reduced to a propaganda device and I for one am sick of hearing about it. So there.
You mean calling oneself an intellectual doesn't make you smart?!
Lies!!!! All Lies!! :)
-
Snore.
All this "intellectualism" blather means nothing in and of itself. More often than not, the people who are most apt to throw the word into conversation, are not the "intellectuals" they suppose themselves to be. All the "intellectualism" in the world doesn't mean squat unless it's built on a framework of wisdom, principles, morals (yes there is still such a thing), self-discipline and good sense. I'm not at all "anti-intellectual" but it's not the be-all-and-end-all. There is something higher to strive for than mere "intellectualism," that's what I'm saying. So I don't really give a shit if someone fancies themself to be an intellectual and I don't give a shit where someone got their education. it means next to nothing. And labeling the Republican party as "anti-intellectual" is nothing more than stupid liberal spin. Basically the word (in a political context) has been reduced to a propaganda device and I for one am sick of hearing about it. So there.
intellectualism and education go hand in glove. Don't they? Aren't the republicans all about teaching creationism as a viable alternative to science? Don't republicans want to dismantle the Dept. of Ed.?
More earning and less learning...the Republican credo.
-
intellectualism and education go hand in glove. Don't they? Aren't the republicans all about teaching creationism as a viable alternative to science? Don't republicans want to dismantle the Dept. of Ed.?
More earning and less learning...the Republican credo.
Question: Why is it that since the inception of the Dept. of Ed, the nations' schools are doing a worse job than they did decades ago?????????????????
Despite spending billions and billions, our education system stinks.
The issue is not money, that is the liberal hack answer to everything.
The issue are teachers' unions, tenure, discipline, low expectations, to short a school day, summer vacation, refusal to focus on basics, and a failure of parents.
-
Just curious, why do you call Obama 'Obongo'?
He's real "african-american" and his loyalties, history, and associations are extreme, divisive, and questionable. He's not black like the people in this country that got him elected. He's a freak who has to tone down his extremism now that he's not just representing kuckoo leftists from Chicago anymore.
-
He's real "african-american" and his loyalties, history, and associations are extreme, divisive, and questionable. He's not black like the people in this country that got him elected. He's a freak who has to tone down his extremism now that he's not just representing kuckoo leftists from Chicago anymore.
Ok, cool.
After the last few weeks of cabinet picking, economic crisis, rescue plans, et al...
I'm just assuming you voted Republican and I'm a foreigner.
So I'd like your input on something.
How are people who didn't vote for Obama feeling about him being the one who will take over after Bush?
-
Ok, cool.
After the last few weeks of cabinet picking, economic crisis, rescue plans, et al...
I'm just assuming you voted Republican and I'm a foreigner.
So I'd like your input on something.
How are people who didn't vote for Obama feeling about him being the one who will take over after Bush?
Elected by people who either don't know better or have an uber-marxist agenda, nothing more. I can't feel good about that.
We have yet to see what he will ACTUALLY do but it seems conservatives are the only ones actually looking to his voting record as the best predictor of what he will do. So far he hasn't done much and what he HAS done is pretty scary.
Voted "present" 130 times. Voted against the right to defend yourself with a gun in your own home. Voted to let infants born alive in botched abortions die (that's murder, btw).. Etc.
-
He's real "african-american" and his loyalties, history, and associations are extreme, divisive, and questionable. He's not black like the people in this country that got him elected. He's a freak who has to tone down his extremism now that he's not just representing kuckoo leftists from Chicago anymore.
::)
-
Ron Paul.
'Nuff said.
-
intellectualism and education go hand in glove. Don't they? Aren't the republicans all about teaching creationism as a viable alternative to science? Don't republicans want to dismantle the Dept. of Ed.?
More earning and less learning...the Republican credo.
I don't know Decker....I could care less about creationism, monkeys' or any of that crap. They're a wing of the party just like all the left wing, code pink, anti-american worthless treee hugging shitbag commies that control urs.
-
Question: Why is it that since the inception of the Dept. of Ed, the nations' schools are doing a worse job than they did decades ago?????????????????
Despite spending billions and billions, our education system stinks.
The issue is not money, that is the liberal hack answer to everything.
The issue are teachers' unions, tenure, discipline, low expectations, to short a school day, summer vacation, refusal to focus on basics, and a failure of parents.
Is a state's education of its citizenry the province of the federal gov or the state?
I believe the federal loan program is a resounding success. How did you pay for your education?
Why do you think that spending on education is 'throwing money' at a problem? Isn't your statement a non-analytical prejudice?
Do we throw money at crime only to see that we still have crimes committed? We're we throwing money at the Iraq rebuilding process (trick question b/c the answer here is yes...it's gotta be when 9 billion just vanishes).
-
Is a state's education of its citizenry the province of the federal gov or the state?
I believe the federal loan program is a resounding success. How did you pay for your education?
Why do you think that spending on education is 'throwing money' at a problem? Isn't your statement a non-analytical prejudice?
Do we throw money at crime only to see that we still have crimes committed? We're we throwing money at the Iraq rebuilding process (trick question b/c the answer here is yes...it's gotta be when 9 billion just vanishes).
You liberals are amazing. Why do you think that the cost of higher education is growing faster than the rate of inflation??????????????????
Federal Funding. I have two relatives that work for a major university and both told me that the tuition is so high, 45k per year, because they know that the students can borrow said amount. Its insane and there is abolsutely no controlls or incentive for these schools to keep their costs down.
Its a complete rip off.
Were I to do everything again, I would go to community college for two years, transfer the credits over to a four year state school, and then focus on a major and grauduate from the state school.
-
Many schools have such huge endowments (Harvard and Yale are >$10B, Princeton's is $8.7B) that they could easily afford FREE tuition, if not very low tuition. It's bullshit.
-
I think thats what many kids will do. Why pay 4 years for a piece of paper instead of 2. Colleges never cut prices, tuition has risen 400% since the early 80's.
-
I think thats what many kids will do. Why pay 4 years for a piece of paper instead of 2. Colleges never cut prices, tuition has risen 400% since the early 80's.
College has become another liberal welfare mess not subject tot he free market.
If kids were smart they we would go to community college and then transfer to a 4 year public school.
Private schools charging 40k per year to study women's arts, minority studies, and marxism, are a complete ripoff
-
I agree...look at some of the degree's out there, as well as some of the ridiculous classes u can take. I took one weird class on science fiction films. It was a seminar class. The Prof had taught a seminar on Shakespeare, which I needed for my major, the previous semester. I did well so I figured I'd take another course with her. But some of the crap out there, golf....gay and lesbian studies...what the hell is that. How does that help the economy, get u a job etc.
-
You liberals are amazing. Why do you think that the cost of higher education is growing faster than the rate of inflation??????????????????
Federal Funding. I have two relatives that work for a major university and both told me that the tuition is so high, 45k per year, because they know that the students can borrow said amount. Its insane and there is abolsutely no controlls or incentive for these schools to keep their costs down.
Its a complete rip off.
Were I to do everything again, I would go to community college for two years, transfer the credits over to a four year state school, and then focus on a major and grauduate from the state school.
No one has a gun to your head making you go to college. Is it the fault of USDOE that you chose an expensive private school for your education?
When people like you stop patronizing these high priced private schools, you just might see the tuition become a little more reasonable.
-
intellectualism and education go hand in glove. Don't they? Aren't the republicans all about teaching creationism as a viable alternative to science? Don't republicans want to dismantle the Dept. of Ed.?
More earning and less learning...the Republican credo.
You are mistakenly interchanging the theory of evolution with “science”. As far as operational science goes (i.e. finding cures for disease, developing technology to improve quality of life, etc.), the advancement of such has absolutely NOTHING to do with how a doctor/scientist believes life began on this planet.
Several weeks ago, I posted a thread about BabyTooth Technologies, run by Dr. Robin Crossman. His company does research, based on extracting stem cells from baby teeth, instead of using embryonic stem cells. Dr. Crossman is a Creationist. If his findings help find cure to medical ailments, does his research lose its value, simply because he believes that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?
As I've said on previous occasions, too many kids in public schools can barely spell creationism or evolution.
-
You are mistakenly interchanging the theory of evolution with “science”. As far as operational science goes (i.e. finding cures for disease, developing technology to improve quality of life, etc.), the advancement of such has absolutely NOTHING to do with how a doctor/scientist believes life began on this planet.
Several weeks ago, I posted a thread about BabyTooth Technologies, run by Dr. Robin Crossman. His company does research, based on extracting stem cells from baby teeth, instead of using embryonic stem cells. Dr. Crossman is a Creationist. If his findings help find cure to medical ailments, does his research lose its value, simply because he believes that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?
As I've said on previous occasions, too many kids in public schools can barely spell creationism or evolution.
That's b/c we have creationist hucksters teaching our children. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science. The separate religious beliefs of practicing scientists should have nothing to do with the scientific method...unless of course you're a snake oil creationist.
In the beginning...nobody knows what happened in the beginning. Nobody.
That includes pre-scientific biblical stories of conjecture and speculation.
-
That's b/c we have creationist hucksters teaching our children. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science. The separate religious beliefs of practicing scientists should have nothing to do with the scientific method...unless of course you're a snake oil creationist.
In the beginning...nobody knows what happened in the beginning. Nobody.
That includes pre-scientific biblical stories of conjecture and speculation.
Anyway... WTH do you know about creationism that would qualify you to say the actual creation was not done in a manner consistent with natural laws (i.e. science)? I believe in the creation but I don't believe God just magically waved his hand and everything appeared. There's way more to it than that.
Let's suppose, just for a minute for the sake of argument, that there is a God who created everything. Then true, valid faith and proven science should go hand-in-hand. And I am firmly convinced that they do. And if some religious notion really flies in the face of science then it probably isn't true. But that's another debate for another forum.
-
No one has a gun to your head making you go to college. Is it the fault of USDOE that you chose an expensive private school for your education?
When people like you stop patronizing these high priced private schools, you just might see the tuition become a little more reasonable.
I did not go to one of these rip off schools.
Note, SUNY schools are getting very hard to get into because more students are realizing $$$$ wise it does not make sense to spend 45k per year to get a job paying 35k per year.
I hope more students wake up to this rip off.
-
Anyway... WTH do you know about creationism that would qualify you to say the actual creation was not done in a manner consistent with natural laws (i.e. science)? I believe in the creation but I don't believe God just magically waved his hand and everything appeared. There's way more to it than that.
Let's suppose, just for a minute for the sake of argument, that there is a God who created everything. Then true, valid faith and proven science should go hand-in-hand. And I am firmly convinced that they do. And if some religious notion really flies in the face of science then it probably isn't true. But that's another debate for another forum.
Here's what the hell I know about creationism--we don't know how we got here--agnostics are the winners in this debate. That's the best we can do at the moment.
Stephen Hawking put out a paper that describes how something came from nothing.
Why is that different than the pre-scientific biblical creation fables?
B/c Hawking uses a scientific analysis of how things could have been at the time. That means everything. It's the difference btn rational inquiry and fervent belief.
-
I did not go to one of these rip off schools.
Note, SUNY schools are getting very hard to get into because more students are realizing $$$$ wise it does not make sense to spend 45k per year to get a job paying 35k per year.
I hope more students wake up to this rip off.
I don't disagree with you. The only students that seem to get a bang for their college buck are those in the top 10% gradewise. Everyone else has to scramble for a good job.
-
Interesting and i agree,
Huckabee was on a Armsrtong and Getty this morning (radio talk show in northern cali) and he said that when ever republicans stick to their ideals they get elected. But when they drift towards the middle and stand for nothing that's when they don't.
He also added that his campaign spent 1 dime to every dollar the others spent and he came close to winning. He said that if he could have spent 50 cents for every dollar he probably would have won the nomination.
-
That's b/c we have creationist hucksters teaching our children. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science. The separate religious beliefs of practicing scientists should have nothing to do with the scientific method...unless of course you're a snake oil creationist.
In the beginning...nobody knows what happened in the beginning. Nobody.
That includes pre-scientific biblical stories of conjecture and speculation.
I’m sorry! Last time I checked, evolutionists were teaching kids in public schools, particularly in the science classes. So, why are they still sucking in the science departments?
As I said, I went to private school most of my early years. But, I transferred from a private school to a public school in 10th grade. Since I took Creation-based biology the first half of my sophomore year, by your logic, I should have bombed biology class when I went to public school. However, I had little trouble getting through biology class. I did pretty well, actually. In fact, I had the second best GPA of all 10th graders in that school (My buddy, Keisha, who used to go to the same private school that I attended, beat me for top honors).
Again, you make no sense, Decker. If "we don't know how we got here", then you CANNOT (with any certainty) that we came from non-living matter or DID NOT come from a sentient supernatural being.
Blaming Creationists for American kids lagging in the science departments is utterly ridiculous. It looks to me as if you're simply looking for a scapegoat.
-
Here's what the hell I know about creationism--we don't know how we got here--agnostics are the winners in this debate. That's the best we can do at the moment.
Stephen Hawking put out a paper that describes how something came from nothing.
Why is that different than the pre-scientific biblical creation fables?
B/c Hawking uses a scientific analysis of how things could have been at the time. That means everything. It's the difference btn rational inquiry and fervent belief.
Fair enough. We don't know. And the Biblical account obviously does not couch the whole saga in scientific language because as you point out, it's pre-scientific. But not necessarily any less valid. I've attended a couple of lectures by Hawking over the years. There's no reason why Moses' account (the book of Genesis) and Hawking's theories couldn't be describing the same events using (vastly) different language.
-
Interesting and i agree,
Huckabee was on a Armsrtong and Getty this morning (radio talk show in northern cali) and he said that when ever republicans stick to their ideals they get elected. But when they drift towards the middle and stand for nothing that's when they don't.
He also added that his campaign spent 1 dime to every dollar the others spent and he came close to winning. He said that if he could have spent 50 cents for every dollar he probably would have won the nomination.
True. When McCain tried to be Obama Lite, people didn't respect that and he paid the price.
EDIT: But I really think no Republican stood a chance of winning after the last 8 years of GWB. Anybody with a brain could have seen that a backlash was inevitable and that's exactly what happened.
-
I don't disagree with you. The only students that seem to get a bang for their college buck are those in the top 10% gradewise. Everyone else has to scramble for a good job.
If I had a kid today, I would tell him to do the following:
1. Graduate HS.
2. Learn a trade like electrician
3. Go to community college and fisinsh at a four year focusing on accounting, writing, and business.
4. Open own business in the trade learned.
-
I’m sorry! Last time I checked, evolutionists were teaching kids in public schools, particularly in the science classes. So, why are they still sucking in the science departments?
I wasn't aware that was the case. And to think this nonsensical scientific method is to blame for such shortfalls.
What we need in education is more stories about how our physical world came to be and operates. For instance, clouds make the wind blow. Thunder is the result of gnomes bowling. And let's not forget, in the beginning, God created....everything.
As I said, I went to private school most of my early years. But, I transferred from a private school to a public school in 10th grade. Since I took Creation-based biology the first half of my sophomore year, by your logic, I should have bombed biology class when I went to public school. However, I had little trouble getting through biology class. I did pretty well, actually. In fact, I had the second best GPA of all 10th graders in that school (My buddy, Keisha, who used to go to the same private school that I attended, beat me for top honors).
I offer nothing predictive about your performance in school. Creationism is not science. Simply b/c you were able to grasp the scientific method and apply it on a test is a testimony to your intellect and not to the merit of creationist nonsense.
Again, you make no sense, Decker. If "we don't know how we got here", then you CANNOT (with any certainty) that we came from non-living matter or DID NOT come from a sentient supernatural being.
Here's why science is better than religion at making scientific arguments (esp re our origins): Science tries to explain things in a manner consistent with materialism. To import a supernatural god as the cause is just the 'god of gaps' making the rounds. It goes like this: we don't know the origins of life, then god must have done it. Analysis is over.
Which god would that be?
The only honest answer to the question of what brought life about on our planet is, "I don't know." Now science, in time, may be able to develop a rational explanation of that mystery. Religion is not so predisposed.
Blaming Creationists for American kids lagging in the science departments is utterly ridiculous. It looks to me as if you're simply looking for a scapegoat.
Of course I was. I'm not-so-subtley insulting the idea of creationism for the hell of it. I hate its pretensions.
-
Fair enough. We don't know. And the Biblical account obviously does not couch the whole saga in scientific language because as you point out, it's pre-scientific. But not necessarily any less valid. I've attended a couple of lectures by Hawking over the years. There's no reason why Moses' account (the book of Genesis) and Hawking's theories couldn't be describing the same events using (vastly) different language.
Science uses rational, quantifiable analysis and, sometimes, reasonable assumptions to explain phenomena.
Religion is just stories.
Science develops.
Religious stories are dead.