Moose.Follow

I find it ironic you would point this out as it's Liberals themselves that claim to be the more open minded people.

No, you @#%^wit, that's not what irony is. My post is not close minded in any sense of the phrase - but even if it were, it would still not be ironic, because my post is pointing out hypocrisy, not chiding all Republicans for their close mindedness. In conclusion, stick your head in a wood chipper.

If you can't prove it to be a fact, because your specimens are long dead, you can't call it a "law". Just a theory, until the next believable theory comes along, then you'll have people in 3009 arguing on the virtual reality chat room about whether or not the...Theory Of Alien Space Bat Intervention can be called a "law" yet.

The ones that already exist? Our programs never had the best of funds but they got the job done: drawing and painting always had pastels and paint, and photography always had enough money for fixer and such. They should get more funding sure but I can't consider them more important than attempting to understand the psychology of most of the world. If they don't exist where you are though, of course they should.

I agree with the other guy, creationism is fine to be taught in a religion class, or history class. For a science class though? Wouldn't mind if particularly strong aspects of the theory were taught, like, well...oh yeah, there aren't any partiuclarly strong aspects. There's not a single piece of the theory that makes sense to teach in a science class.

Depending on where you live, some schools don't offer any due to budget constraints. The school in Flint, Michigan that my nieces attend had no art, no band, no choir, only extracurricular (and unfunded) theatre, and no bus service. If I found out that school district was offering a class on creationism but not bus service when the wind chill is -10F, I'd probably fire-bomb the fucking place.

Hm, I don't remember advocating teaching creationism in a science class. I think I mentioned that it should be offered as an elective course in high school all on its own.

Fair or unfair—and I do think that it's a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that's unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you're getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it's reality and it's a given, people just accept that she's going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate. That's what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit to hear her bring that attention to herself on that level.

You said it should be an optional course, and would be taught as a theory, and likened it (I assume in that context) to the theory of evolution. Unlike the latter theory creationism has hardly any real science backing it, which is why I responded like that. Teaching the theory of evolution in high school is little different than teaching the theory of phlogiston or astrology. In no way should it be put forth as a serious alternative to evolution.

Sorry if I've misunderstood your position.

Besides, IMO, the Theory Of Evolution is just as much a crock of sh*t.

Oh, but by all means it SHOULD be taught as a serious alternative, but only if the student want to learn about it.