Creationist Appointed As Maine Education Commissioner

#2
#2
Asked “Do you believe in creationism, and do you think it should be taught in Maine public schools?,” LePage impressively backed up his creationist belief: “I would say intelligence, uh, the more education you have the more knowledge you have the better person you are and I believe yes and yes.”

Beardsley simply replied: “I would teach creationism.”


:loco:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3
#3
We certainly dont need school kids thinkng for themselves. No siree. There are no competing ideas about how everything came to be. School kids have to be taught one way and one way only, by what the mighty textbooks say. So instead of teaching the possible ways in which everything has came to be and letting kids use their intelligence for themselves, they should just be taught cherry picked material. Thats grand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
BigOrangeTrain said:
We certainly dont need school kids thinkng for themselves. No siree. There are no competing ideas about how everything came to be. School kids have to be taught one way and one way only, by what the mighty textbooks say. So instead of teaching the possible ways in which everything has came to be and letting kids use their intelligence for themselves, they should just be taught cherry picked material. Thats grand.
Click to expand...

Let's teach them all of the different creation theories from different Native American Tribes, different religious creation theories, and even creation theroies of the Far East. It could be the only thing they study all year. Who needs math? Or we could just go with the leading scientific theory of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#5
#5
When people ask me why, as an atheist, I care so much about something I don't believe in, this is why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#6
#6
What's the problem here? It said in the article it would be taught alongside evolution, not in place of it. What's the outrage for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
volfanngatorland said:
What's the problem here? It said in the article it would be taught alongside evolution, not in place of it. What's the outrage for?
Click to expand...

Personal beliefs have no place in a public classroom especially one presented as an alternative to scientific consensus. I have no problem with an instructor comparing and contrasting the competing religious story's on supernatural creationism, however there should be no preference given to one flavor over another. Since time wouldn't permit - I propose a lottery system.

Although, I imagine there would be mass chaos if the Islamic version was pulled out of the hat and taught in towns across the bible belt. The muslims don't believe Allah needed a day of rest on the 7th. They probably think the christian god was weak. This could be fun.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#10
#10
Obsessed said:
Lmao
Click to expand...

My personal favorite

#7 For sexual denial

If your wife is un-submissive in the sexual arena and chronically denies your sexual advances (without legitimate medical or psychological reasons for doing so) then perhaps that upcoming trip you were going to take her on gets canceled. Maybe that wardrobe upgrade your wife was looking forward to gets downsized or canceled. The Bible says a man has to supply his wife with clothing, but it does not say it has to be the expensive clothing she wants!
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#11
#11
Septic said:
Personal beliefs have no place in a public classroom especially one presented as an alternative to scientific consensus. I have no problem with an instructor comparing and contrasting the competing religious story's on supernatural creationism, however there should be no preference given to one flavor over another. Since time wouldn't permit - I propose a lottery system.

Although, I imagine there would be mass chaos if the Islamic version was pulled out of the hat and taught in towns across the bible belt. The muslims don't believe Allah needed a day of rest on the 7th. They probably think the christian god was weak. This could be fun.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should give preference, either. Comparing and contrasting the differences isn't as big of an issue as some of you are making it.

I would have zero issue with them presenting Islam in the same fashion. I took a religion class where they touched on all the major religions around the world. It was one of the most enlightening classes I took.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Septic said:
When people ask me why, as an atheist, I care so much about something I don't believe in, this is why.
Click to expand...

The Education Commissioner in Maine is why you cry when random people tell you Merry Christmas or when you see anything resembling a cross?

Ok.

This Governor is a moron and this move is stupid but this doesn't defend hypocritical stances on devout atheists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#13
#13
Bottom line here is creationism, of any kind, isn't science and has no place in a science classroom.

Discuss all you want in a theology elective, philosophy or social studies class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#15
#15
rjd970 said:
Bottom line here is creationism, of any kind, isn't science and has no place in a science classroom.

Discuss all you want in a theology elective, philosophy or social studies class.
Click to expand...

Agree though perhaps a brief acknowledgement that the scientific explanation doesn't invalidate religious beliefs could be made.

That said, I have no problem with a creationist (or Muslim or Jew or...) being in charge of anything education related. If they change curriculum to push their religious beliefs then it becomes problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
tumscalcium said:
The Education Commissioner in Maine is why you cry when random people tell you Merry Christmas or when you see anything resembling a cross?

Ok.

This Governor is a moron and this move is stupid but this doesn't defend hypocritical stances on devout atheists.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that "Merry Christmas" upsets me? It doesn't upset me any more than an argument about unicorns and Leprechauns.

Also, what is a devout atheist? I've never met an atheist who wouldn't change their view in a second with empirical evidence supporting the supernatural explanation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
volinbham said:
Agree though perhaps a brief acknowledgement that the scientific explanation doesn't invalidate religious beliefs could be made.

That said, I have no problem with a creationist (or Muslim or Jew or...) being in charge of anything education related. If they change curriculum to push their religious beliefs then it becomes problematic.
Click to expand...

Right wing zealot! You dam well know that a religious person will always push there beliefs on others.
 
#19
#19
Septic said:
I've never met an atheist who wouldn't change their view in a second with empirical evidence supporting the supernatural explanation.
Click to expand...

Yet those same atheists choose to believe random chemicals came together and life suddenly sprang forth in a process they can't entirely explain.

No?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
tumscalcium said:
The Education Commissioner in Maine is why you cry when random people tell you Merry Christmas or when you see anything resembling a cross?

Ok.

This Governor is a moron and this move is stupid but this doesn't defend hypocritical stances on devout atheists.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone was doing that, but at least you have this to hang onto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
Grand Vol said:
Yet those same atheists choose to believe random chemicals came together and life suddenly sprang forth in a process they can't entirely explain, YET.

No?
Click to expand...

FYP

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
Septic said:
FYP

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a leap of faith is required to believe random chemicals came together and life suddenly came into existence?

Sounds kinda like what you're saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
Grand Vol said:
So you're saying a leap of faith is required to believe random chemicals came together and life suddenly came into existence?

Sounds kinda like what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Not really, is their a meaningful distinction between living or non living 'random' chemicals? Isn't life just a conglomeration or aggregate of chemical pathways?

I could be wrong, no one can know for sure - I guess my stance is that my "leap of faith" makes less assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
Septic said:
Not really, is their a meaningful distinction between living or non living 'random' chemicals?
Click to expand...

Sure, it's called "life."

Septic said:
Isn't life just a conglomeration or aggregate of chemical pathways?
Click to expand...

Yep, along with bio-electrical impulses and whatnot.

Which also still can't be explained of how it started.

Septic said:
I could be wrong, no one can know for sure - I guess my stance is that my "leap of faith" makes less assumptions.
Click to expand...

Still is an unproven theory. You knock intelligent design as being ludicrous and scoff at the idea of a higher power being involved in creation. But have no problems thinking the process of life just "happened" and toss your stamp of approval on the theory.

You're still assuming the theory of how life started is correct. And one assumption or a thousand makes no difference. It's still an assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top