Feisty:

Watching these clowns and their outdated ideologies is like waking up in the "Twilight Zone". These morons have to be from another planet so far away that the latest information, science, technology about our planet never made it to their planet before they left.

These guys are stuck in the 19th Century.

These morons have to be from another planet

They are Navy...

they are politicians.

Anti-evolution is not just a nutcase belief.

It is part of a much larger strategy of the corporate right wing ~ that seeks to justify their exploitation of people and the world's resources.

Connect this exchange with the revisionist, and wrong, history in the new TExas school books, then add a line to Perry's weird religious cult connections.

And people think this arrogant, ignorant clown has a chance of running this nation?

The lies and distortions he spouts about his "record" have already been exposed. His overbeaing attitude and condescension are sickening. And his grin - wait, wait, doesn't anyone think that's right out of The Music Man? You, know, the smarmy salesman ginning up his con?

On global warming to a local science teacher, he said, "We teach the straight out facts in Texas in our schools. You'll have to pick those up in our classbooks."

So THAT's what explains why Texas consistently ranks at the bottom for ACT and SAT scores. They teach the facts, and the 46 states above Texas are teaching something else.

Who knew?

But then, what explains all those Texas dropouts?

I guess those must be the students who just "can't handle the truth."

Bob,

Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. For that reason, it has no place in a science curriculum.

To teach both creationism and the theory of evolution in schools is akin to teaching kids the tenets of sharia law and the Constitution and telling them they are smart enough to "decide for themselves."

Religious beliefs should not be promoted in public schools, it tramples the rights of all parents. It is, in fact, unconstitutional. If parents want their kids to learn in a religious setting, they can send their kids to private school.

Hey Bob - It's a public school....the government shouldn't be introducing one religous theory above all others as a plausible rebuttal to established science which absolutely has a prominent place in any school setting.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Problem is Perry has a nervous eye.

Seriously, you want the people who believed in death panels to discern the difference between science and faith.

I'm surprised that since the bible says that people traveled to the 4 corners of the earth, they don't believe the earth isn't square...oh yeah...those pesky pictures from NASA...

There was a time when people believed that the earth was flat and the sun traversed the earth...pesky scientists and their theories.

Isn't Texas the state that virtually eliminated Thomas Jefferson from their history books cause of his politics?

I'm a Big Bang theory kind of guy....

Thanks for the perfect dichotomy between a liberal and a conservative Rick and Feisty.

Perry recommends teaching both sides and trusting the individual to be bright enough to decide for himself.

Bull@!$%#. Creationism is and has been taught for thousands of years and is called Religion.

If your stance is that all sides should be taught in school, then we should definitely be teaching kids about the myth that is Christianity, how it stole its holy days and "miracle" events from other religions, how it was passed by word of mouth for decades/centuries (yet retained its accuracy - LMFAO!), was translated and re-translated once it was finally written down, and how Men decided what would be included and excluded from the ever-evolving product. We should also teach how women are second class citizens in the Bible and were made from a rib to be subservient and man's "helper".

Also, regarding teaching all sides, perhaps we should teach the Earth is only approximately 6000 years old and is the center of the Universe? And how about instead of Medicine we teach Faith Healing? That should do wonders for the sick. No more anti-biotics, just prayers. That seems to have done wonders for that Texas drought, right?

Oh, wait...

Extreme "conservatives" could give a @!$%# less about education or learning, they are just trying to ram religion into every detail of our lives because they need the reassurance that other people think as they do and apparently their "God" is too feeble to do the work him or herself.

Nailed it Amy, the fact of the matter is that this is a SCIENCE classroom. Creationism doesn't have ONE single piece of REPUTABLE fact behind it beyond a RELIGIOUS book. I have no problem mentioning it in passing that some people believe it, controversy is part of it, but saying both are on equal footing in a scientific method is BS on an unbelievable scale. Now I'll say that they have equal footing on a debatable scale (mostly because its someones personal belief and they can believe what they want) but teaching children across the country that this unverifiable, non fact based idea is on equal footing to a scientific theory that has been constantly improved upon by countless scientists is a foolish errand.

Comparative Religion Class? Fine, History and Social Studies? Fine, but come to my schools and tell me that the dozens of scientists who spent lifetimes studying and forging this theory (BTW gravity is a theory and I don't see you disputing it) were misguided because someone who didn't even know genes existed 2000 years ago said so doesn't add up. Its as ridiculous as "Dr." Hovinid running around talking about how he has verifiable proof that evolution is wrong despite having a "doctorate" from an unaccredited university in religious studies. Numerous Men and Women worked their way up degree upon degree, doing thousands of hours of research (at the least), forgoing much of the pleasures in life for years living off of Ramen noodle and working hard on even getting the funding to have a CHANCE doesn't equal the same as some guy who took a year after getting his Bachelors to get a random degree with a dissertation that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else.

Commons sense that a higher being exists? Your logic is so flawed. Using the same logic that you applied to the big bang theory," you suggest the original material must have come from somewhere right? Then you suggest a higher being MUST have created it at some point, well then what created the higher being? That higher being MUST of been created at some point right? Well lets say it was another even more higher being that created the being that created the matieral for the big bang. Well guess what the next question is? What created that even more higher being? Endless loop which goes to show it is NOT common sense that a higher being exists but lazy and flawed logic.

Actually, in most part I agree, I don't like creationism being taught in class.

The reason American education is ranked near the bottom is not our kid's understanding of this issue, the reason is that precious resources are being wasted on political agendas and cultural issues instead of math, science etc.

Creationism is the product / reaction to a liberal education agenda in the same way the tea party is the result / reaction to the radical "transformative" liberal agenda of Obama.

Obama's and the left's religion of Global Warming is the perfect example, or wait a minute .... was that Carter's and the left's reiligion of Global Cooling? (Wasn't England supposed to be covered by a glacier and we were all going to be starving to death BEFORE England was supposed to be underwater because of polar and glacial melting?)

The government giving academia money to come up with computer modeling to confirm a certain hypothesis is now accepted as science?

And you guys can't even figure out which way it is going so lets now just call it Climate Change so we are covered either way?

JUST PULL POLITICAL AGENDAS AND RELIGION OUT OF THE SCHOOLS AND JUST TEACH FACTS AND SCIENCE FACTS so we can keep up with the rest of the world and create BETTER jobs and fill those better jobs.

MBeaty:

Thank you for asking my favorite question! From experience, can tell you that none of these geniuses will give you an answer.

What is even scarier is Ricky doesn't believe in forensic science in a death penelty state, hence the death of Todd Willingham. He and Bush are alike that way. Claude Williams ask for a stay of exection to have a hair that was used to prove he was at the scene be tested, Bush said no and he was put to death. Ten years later the innocence project had the hair tested, it was not Mr Williams.

MBeaty it was energy, remember that mass is energy and visa versa. You may ask where that energy came from? Perhaps another universe (colliding universe theory), or one of the 9 dimensions predicted in string theory. Just because we do not have all the answers yet does not necessitate a "creator." Remember science and its theories evolve with every piece of new information we get. That's why we continue to experiment, i.e. smashing particles at the large hadron collider. As our technology improves we are able to make measurements at the quantum level and create accurate models. Also keep in mind science does not aim to answer the "ethical" or "moral" questions ...instead they focus on real, tangible problems. Asking "how we got here?" is much different than asking "why are we here?" For those philosophical questions, religion may serve its purpose. You can believe in both science and religion, but I caution don't let the religious aspect affect reality.

MBeaty...look up.

Spider, as you can see, the question can be answered and of course, with all things, it's only a matter of time until we have more evidence to back up the current hypotheses. Thing is, you shouldn't rely on others on a newsvine to tell you this information. If you want to know, most of the data is available. Pick up a physics book. Or quantum mechanics book, or p-chem. Colleges teach these classes. You may not be able to get your head around the equations so also pick up a calc III or differential equations book or take that class (honestly, I took those classes and still don't understand half the math). You will also need some background in chemistry...biology doesn't hurt. Science builds upon foundations, you must establish those foundations first and the world suddenly makes a little more sense, piece by piece as you learn! The info is out there, go learn it my friend!

FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER

It better be taught in school if Creationism is, because FSM is exactly as serious and credible. I swear, if it isn't I am going to send my kid to school with a giant pasta bowl every single day to feed the other children at lunch. And while they eat the tasty delicious pasta, he will explain all about FSM to them while he has their attention.

Another idea is to not teach Creationism, which IS NOT credible as a non-religious teaching. But don't tell the sheep that. They need to get their information from some guy at the head of a pulpit or a 2000 year old mythology book. Certainly not the world that exists around them.

Bob, you are smarter than that. Climate change is an important issue and modelling is important. If the oceans rise by just a few inches, there are lots of places along the coasts that would be flooded. Any scientist who gets a government grant has to make a lengthy, documented application. The grants are competitive. This is an economic issue as well.....if you are in the insurance industry and someone whose property is in a flood zone applies, that knowledge is part of the calculation of doing business...you better believe that actuarians are calculating the effects of climate change as real.

OK I accept that you have a solid technical background. Why can you NOT accept that the answers are still out there to be discovered?

Just because we do not know now, does not mean everything necessarily had to come from some higher power. Think about how young the field of genetics is. And in the grand scheme of things, look how young the field of quantum mechanics is! We knew little-to-nothing about these subjects just 50 years ago. I accept there are things we cannot comprehend....yet. Why can you not accept there are things we will comprehend in the future? Also one thing that struck me as odd...according to laws you and I both agree on, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. You said so yourself. Then the very next sentence you said it had to be created by something. Which is it? Either it's not created and not destroyed - a long accepted belief, or it is created and can be destroyed - which we cannot find any evidence of. Another question, why can it not just "be"?

As I pointed out, the "more powerful and substantial" "thing" for lack of a better word may just be hidden from our view. There are ideas out there being tested right now that do not rely on a higher power snapping his/her fingers and "poof" everything exists. That creationist theory is just as fantastic as say string theory, with neither having evidence to back them up. The one thing that puzzles me...gravity is a force about one trillion fold weaker than the three other forces of matter. Why is that? Perhaps the force of gravity is spread into those other dimensions, or other universes. Investigating those questions will lead to some answers, and some more questions. Further investigation will do the same. As you should know, science is an iterative process.

I see the need for education is science, history and math. Perhaps many of these people on the right should take classes at their local community college. The classes aren’t that expensive and they could help open their eyes to the world around them.

Also, Texas needs to quit printing school books with false information.

You folks really nailed it! Teach both sides!!!!! I went through Catholic schools and believe me if I had told sister 2+2 is 5, she would have hit me so hard with a ruler, I'd still have ridges on my knuckles. Yes, they taught us about that invisible, old guy with the long beard who said,"let there be light"; however, they also taught us algebra, physics, geometry, trig, and calculus because that's how to apply the scientific method. There's nothing wrong with having Myths; hell they make life interesting, but like all myths they aren't true.

Gotta love the tea-baggers, what they lack in logic and intelligence, they make up in ignorance and stupidity. No wonder the rest of the world out-tests us on science and math. As I mentioned, went to Catholic schools but every fact taught was grounded in science. Even the Pope said evolution is in keeping with a supreme intelligence who would not create things like pulling a rabbit from a hat. If he/she is God, he/she is logical beyond human comprehension.

There are liberal democrats that believe in creationism:

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

Now, had the tables been turned and some republican had their kid asking a democrat the same questions, all you guys would be all over the republican for being a scum-bag that uses their child as a political pawn. But this time it's the democrat that's a scum-bag.

Perry has no hope of becoming president and probably will not get the republican nomination. Despite that, he sure does gets the libs riled up. And that's worth a lot of entertainment value for many.

MBeaty; your assertion that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed is false. Minute amounts of matter/energy are created all the time. They self annihilate before they amount to much. One theory going around is that our Universe is a "bubble" of such self-created matter/energy/time/space. As long as the Universe either dissipates or collapses, the grand equation remains balanced.

Or we could ascribe it all to Gorlax, Lord of Creation and Destruction, Metaphysical Deflowerer of Virgins, God of Gods, who brings Floods and Pestilence to all the Bad Boys and Girls.

MBeaty, if you claim that matter couldn't have existed unless a creator was there to create it, it seems like you have to question what created the creator. If your answer is that he was always there, then the same answer can apply to matter.

To say that anything you can't understand must be by default the result of a religious belief is the thinking that sustains religious beliefs, but it is hardly defensible reasoning.

Backhouse: Despite your theory, corporations are not pushing for ignorance. it costs too much.

Sounds like the dark ages in Europe. You either believed what the catholic church said, or else you were done for. If this man doesn't believe in evolution, I'd like to hear his explanation on where fossils came from.

In response to Mbeaty:

"NatasNJ:Please explain to me where the matter that would have allowed the big bang to occur came from?"

I will tell you right after you tell me where the matter that created your higher being came from?

"Perry recommends teaching both sides and trusting the individual to be bright enough to decide for himself."

thats not what Perry said - he said, and I quote "because I figured you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

So if the kid had said "yes, and its EVOLUTION" do you think perry would have rubbed his head and said "see, I knew he was smart enough to figure it out"

no, he wouldnt have...

He's not saying "kids can figure it out for themselves, and believe what they want to believe"...no he said ONE IS RIGHT.

So the quesiton is, since every church in america teaches CREATIONISM...shouldnt they now start teaching EVOLUTION, ya know...since every church member should be smart enough to "figure out for themselves, which one is right"?

What appears to be "Perry's head" is really a very well developed "wart", haired over, and located atop his neck.

Perry recommends teaching both sides and trusting the individual to be bright enough to decide for himself.

The problem with this is that the two sides are not equivalent. There's science, and then there's blind faith in myths which are totally unsupported by evidence.

If you want to teach mythology, I have no problem with that. Religion is an interesting topic and people should know something about it (beyond the indoctrination they get at church). If you want to teach it in science class and treat evidence-free conjecture that is at odds with observed reality as being on par with well-supported science, then it becomes a problem.

bob-1805084 - Children are in school to learn facts. They are not in school to be confronted with some twisted form of teaching based on sophism. Would you actually be happy to see your kids taught math like this..."Well, one theory is that 2+2 = 4 and one theory is that 2+2 = 5. Children we trust you to be smart enough to know which is correct." That's not teaching!!!

NatasNJ - funny, he doesnt have to know the answer to that because HE JUST BELIEVES! faith, its all you need.

Science, unfortunately has much higher standards...and as such, HAS to provide the answer.

So, let me understand...this "creator" just POOFED out of nowhere and made this entire universe, and all these people - whom he gave an impossible list of rules to, and then when man couldnt follow those rules so well...he sent his son, his only son (which he poofed out of nowhere as well, virgin mary and all) and told him to tell us he would save us all, and send us all to heaven...if we just do one simple thing, ACCEPT JESUS AS OUR SAVIOUR AND LORD...

so, whats the Creators reason for needing us all up in heaven? do we become his servants/slaves?

You know there are not answers to every question that can be explained, but you have "faith" that in the future they will be explained through science. To me this is no different than my "faith" that there is a more powerful being than humans.

Really?

You could argue that both have "faith." I'd even agree with that. But the difference is that one is "faith" that something that has a proven track record will continue to deliver results. The other is "faith" in things without evidence.

Creationists and other anti-science folks have no idea about the extent of intellectual damage they do to children with their unprovable beliefs. The damage comes from teaching children that is is acceptable to start with an answer, in this case "God created the Earth and all living things", accept only those very few facts which do not specifically disprove their belief and reject all facts and observations that do not agree with their pre-conceived notions. Conversely, science begins with a set of questions about how the Earth began and what is the nature of living things, observes our surroundings, collects facts, takes measurements and develops hypotheses into theories. No facts are rejected. All observations must be explained. Theories are always based on evidence, never on hearsay.

If our justice system operated with a creationist rationale, jurors would be allowed to ignore any evidence presented at their choosing because it does not fit with their pre-trial beliefs. An innocent person could be convicted, even put to death, because jurors had "faith" that the accused was guilty. Conflicting evidence would no longer be reasonable doubt, but just a list from which the juror could pick and choose ..... multiple choice evidence from which to support what they already thought they knew.

Creationism is mythology with no observations nor factual evidence to support it. Evolution is science, and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. That nearly half of the citizens of the United States believe the creation myth is merely evidence of the considerable damage the religious right has done to the education system in this country.

@ mac

Someday that wart may evolve into a head.

At the same time, based off what you say, you have "faith" in science

I find this argument amusing. Frequently brought up, that somehow faith in science equates to religious faith. It's a twist on words, they are two entirely separate meanings.

1. Everyone has a certain level of faith IN things, ie. I have faith that I will live the rest of the week - so I will be buying groceries for the week.

2. There is no such thing as 'scientific faith' - but there is such thing as 'religious faith.'

3. Religion is faith. Science is not. The point of the scientific method is to mitigate the effects of 'faith' as much as humanly to achieve objectivity. Although, as I have illustrated with the example above, a certain level of 'faith' is required to live a normal life.

4. Science does not argue from ignorance. Religion does. Science states: "Because we don't know, we will learn..." Religion states: "Because we don't know, we know..." Your argument for the existence of a creator is exactly this, "Because we don't know where the matter for the big bang came from, we know that God created it." That is a classic example of a fallacious argument from ignorance.



2. The theory of evolution is just what it states A THEORY!!!!! Now it is a fact that evolution happens but just exactly where did it start is the question. Look at Darwins Finches, all are pretty much (90 %) similar but there is no proof or facts that point to that finch starting out as a flying bacteria millions of years ago.

DAVID, how many times must your dishonest arguments be debunked before you stop spouting them?

1) The Big Bang =/= Evolution Theory. They are totally different concepts scientifically. Hell, Evolution does not even address abiogenesis (the beginning of life) much less the beginning of the Universe.

2) The "just a theory" argument is so old and stale and WRONG that I'm amazed it still continues. Please educate yourself on what a scientific theory is (clue: it's not the colloquial usage of the word). Heliocentrism is a scientific THEORY (the sun is center of solar system), Gravitation is a scientific THEORY, Electromagnetism is a THEORY...

You know nothing, and only prove your ignorance.

David beleiving what you wish to beleive as a religious faith does not make you a nut job, making those religious beliefs a matter of public school science curriculum is what make them nutjobs.

Slick Rick:

"It's got some gaps in it," Perry continues, "but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution..."

I do not believe Slick Rick is correct. As far as I know, creationism can NOT be taught in any public school because it violates the establishment of religion clause of the US Constitution. What they do, however, in Texas to undermine science is to talk about "gaps" in evolution theory as Perry does. He's got quite a gap himself there between his ears.

Likewise MBeaty...I can see that we both put our faith in something we don't fully know. My problem is when religious beliefs influence policy which seems to happen more and more these days....

To those who suggest that both sides be taught, keep in mind that Evolution is science and that Creationism is theology. One belongs in a class that is differences and similarities in religious beliefs and the other should be taught in a biology class.

Bob...

There are NOT TWO SIDES to teach. There are lies and there is truth. The lies are spouted by right wing religious extremists. The truth is backed by science, fact and reason. The fallacy that folks such as yourself espouse is that the lies should be given equal footing with the truth.

It is interesting that the right wing strategy is lifted directly from the Nazi Party..."If you repeat a lie often enough times it becomes the truth.." Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

History is full of such interesting lessons. Oh, but that's right, right wing extremists are only interested in REVISIONIST history...

Oh, and David... regarding your "No Missing Link" argument that human evolution has only been traced a few thousand years (really, WHERE did you go to school?).



The earliest are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by:

Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;
Australopithecus (4–1.8 Ma), with species Au. anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, and Au. sediba;
Kenyanthropus (3–2.7 Ma), with species Kenyanthropus platyops;
Paranthropus (3–1.2 Ma), with species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei, and P. robustus;
Homo (2 Ma–present), with species Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis.

And those are only AFTER our divergence from great apes. Any more questions? I'd be happy to teach you.

David, I'm from the south. I am a country boy. When you make the claims you do, you just strengthen the stereotype against people like us.

Just as with all other organisms on the pylogeny tree, we can trace our roots just as far back using genetics, i.e. ribosomal RNA. There is no "missing link," that term hasn't been used in a biology classroom for decades. Just by bringing that up shows how out of touch (or out of date) your thinking is. We have discovered numerous hominid skeletons and likewise they are placed on the phylogenetic tree.

Evolution is a fact....you said so yourself!! The way it occurs, i.e. natural selection on a macro scale is a theory supported by fossil record evidence. It cannot be observed on the macro scale because it takes generations upon generations to see phenotypic changes. However the average microbiology student observes evolution daily. Grow some staph aureus on a blood agar dish, then add some antibiotics. You may have heard of MRSA in the past few years, which is exactly that, staph that evolved due to the selective pressure we placed on it. The "proof" of where those finches, and indeed where we came from is found in gene homology, we share genetic information with other mammals, invertibrates, and microbes. When you look at ribosomal RNA you can piece together the "tree of life' and see where everything fits!

MBeaty

Your statement "Creation had to happen at some point, or else there would have been no matter to take part in the big bang." is a completely normal human curiosity. Throughout the history of humans people have wondered how the Earth, the Universe, and life, especially human life, came to be. Those are some of the questions with which scientists have struggled for hundreds of years.

The problem with the Creationists is that they believe they know the answers to those questions without the necessity for any proof. Scientists have theories because they answers are not absolute. An overwhelming mountain of evidence has been presented in support of the Theory of Evolution in the 150 years since Darwin's publication on the subject. There is no evidence that disproves the theory; if such evidence were presented the theory would be invalid. Instead the theory has been modified over the years, incorporating genetics, DNA, and many, many other scientific discoveries which were unknown to Darwin. But the basic Theory of Evolution has survived and stands as one of the outstanding scientific accomplishments in history.

For many anti-science people and those who are not educated in science (although the "scientific method" is taught in elementary school) a "theory" is some kind of "scientific wild-assed guess". It is not. A scientific theory is a hypothesis (a possible explanation) for which there is an overwhelming body of supporting evidence and support from the leading experts in the field. Theories are subject to modification as new evidence is presented and, in rare instances, theories are, in fact, disproved. Do not expect that the Theory of Evolution will be disproved.

Another idea you anti-science people should ponder is that all of medical science, all of biology, all of chemistry, all of physics, ....... all of any science, has been learned using the same scientific method that produced the Cell Theory and the Theory of Evolution which form the cornerstones of the life sciences. You have no more credibility disputing the Theory of Evolution than you do to tell your doctor that you know more than he or she does about healing the human body.

"Evolution is a theory that's out there,"

just like gravity is also a theory...

What scares me is that this guy is supposed to be educated, yet so ignorant; what scares me even more is that he is running for the office of POTUS. But what scares me the most is that there are people out there that would vote for this guy!

Mbeaty:

The matter in our universe had to be created at some point in time.

Pretty easy to say, but then who created the creator of the matter? And who created that creator, and so on, and so on, until you reach the inevitable conclusion that it is impossible for you to really exist at all.

Creationism, even as liberally you describe it, doesn't scratch the surface of what we don't know.

At least science gives us a chance to find that out. Myths about the Ark never will.

From http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/education-secretary-says-feels-very-badly-children-texas-163723592.html

Education Secretary Arne Duncan appears to be the first member of President Obama's cabinet to take a swipe at Rick Perry, the Texas governor and newly announced Republican presidential candidate. Duncan told Bloomberg Television that Texas schools have struggled under Perry, saying he feels "very badly" for children who attend them.

"Far too few of their high school graduates are actually prepared to go on to college," Duncan said. "I feel very, very badly for the children there."

Texas' ACT and SAT scores are lower than the national average, and the state is in the bottom 10 of states in estimated graduation rate, Bloomberg News reports.

On the Bloomberg Television show that has yet to air, Duncan criticized "massive increases in class size" in Texas and said the state's recent spending cuts don't "serve the children well."

Perry cut spending on education for the state's 4.85 million students by $4 billion for the next two years (about 6 percent across the board). Before these cuts, Texas ranked 37th out of 50 states in per-pupil spending, and 31st in average teacher salaries, the Dallas Morning News reported. A recent study found that about 29 percent of Texas freshmen in the 2006-2007 school year left school before graduating.

It looks like Perry's sham performance as governor - when he's really just foreman of a wrecking crew - has far more serious consequences. He's not just ruining the present in Texas - where his so-called jobs program has been boosting public payrolls while causing private businesses to cut heavily, except for minimum-wage jobs - but he's wrecking its future as well. And because of state-mandated education policies including the pseudo-history texts, the ones who do graduate will not really be educated, anyhow.

@David-2425738

Quite simply put...you're an idiot. THE very kind of non thinking, imbecile that's driving this country back to the stone age. You know nothing, especially about this topic. I don't like you or your kind. Have a nice day. :-)

bayllie - You're correct to be doubtful about whether this disqualifies him for POTUS. I seriously believe that it should be a basic job requirement..."Do you believe in Evolution?" If you answer "no" then you're out.

StMiller

bayllie - You're correct to be doubtful about whether this disqualifies him for POTUS.

being religious to be a better person is one thing. denying facts is another. I don't care who people pray to (or don't pray at all) as long as it makes them a better person. But I don't want the president (or presidential hopeful) of the most powerful country to tell people evolution is just a theory...that's just embarrassing!

bayllie - I agree. Being religious to find a good message in how to treat others and how to live well is one thing, but reason overrides myth in all matters of science. How could a POTUS be taken seriously by other world leaders when he/she can't even grasp Evolution. How pathetic.

Bottom line....Rick Perry is an uneducated right wing loony tune. That said...Creationism is not an academic source subject...it is religion and should be restricted to discussions in church, Sunday School, Parochial environments and such. Creationism should not be discussed in any of our PUBLIC school systems. The Constitution, which many of you rabid liberty seekers (Teabaggers/far right wing fruit loops) misinterpret on a regular basis, fully supports this separation. I am a Scientist and a Christian and this balance can exist if common sense is applied. The worst mistake you can make is to convolute scientific fact with comforting religious theory. Believe...but do not ignore the scientific facts. Keep all religious innuendo out of my public schools!

bayllie - You're correct to be doubtful about whether this disqualifies him for POTUS. I seriously believe that it should be a basic job requirement..."Do you believe in Evolution?" If you answer "no" then you're out.

Yeah, it really does make you wonder about that person's mental state, doesn't it?

It is the modern equivalent of people in the Church that spurned Galileo's assertion for heliocentric theory (ie sun in the center, not the earth) - which earned him a trial by the Inquisition.

Some things nevery change.

mucker87

Bottom line....Rick Perry is an uneducated right wing loony tune.

I disagree. I think he is educated and that's what makes it even harder to understand.

StMiller

How could a POTUS be taken seriously by other world leaders when he/she can't even grasp Evolution. How pathetic.

You understand that; I understand that but there are plenty of people out there that don't understand that.

Shuklack

It is the modern equivalent of people in the Church that spurned Galileo's assertion for heliocentric theory (ie sun in the center, not the earth) - which earned him a trial by the Inquisition.

The clergy have always been the educated ones. They had (have) the knowledge and the proof. But it was always about keeping people in the dark. if the Church admits to evolution, they loose the most powerful tool they have - fear.

That is why they also denied the fact that the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth and that Earth is NOT flat.

If you look at the traditions, and symbols of Christianity, it's all calculated. Most if not all are stolen from Pagans - it was supposed to be an easier transition from the "old" religion to the "new" religion.

Religion was still created by PEOPLE so when people blindly believe in it - without questioning it, it is scary.

Mbeaty -

Cosmology attempts to explain the "how" we are here (down to the 1/n th second), as opposed to the "steady state" theory (disproved). It does not attempt to explain "why" we are here - that is the province of religion, metaphysics, etc.

As a scientist, I do not have a problem reconciling my religious beliefs with the written word from long ago. Certainly there are others of different denominations that have a huge problem with this (like Perry) - if that is what they literally believe, I think it's naive, but that's the scientist part of me talking. Every civilization has its "creation stories" and in ours, one is most prevalent

Yet to be explain why there is more "matter" that "antimatter", what "dark matter" is.

That may be for future generations to learn, long after we are returned to the dust we came from; we know what we know at this time (as at one time the earth was thought to be flat and the sun revolved around the earth).

OK, so now we have an exact date to which the Tea Party wants to "Take America Back," 1859 when Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published. Since that was also before women could vote and when slavery was still allowed, that's a good date. /sarc.

Where's Perry ? Out in crazy-land!!!!

Notice that as time went on and people become curious about the world and things in it, they started to ask questions on how such and such things happened. The scientists look at the subject, study it, then tell us how it came to be and offer evidence. The religious side simply says "God did it" and leaves it at that. Time moves on, more questions come up, scientists come up with more answers and yet the God fearing folk simply repeat "God did it". Millions upon millions of questions have been asked and proven and billions remain to be answered, yet there are still people who close their eyes, look up, and repeat "God did it". Without a single solitary piece of evidence that there is anything supernatural in our world.

Follow that? Never.

bayllie

None of those people who cannot or will not accept the Theory of Evolution are qualified to be president. The issue is that people who choose to believe what they want to believe without evidence while rejecting the view that is backed by overwhelming evidence do not belong in positions where their beliefs affect an entire nation. What else does Rick Perry believe just because he wants to, and why does he reject that which has been demonstrated to be true? It is a matter of critical thinking, an issue of having a rational-thinking person in the White House.

You know it is OK to believe in religion if you take it for what it is. A Fart in the Car yours smells great and everyone else's stinks. It was taught for moral value, and then the fanatics got a hold of it and belived it all verbatem.

If Perry is a Creationist, then his pastor's name is R. Sole. Or maybe that's Perry's REAL name. And some folks think that you want that calibre of mind as POTUS? He's out of the same mold as Sarah Yahbetcha and Michelle Bachmann, and they too are supremely underqualified.

Ya'll kill me - some posters, I think this is their only life, (both Dem & Repub) think they have the F'n answer to everything - If your on the right your an idiot, if your on the left, your an idiot. No wonder the Country has headed downhill since the 50's. Stand by people your in for a rougher ride.

don97524

None of those people who cannot or will not accept the Theory of Evolution are qualified to be president.

I agree but most candidates would keep their beliefs to themselves (especially this extreme). No reasonable presidential candidate would even think of announcing to the world that he/she does not believe in evolution. So why is Perry so ignorant/arrogant?

What else does Rick Perry believe just because he wants to, and why does he reject that which has been demonstrated to be true. It is a matter of critical thinking, an issue of having a rational-thinking person in the White House.

Yes, his arrogance/ignorance makes you wonder doesn't it?

I think religion is a good thing - in small doses - for some. But this is not one of those examples.

I have 'Faith' that the proper place to teach any religion, including Creationism, isn't in a public school. And I have faith that people are smart enough to realize that.

Yeah I know what you mean baylie, that's why I find it so ... well... suspicious that an educated adult says the things that he does.

Pope Urban VIII(?) I think the 8th anyway, was initially a supporter of Galileo (although cautious about full out screaming it from the mountain tops), and the Jesuits were also relatively supportive. But, then as now, scientists and clergymen can be an egotistical lot. They like to get in little spats. Well - that combined with problems in the Church that questioned Pope Urban's power (some called him weak against heretics etc) caused him to react harshly against Galileo.

It's frightening how quickly politicians will disregard facts for the sake of power.

Those who support evolution use it in such general terms in order to support any and all aspects of the theory as being true. The fact that things adapt , is used to support the larger notion that it all began with a bang, and life including ourselves, started by something crawling out of the primordial ooze and that one species evolved from another species. Plain and simple, adaptation is supported by scientific fact, evolution however is not. There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that one species evolved into another. Given the millions of fossils found, it is mathematically impossible not to have done so.

You use the argument that the bible was written by man, yet so was all that has been written about evolution. However, unlike evolution (and I don’t mean adaptation), the bible has been scientifically, mathematically and biologically proven that many things within its contents could emphatically and undeniably only have been written through the direct, divine, influence and inspiration by a superior being. That superior being has stated who he is countless times in the book…God. You don’t question the authors of the books of evolution, yet you do the bible (I don’t mean author in the literal sense). Interesting how deniers throughout history have used statements in the bible thought to be false. as their conclusion and argument against the bible, yet refuse to accept the reverse conclusion as those countless statements continue to be proven true.

Libs love to claim creationist and repubs don’t believe in science, but neither do Libs….at least not science that proves them wrong.

MBeaty,

so you accept that energy/matter are neither created or destroyed, only changing forms; but it has to have come from somewhere? that right there your problem in understanding - the statement itself holds the answer. it (matter/energy) has always been and will always be!

but you need to explain this with a "creator", meaning you actually don't believe in the law of conservation of energy. and to account for this non-belief, you (actually someone much dumber than you about 6000yrs ago) invented the "creator" - ironically enough, something that "has been and will always be."

Paul, that's the most horrific and tangled mess of sloppy thinking I've had the displeasure to read today. The genetic evidence for evolution is overwhelming. If we had zero fossils, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. But we don't have zero. The incredible record that we do have very clearly points to evolution. As a quick example, and if you can get your head out of the way, consider your own coccyx.

Paul (MI) - Mirror of Truth - You're wrong about that. Any of us that understand the scientific method understand that evolution is a scientific theory that is always being tested and fine-tuned. We know that over time that is how a scientific theory becomes stronger. It's never been an all or nothing concept. Darwin didn't have the microbiology or genetic tools that modern science has to test the finer points of his theory, but his overall concept of life evolving over time has stood strong in the face of peer review and further testing.

It's the opponents of Evolution that allow themselves to get bogged down in idea that if one piece of the theory is changed by scientists then they assume that proves that the overall theory is invalid. That's their lack of understanding of the scientific method showing itself.

The strength of science is in its ability to say..."I am open to testing and further refinement...I am open to the idea that I may not know everything yet and not knowing is ok." Religion says "You're either right or you're wrong. I can answer any and all questions" That's why it appeals so much to simple-minded people looking for a quick answer.

StMiller, that was beautifully said. You hit the nail squarely on the head.

As far as teaching "The Origin of Species and the Creation of the Favored Races of Man" By Charles Darwin -

The first question to ask your teacher is which race is favored and why.

The second question to ask is if all life evolved from a simpler form, then where did the first living thing come from.

These two questions put pretty big holes in the theory. One for political/racial issues, the second because it cannot be logically answered by the theory.

"His overbearing attitude" -- Even those who support Yosemite Sam will tell you that Perry never compromises. Yep, just what we need in addition to the Republican House, is a White House that is just as unmovable. Not.

Those who understand the scientific method understand that knowledge is always changing. The important thing is for it to change according to logic, data, peer review, etc. Also, many scientists/progressives are just as religious as Teabaggers, but don't view the Bible in a literal way and see the two as complimentary.

So get off your stereo-type soapbox. Perry is an idiot if for no other reason than to prove he would represent only a minority of the nation.

Shuklack

Yeah I know what you mean baylie, that's why I find it so ... well... suspicious that an educated adult says the things that he does.

I think religions are fascinating. I think religions need to be studied and dissected. I think we need to learn from them and take them seriously. But we should not to blindly follow them - that is when we get in trouble - whether as individuals or as a society.

Paul

Let me try to make this very simple for you. Evolution is presented in science books who were written by men who presented evidence for everything they said. The Bible was written by men who, in the case of Genesis where creationism was created, presented no evidence. None. In fact we do not know anything about the man who wrote Genesis (I am assuming it was a man). We do not know his name, educational background, mental state, or whether he ever traveled more than 50 miles from his place of birth. Most people didn't get around much in those days, you know. We do not know how he figured out the extent of the Flood. No aerial photos were available, no satellite technology, no phones available to call his buddies a few thousand miles away to see how things were going.

You choose to believe a myth. I choose to believe the evidence. I know why I believe what I believe ..... do you?

Ryan in Texas, you could really drop the 'in Texas' part. We know. It shows.

In the sense that Darwin meant that, ALL races of men are 'favored'.

Evolution does not even attempt to address the problem of where life began. It only attempts to address the problem of the vast array of different life forms that we now see. And it does so extremely successfully. Please learn something about it. You're missing an extremely and profoundly beautiful system.

the bible has been scientifically, mathematically and biologically proven that many things within its contents could emphatically and undeniably only have been written through the direct, divine, influence and inspiration by a superior being. That superior being has stated who he is countless times in the book…God. .......... yet you do the bible (I don’t mean author in the literal sense). Interesting how deniers throughout history have used statements in the bible thought to be false. as their conclusion and argument against the bible, yet refuse to accept the reverse conclusion as those countless statements continue to be proven true.

Huh? Proven? How? What?

You don’t question the authors of the books of evolution,

Actually we do. So evolution/adaptation,as the theory has been refined, happened not at a steady rate, but in fits and starts. The problem is, we often don't know why these fits and starts happened. Scientific theories are attempts to explain the world we are in might have been, and predict where we are going to go. The better the thery, the more it agrees with what observe, no more, no less.

Well, I can create amino acids in a lab (building blocks of protein)

But I can't make them form into proteins or those proteins suddenly take on life of any form.

So, really, it's the big gap that's explained as 'Conditions were different back then.' But we can re-create the conditions found in deep space, or in the marianas trench. So what conditions could make it happen?

Really though, it's a tough one. Although, if you read greek, the bible isn't quite as cut and dried as a bunch make it out to be. '6 Days' was mis-translated from '6 time periods', etc. Lots of gaffes none have corrected.

just thought i'd share.

I prefer 11th dimensional theory or 3d hologram on a 2d surface theory myself (m-theory and string theory, respectively) But even their cornerstone makes it a point to acknowledge 'intelligent design' and then (m-theory only) mathematically back it up. God? Dunno. But intelligence of some sort.

I can't help but notice that the people that have a problem with science don't actually know anything about it. I can't help but notice that the people that have a problem with evolution don't actually know anything about it. I can't help but notice that the people that have a problem with Darwin himself don't actually know anything about him.

Ryan in Texas

The origin of the first life on Earth is not part of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution addresses only the process by which species of living things evolve into other species. Scientists have ideas about the beginning of life but none has reached the stature of a scientific theory because not enough information is known. Unlike religion, science waits for evidence before deciding they know the answers.

As far as "favored races" are concerned, the issue from Darwin's point of view is only which race is more adapted to the environment in which that person lives. It has nothing whatever to do with being "favored" with respect to being preferred by other human beings or better or any other spin you wish to place on Darwin's work. I think you need to understand the science a lot better before you offer criticism.

Ryan in Texas -

1. You don't have the correct title of the book. It was..."On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

2. Race in the context of Darwinism referred to the variations in all species.

3. Not being able to answer the question of what was the first living thing doesn't invalidate Evolution. Evolution is the study of how a mechanism works. It's like saying...Ryan in Texas says he knows how Legos fit together to make something bigger, but he doesn't know how a Lego was made therefore Ryan in Texas is lying and he doesn't know how Legos work.

How strange that Rick Perry trusts children to figure out whether creationism or evolution is right but he doesn't trust PhD research scientists to figure it out.

A little girl asked her Mom where she came from. The Mother responded "honey, God made Adam and Eve. You are a decedent of God's children."

The little girl later asked her Dad where she came from. The Father responded 'we are decedents of monkeys.'

Confused the little girl asked her Mother to reconcile what she had heard to which Mom replied 'well honey, that's easy. Your Dad was taking about his side of the family and I was talking about mine.'

MBeaty: you have a point; why a big bang?

I believe in God, but I do not believe that he created our planet 6000 years ago and planted fossils in the ground just to confuse us. I find 'Intelligent Design' to be an insult to God, insisting God is not very bright and needs to micromanage every detail to make sure things turn out. Instead, I believe that God is able to plan across billions of years, and that his/her elegant design started with a simple big bang and took billions of years to unfold and present us with the universe we see today.

In any case, we need to keep religion in social studies, and science in Science class. Otherwise, we would need to present every Religion's creation 'mythology' equally, to let Perry's kids choose which one to believe in. Hope they can say 'would you like fries with that' since that is the highest paying job they will ever be qualified for. If this is the kind of education our kids will get, I will have no choice but to only hire people from other countries, because I can not run a business with people that don't understand how things work.

More importantly, we need look no further than Europe to see how the liberal agenda turns out.

They are literally collapsing morally and financially.

When you replace faith in God with faith in Gov't - bad things happen. See USSR.

People then come to believe they can do anything that is legal, regardless of ethics.

Teaching that their are different viewpoints on an issue is part of a complete education. Evolution tends to do a good job describing changes over time in creatures, but not the origin of life. You can't prove or UNPROVE God. And when there is no scientific proof, it is appropriate to teach the leading theories.

As far as it meeting the Constitutional Definition -

1. It's not "Congress"

2. They didn't pass a "Law" - it's from a panel that recommends book purchases.

3. They didn't "Establish" a "Religion" - to my knowledge no religion has been created by any school curriculum - what is the name of the religion? where do the people meet?

But don't forget, you have a Constitutional right to practice your religion. No limits on where were placed in the Constitution.

1200 people move to Texas everyday - no one forces anyone to stay here. Go to a state that educates like you want.

Paul (MI)...

I make it a habit not to engage the insane in conversation, but I have to make an exception just this once...

You stated: "... the bible has been scientifically, mathematically and biologically proven that many things within its contents could emphatically and undeniably only have been written through the direct, divine, influence and inspiration by a superior being."

Now, please, educate a poor dumb f#%ker like me as to this scientific, mathematic and biological "proof" that the bible was written by a "superior" being. I don't really expect you to answer, though...I mean, seriously, how could you?

Also, you've heard of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD haven't you? You know where the christian bishops and the Emperor Constantine decided what was going to be in the bible and what wasn't. And what the beliefs of the "church" would be. That's where your "bible" (new testament) comes from, you silly goose, you.

Facts...such a pesky little thing...

Ryan in Texas - "You can't prove or UNPROVE God. And when there is no scientific proof, it is appropriate to teach the leading theories."

You can't be serious. You don't teach something just because it can't be disproved or as you say..."unprove". (Something can be "unproven" (noun), but there is no verb "unprove"). Consider seriously what you are saying....

1. You assume that creationism is a "leading theory". It's neither a theory nor leading. Plus...who's creationism would you accept teaching? There are many creation myths all over the world and in the US alone.

2. You say that when there is no scientific evidence then you teach leading theories, but in the case of Evolution there is tons of evidence. Also, you can't start teaching things that have no evidence for them (read...Creationism) just because you don't have evidence for something else. That's just silly.

Are we debating religion vs science again? Science neither denies nor confirms the existence of any deity, and bases it's findings only on collected data. Religion is based entirely on faith. There has been no data pointing toward any deity existing in any form, and therefore religion has NO place in a science classroom. Just because we don't know exactly how something happened doesn't mean "God did it." And that said, to claim that there is OR is NOT a god out there somewhere is based solely on faith and isn't scientific. I don't know for sure, and neither do you, so stop arguing about it.

don "What else does Rick Perry believe just because he wants to"

he's a dominionist, and like Michele Bachman believes that GOD says that christians were put on this earth to rule the world, and everything in it (other people and animals and the earths resources).

someone who said something about taking us back to 1859 - wasnt far off. a return to slavery is the only way america will get better...and there all sorts of black folk sitting on welfare that would be better off as slaves, being fed and housed and growing great friendships with their slave masters because - just ask Bachmann. their dominionist christian views demand that they enslave other people, for their own economic good - its their GOD GIVEN RIGHT, damn it.

who's going to question GOD, really...who? Bachmann and Perry DARE YOU.

Jessica-1170252 - There is a good article in a recent New Yorker regarding Bachman and the Dominionists. That is some uber creepy stuff!!! Really scary.

Is it any wonder that we're falling behind in math and science with "leaders" like Rick Perry?

EVERY ancient religion has a creation myth. The Hindus believe that Brahma, the creator of the heaven and earth was born from a lotus flower blooming from the naval of the great god Vishnu. The Mohawks believed the world rides on the back of a giant turtle. The Shintoists believe Japan (The Land of the Gods) was created by the Sun Goddess Amateratzu when she dipped her spear into the waters of the ocean and the droplets from her spear formed their islands.

These myths were created by the ancients to explain the unexplainable to bronze age cultures with NOTHING to answer their questions OTHER than pure imagination.

Where we get into trouble is when people like Perry confuse bronze-age mythology with science.

When the idea of teaching creationism came along the first time in Oklahoma, back in the 1970's it died in a legislative committee when opponents insisted that the Hindu creation myth and several others be taught alongside Christian Creationism. The laughter over the creator of the world being born form a lotus flower growing from Vishnu's naval pretty much put paid to that idea.

(Please, no cards and letters, I am not ridiculing the belief's of millions of devout Hindus, I think their creation myth is very beautiful, and the world riding on the back of a turtle makes perfect sense to me!)

When you teach one particular religious mythology as a "scientific fact" you do irreparable harm to all other religions, science and the impressionable children whom you are misleading. I thought these TP'er's were supposed to be ardent Constitutionalists? Well, the founding fathers plainly stated that we Americans will not support a state-sponsored religion and quite the opposite, freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our democracy.

If Texas is indeed teaching creationism, oh, sorry I beg your pardon, "Intelligent Design" in their classrooms then ALL FEDERAL FUNDING for education in Texas needs to cease immediately and Texas should have to refund all FEDERAL FUNDS received since the practice began. After all, it's the law. It's what makes us different from Iran, and the Taliban.

AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE, day 230.

Ryan in Texas - I thought you might be interested in learning the facts about how many people "move to your state" every day...not Rick Perry's spin on it (unless you are counting births as "moving in")

this stat is from the Senior Writer and Editor to then Gov Rick Perry:

"With help from the U.S. Census Bureau, we learned that about 635 people come to Texas every day, on average. A census official based that number on average daily net migration from other states (393) plus average daily net migration from other countries (242)."

a little shy of 1200 dont ya think? and only slightly leading California, ya know that really dysfunctional liberal state to your west that you think you're just kicking azz all over.

Ryan, as a Texan you embarrass me...I think you need to take another at Europe, you are completely wrong on every level...
What rick perry and his asinine cronies have done to TX education is God-awful...you can't pick and choose what you want to include in text books if our children are to receive an adequate education, acknowledging that there are differing viewpoints, yes, completely rewriting history, not such a good idea

The presentation of opposing viewpoints is the basis for a real education.

Otherwise you just have indoctrination.

There is no harm in presenting Creationist Theories. My personal belief is that something beyond my ability to comprehend may have set up the rules of the Universe. But that is just my belief.

Darwin spoke directly about the RACES of man. He believed some were better adjusted to the heat, some the cold. Some were taller, others shorter. Some more athletic, others less. Some more intelligent, others less.

If you want to get to the hard science, it is as firm as the theory of evolution that there are diferences among the races.

But do you really want that taught in elementary school? No? But wait, don't you want scientific fact?

If that scientific fact were taught in school, wouldn't you want a counterview? What if the counterview has less scientific proof, but has a moral benefit to society?

Suddenly it's not so clearcut.

And that's what the state has to wrestle with on many issues. How much time do you spend looking at the warts on historic figures? Is it OK to teach about Jefferson's affairs but not MLKs?

I wish I had the answer, but that assumes there is "the" answer out there.

@Paul (MI)

Oh...and since I only addressed the new testament in my last post, let me throw a little ditty out there regarding the old testament...

So, the story goes: God created Adam, then Eve. Adam and Eve had two sons...Cain and Abel. Cain Kills Abel, and then takes a wife. Uhhhh...excuse me, but...where did she come from? You mean to tell me that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing "god" or "superior being" wrote a crappy story like that? With such a logical fallacy so big that you could drive the universe through it in the very first chapter? I mean, seriously, who was this supposed "superior" being's editor? And, if you want to point out the tired supposed explanation based on Genesis 5:4 about Adam having other sons and daughters, then Cain must have married his Sister (or niece)...but...with the bible being so specific about so many little things, why did the "superior" being leave out this fact? Doesn't sound very superior to me...not one bit. It seems like a shoddy, poorly written tale created for stupid people to get them to do what the authors wanted them to do.

If you believe crap like that, I guess you'll believe anything...

Sigh. Really? I'll admit off the bat I'm no proponent of teaching creationism in school, but that's quite simply because I think it's bs to teach a good deal of things in school that don't have anything to deal with real life.

Fact of the matter is, unless you're planning to become a biologist, it doesn't make a @!$%#s bit of difference how we got here. Knowing whether we came from a monkey or not will not in any way shape or form make one more successful here in the real world. It's a waste of time and money to pay teachers to shove it down the throats of their students, regardless of whether they want to learn it or not.

And for all you people screaming about how they shouldn't be teaching creationism as well as science- there are just as many people who'd rather their children not be taught this pseudo-science. Having studied the matter thoroughly myself I agree completely with the line 'It's got some gaps in it'. In fact, more than gaps, there's just as many bull@!$%# scientists ignoring evidence against evolution and falsifying proof for it as there are crazy ass creationist nuts doing the same. Both sides are just as hell-bent on discrediting the other with neither actually willing to look at the issue objectively- and as a result the field is full of so much bs one can hardly sort through it to find the facts.

And as much as evolution has been tested and refined for years, for the most part what's actually happened is as one facet is finally disproven beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, people find a new way to interpret the evidence that supports a variation of their preconceived conclusion to cling to until more evidence comes along. It's like coming on the remains of an experiment without any idea who did it or what the purpose was and trying to figure out backwards how they made what you think they might have been making. Take a look beyond what you read in the magazines and papers on the subject, look beyond the teachings of those indoctrinated, and you find its not nearly so precisely scientifically 'proven' as anyone seems to claim.

And so I say... instead of going about whining about how a president is supporting a belief of a vast number of constituents (Note that he's not even giving support specifically, simply waffling to avoid the grief that would come if he were to say clearly that he supported either side) why don't we start having our teachers plug something useful down our children's throats, like accounting classes, or classes on finances and credit- things that they're going to get sucker-punched by the moment they leave school and get hit with their first credit card.

How about classes on tax preparation? Coming out of high school I didn't have a clue how to do my taxes, I'd turned 18 and there was the government pounding on my door for its cut.

Why do we spend so much time bitching about people teaching subjects that have no viable application on life one way or another, when there's so much students SHOULD be taught that's just left up to the school of hard knocks?

And this is the guy many want to elect to be president of this country....like we are not in enough trouble now with our paid by lobbyist politicans. It is trully sad that this country can do no better than this...where are our actually smart folks that are really honest...? We surely do not have any today in congress or running for any office.

SO....

In Perry's eyes, does that mean that since I'm fighting with my neighbor over our property boundary, he's supposed to offer up his virgin daughter for me to sleep with so we make peace??

The Bible says it, so it must be true.

Caligula

Insane would be attempting to explain or discuss anything with someone who is obviously tauntingly bitter or feel threatened and as closed minded as you.

not jumping into the fracas about Creation vs Evolution and which is right.... but since the education of Texans is being called into question and the federal spending on Texas is being demanded back as a refund by our friend from Oklahoma City, I thought I would mention that Texas is considered a FEDERAL DONOR STATE and Oklahoma is considered a FEDERAL SUBSIDIZED STATE. Meaning, Texans spend more on federal taxes than they receive back from the federal government in they way of federal spending... Oklahoma on the other hand... not the case.

I'm a product of the the Texas public school system, I was taught sound scientific principles in class growing up, I was taught to think for myself (as was suggested by the politician in question) and shown a variety of beliefs and theories held by different groups of people and allowed to use the scientific method and given tools to make sound decisions on my own. And by the way, I was also taught to pay my own way and balance my checkbook.

I sure wish Obama had received this much scrutiny prior to the 2008 election!!

On the creationism debate, I think the more important question is how exactly did "life" develop or evolve without the involvement of some outside help?

Ryan in Texas, your opinions on education are a result of the poor quality education that you yourself received. You constitute an excellent piece of evidence that whatever is being done in Texas is frighteningly inadequate.

Ryan in Texas - You have no idea what you're talking about if you are insinuating in any way that Darwin was racist! He was a leading abolitionist of his day and his theory of evolution was used to show that science put all humans together in one species rather than Christians at the time that believed god put white man above others. I strongly suggest that you read these works before spouting off incorrect facts.

The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

1. Texas isn't Congress.
Really, the Constitutional question is over right there, but I'll continue.
2. They didn't make a law, they made textbooks.
3. They didn't establish a religion. (If so, what is the name, what are it's tenets, what is it's structure, where do they meet to practice it?)

However, to block religious views in public or private clearly prohibits the free exercise of it.
So in actuality, blocking creationism being spoken about (if that is purely religious) would actually be a violation of the US Constitution.

mbeaty - There were several here criticizing your about the where did the matter come from. This is not new material, matter is energy and was defined by Einstein's E=mc^2. The LHC was built to try to find the Higgs field, which through the standard model of particle physics is needed to give mass to energy. Also, have you ever heard of the zero point energy of space? This is where at the quantum levels, a particle and it's anti-particle are created from the space and then annihilate themselves. Space isn't empty, it is full of all of these different types of energy and forces.

For creationism vs. evolution, it is not about the truth or the facts, the science is about the methodology that is used for the theory. The cause of an event has to be provable. Example, take a block with a spring attached to it and a wall. You pull the block away from the wall and let go, the spring will bring it back to the wall each and every time. Forces can be calculated, it is repeatable and it is observable. The problem with creationism in a scientific perspective is that if God is the cause, then God has to be provable. Since God is transcendental, God is neither provable nor unprovable and it is for this reason that creationism is a religious belief that Christians have. Other religions have creation stories and they fall into the same category.

There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that one species evolved into another.

Gotta love the modus operandi of the anti-science crusaders. When lacking an argument, simply lie. And ignore the genetic evidence too.

Ryan in Texas, the 1st amendment rights have been incorporated to the states. This means that not only can the federal government not do those things, the states can't do them either. Neither can local governments. Teaching creationism in public schools IS an establishment of religion as our courts have said over and over again.

How is that you are both so strongly opinionated and so poorly informed?

Ryan in Texas - Again...totally backwards thinking on your part. As soon as you teach a religious point of view in a public school...i.e. the creationism we all know that you are talking about...you have established a government sponsored religion by effectively excluding all of the other religious points of view including atheism. Also, no one says you can't teach whatever mythology you want in a private school.

whocares: He did receive that scrutiny...you just didn't like the results. No, I am not missing the "mission accomplished" guy...and apparantly Mr. Perry is going to give us a daily reminder of why we don't need any more Texans.

1. Do you find it funny that most of the organisms that we have found and studied on this planet we can trace back millions and in some cases billions of years. Yet we can not trace back our own existence back further than maybe a thousands. Ever heard of the "Missing Link" that scientist have been trying to find for generations. Funny how we are one of the more populated species on earth and yet we can not say where we come from originally.

2. The theory of evolution is just what it states A THEORY!!!!! Now it is a fact that evolution happens but just exactly where did it start is the question. Look at Darwins Finches, all are pretty much (90 %) similar but there is no proof or facts that point to that finch starting out as a flying bacteria millions of years ago.

http://www.biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/nat-sel.htm The peppered moth example further proves the hypothesis that those who have traits that allow for longer life span, have more breeding opportunities. So much so that it is these very traits which become "the norm" in the organism - leading to an evolution of the species.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

In the Finch study, Darwin did not set out to determine how finches were related to bacteria. Therefore, there would BE no proof that they did. However, there is a preponderance of evidence that would show that there are common ancestors among us all. However, some folks simply cannot see past their own nose and ignore such evidence.

3. The final point I would like to make is just because someone believes in God or is a Christian does not make them a nut job. If you think it does then that person could think the same of you because of this.

If you are now defining the word "Congress" to be = to "Texas"

instead of the House of Representatives and the Senate

then you shouldn't be worried about something as complicated as evolution.

You've got basic vocabulary to work on.

NOTICE!! Just wanted everyone here to know that not everyone in Texas is a bible thumping nitwit. I live in Austin and it at least it is mainly populated by realists with a brain. Of course it does have its fair share of Texicans that subscribe to the Catholic persuasion but it ain't like a real religion anyway. It allows you to drink, smoke and fool with your neighbor as long as you sit in the little 'I'm Sorry' booth and spill your beans to the dude in a dress next door. And Texicans are great to party with!

Anyway, what were we discussing? Oh yeah....the 'evolution' thingy. There is no doubt in my mind that we humans and apes have a common ancestor. Have you ever heard of 'gene jumping'? It's when a long dormant gene all of a sudden comes back alive from the past and a baby is born that's 'just not quite right'. Like a human baby that clearly shows characteristics of an ape. When it happens in Texas we call them Governor.

Ryan, do you understand what I mean about rights of the people being incorporated to the states? I think not.

Let's try again with something you're more likely to understand. Recently, in McDonald vs Chicago, the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd amendment to the states. The result is that the city of Chicago, and the state of Illinois, and every other state, must also abide by the 2nd amendment. And so it is with the 1st amendment.

Does this help you?

Why, when the atheists want to denigrate religion as wholly an exercise in fiction, do they always so carefully avoid mentioning certain known historical facts:

Herod the Great was a real historical figure. He murdered several members of his own family. His architectural monuments exist to this day. Were it not for the Gospels, he would be an unknown to all but the most esoteric students of historical trivia.

Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure. He was apponted procurator of Judea about 10 years after Herod's son had proven himself incompetent to be any sort of "king."

Jesus of Nazareth, known by nearly everyone alive today in the world as Jesus Christ, was nailed to a cross under the authority of Pontius Pilate, being killed thereby.

The students of Jesus Christ thereafter spread all over the Roman Empire, the equivalent of the "modern" world of its time, telling people in every country they visited that they had personally seen Jesus Christ in the flesh walking the earth, eating food, and speaking to them, after his tomb had been found to be empty. No body has ever been found by anyone, particularly, never been found by those who hate this historical fact.

With nothing whatsoever in this world to gain by telling the facts of this history as they did, which included a warning that all men will face a judgment after death with eternal consequences in which evil will be punished and good rewarded, these men almost exclusively went to horrible deaths at the hands of those, like the posters on this forum, who vehemently deny that Jesus Christ could be any sort of king.

Christianity spread like wildfire across the known world of the time, and has continued to spread, AS PREDICTED, to the WHOLE OF THE EARTH (and four "corners" is an appropriate description for north, south, east, and west for a world of TWO DIMENSIONS WITH FOUR DIRECTIONS such as exists on the surface of a sphere as any competent mathematician can tell you, even if your definition for the word "corner" is as bigoted as your own mind is) in this present age.

To deny the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ takes more than an arrogant disregard for the normal rules of historical evidence--by all such rules, his resurrection is a FACT of history--it takes a willfully blind regard for the KNOWN FACT THAT EVERYONE READING THIS WILL SOMEDAY DIE AND THEREFORE FACE WHATEVER DEATH ENTAILS.

In all of human experience there is no more rational presentation of human purpose than that which is embodied in the life and death of Jesus Christ. If you don't know that, they you are OVERLOOKING SOMETHING of relevance to a human life. Death, perhaps?

Those who point to other tales of return from the dead, and virgin birth, and yadda yadda cannot be taken seriously. Any sane and rational comparison of such tales with the life of Jesus Christ as documented in the Gospels very quickly reveals the flimsiness of all other such stories and, by contrast, the very enduring solidity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Even the Jews who reject that Jesus Christ fulfills the biblical prophecies are themselves evidence that His life and death are not fictions. His coming was expected. It is not believable that all of Europe came to be ruled by Him in the centuries after the life of Jesus of Nazareth if his life had been a mere fiction. There are too many examples of just such figures in history, who disappeared into oblivion thereafter precisely because their claims were not believable.

Those who call this "believing in fairy stories" have no credibility. It is altogether obvious that they have never looked at the evidence with any manner or degree of objectivity.

By all modern standards of measurement, scientific and otherwise, the life and death of Jesus Christ is a historical fact.

By every moral standard of any lasting value, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an established historical fact.

These are FACTS people, not guesses, delusions, or wishful thinking as is practiced by those who delude themselves into thinking that they will never have to answer to an Almighty God for their lives.

I will say this without shame: I DO NOT believe in science. "Science" is man-made, fallible, arrogant, often wrong, always correcting itself because it is always (inevitably) proving itself to have been wrong.

NO ONE will ever come up with a more GLORIOUS accomplishment than the death of a man who is the Son of God who thereafter rises from the dead.

NO ONE WILL EVER TOP THAT ACCOMPLISHMENT.

This is why I believe in Jesus Christ. I know that His Gospel is, indeed, yes O man, eternal.

Now, as Job once so wisely said, go ahead and rant on, ye fools. Se if you can convince yourselves that you have no fear of death . . . somehow . . . someday . . .

John-3078515 - Surely you understand that just because a few people or events in the bible were real does not in anyway make the entire book to be fact. Also, it doesn't at all prove god.

Do you find it funny that most of the organisms that we have found and studied on this planet we can trace back millions and in some cases billions of years. Yet we can not trace back our own existence back further than maybe a thousands

It's funny that creationists will claim the earth is only 6,000 years old, yet 8,000 years ago the world population was over 5 million. Or that 12,000 years ago they were growing rice in Asia. Heck, they have found human settlements in India that date back to 100,000 BC. All of which have been dated beyond a shadow of a doubt to that time period. Care to explain the discrepancy?

Shulack, It is funny you question where I went to school or received my medical degree from but I see that you like to get your information from wikipedia with out actually reading the all the information given. And to all else who would sit there and deride me for my comment I would like you to research yourself and find out the answers for yourself.

1. This is out of the same article on wikipedia (just google evolution of man)

Main article: Archaic Homo sapiens

H. sapiens (the adjective sapiens is Latin for "wise" or "intelligent") have lived from about 250,000 years ago to the present. Between 400,000 years ago and the second interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 years ago, the trend in skull expansion and the elaboration of stone tool technologies developed, providing evidence for a transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. A subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually referred to as the recent single origin or Out of Africa theory. Current evidence does not preclude some multiregional evolution or some admixture of the migrant H. sapiens with existing Homo populations. This is a hotly debated area of paleoanthropology.

Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.^[45][46][47] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes.

Now since you are either not intelligent enough or just to ignorant to understand a scientific journal like article I will try to explain it to you. First of all our lineage Homo Sapiens have been around for THOUSANDS of years and that is not a lie. Now we do have evidence of common ancestors due to comparing mitochondrial DNA. But these ancestors are also the same ancestors of Apes and Chimps. Also some of the Ancestors that you listed without reading the article are not even real species but PROPOSED SPECIES to fill in the blanks or where they believe a species should exist, for example:

H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus

These are proposed species names for fossils from about 1.9–1.6 Ma, the relation of which with Homo habilis is not yet clear.

• Homo rudolfensis refers to a single, incomplete skull from Kenya. Scientists have suggested that this was another Homo habilis, but this has not been confirmed.^[23]
• Homo georgicus, from Georgia, may be an intermediate form between Homo habilis and Homo erectus,^[24] or a sub-species of Homo erectus.^[25]

H. cepranensis and H. antecessor

These are proposed as species that may be intermediate between H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis.

• H. antecessor is known from fossils from Spain and England that are dated 1.2 Ma–500 ka
• H. cepranensis refers to a single skull cap from Italy, estimated to be about 800,000 years old.

H. heidelbergensis

H. heidelbergensis lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo sapiens paleohungaricus.

• Try to understand that I am not trying to say that science is false or wrong all I am saying is that for the amount of information that we still dont know we sure are making a lot of assumptions. If you read a scientific book around the 1400's it told you that the world was flat. But that is what we do as scientist, we try to fill in the gaps with information that makes the most scientific sense. But to assume that when we plug those holes with the best, most educated hypothesis possible at that point in time to be a hundred percent FACT is just false. You can try to call me a liar but please point out where I am lying. Half of you call me crazy without putting forth any FACTS of your own. I have shown you where I am coming from so

Ryan in Texas

You are the sad victim of evangelical flawed reasoning. You have been told that full belief in the Bible is necessary to be a good Christian and that people who don't believe as you do are immoral. There is no rational basis for making belief in biblical myth a foundation for morality. Many, probably most, good Christians understand that some of the Bible is factual, some is mythology, some is parable. Christian morality is based much more upon acceptance of the lessons put forth by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount than it has to do with blind acceptance of the irrational and unprovable statements of the Old Testament.

You also have taken the position that those of us that do not believe everything in the Bible believe nothing in the Bible. It is very clear to many of us that the authors of much of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, had no way to observe, no way to know, no way to understand what they wrote. I am sure it is your belief that the Bible is "the word of God." Men developed that line of reasoning, human beings choose to accept it or not. I choose "not".

People like you do great harm to the educational development of children because you teach them that facts don't matter. Reason doesn't matter. Anyone can believe whatever they choose. That educational strategy has no place in our schools and people who have no respect for actual knowledge have no business influencing the curricula of our schools.

Ah the religious cult of man made global warming bashing another religion's viewpoint. Tell us Fiesty and Navy, are you high priests or just more of the koolaid drinking followers? ROTFLMAO!!!

John-3078515 you are absoultely correct, thanks for pointing out exactly what I was think when reading all the aethiest rant. Very well put!

Additionally in almost every other species on earth there are different forms of that species in existence, for example: Dogs-labs, poodles, beagles, hounds

Ostriches, Emus, -Alligator and Crocodile, Rattle snakes and Boas, Great white shark and Tiger Shark....ect......

The point being is that it is puzzling to the scientific community why we do not have a relative in existence today closer to us besides Apes and Chimps which is proposed to have broken off from us over 7 million years ago. I am not saying that there is not a scientific answer or a simple conclusion to explain all this, all I am saying is that we do not have that answer yet.

David-2425738, You've forgotten Homo neanderthalensis.

To markmich:

AROTFLUYAFOWYPTIITTNTYB????

Which means...

After Rolling On The Floor Laughing Until Your Ass Falls Off Would You Please Throw It In The Trash Next To Your Brain

Gee....this acronym stuff is fun!

If your court defines "Congress" as something other than the House of Representatives and the Senate, such as a municipality, then they are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

You cannot interpret a word with such a specific meaning.

But if you are foolish enough to do that, remember, the Constitution uses the word "Congress" several times. So now your local municipality would get to vote on Federal Funding issues, just like all the Congressmen and Senators.

See, it just doesn't work to define "Congress" as all Gov't entities.

As for this issue, Perry did a great job of leaving the decision to the kid. How refreshing it will be for a President to stop ramming the Federal Gov't (one size fits all) down our throats, and to leave decisions to the People and the States.

After all, Massachusetts doesn't have to be Texas. That's the beauty of our system. 50 experiments in Democracy, 50 Firewalls against bad governance.

Because you can always leave a state that doesn't suit your politics, and go to one that does. The essence of freedom.

John

The major flaw in your thinking is that because there are SOME factual statements in the Bible, then ALL of the Bible must be true. That kind of thinking is not only irrational, but makes it impossible for people who think as you do to learn in any meaningful way. Science is an exercise in critical thought. Every belief must be proven. Every idea must be backed by evidence. No reasonable scientist would believe that because SOME of a science book is true that ALL of it must be true.

Your implication that because the Bible contains some historically valid information that it is reasonable to use the Bible as a source for important science theory is ridiculous.

Ryan, it's not my court. It's our court. I'll bet you like our founding fathers. You should learn about the system they designed for us. It's pretty neat.

Ryan in Texas

Now you have really entered the Twilight Zone. Do you really think that science should be a matter decided by politics, that Massachusetts can have one version of science and Texas have another? If a state or a school district decided that astrology or voodoo should be taught as science, would that have your blessing?

It is wrong to teach children that facts, observations and proof are not necessary in science. It is wrong to tell children that it is okay to believe whatever you wish to believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary. People like you are responsible for significantly stunting the intellectual development of young people in this country and should have no say whatsoever in the educational curricula of our public schools.

@ xrx9288,

I can sit here and copy and paste for you or you can read it for yourself so you know I am not just making it up but just for your information it was once thought that Homo neanderthalas (I am not good with spelling) was our direct ancestor or "the missing link" which with recent DNA Tech has been proven to not be true but that we may share a common ancestor further back. It is also suggested but still being proven that they may have mated with Homo Sapiens. Here is the article from wiki.

H. neanderthalensis

H. neanderthalensis lived from 400,000^[34] to about 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.^[35] Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.^[36][37] In 1997, Mark Stoneking stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors". Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA supported these findings.^[38]

However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 75,000 BC (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, the Middle East, and Asia).^[39] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA.^[39] However, supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point to recent studies indicating non-African nuclear DNA heritage dating to one Ma,^[40] although the reliability of these studies has been questioned.^[41] Competition from Homo sapiens probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.^[42][43] They could have coexisted in Europe for as long as 10,000 years.^[44]

StackDat

After Rolling On The Floor Laughing Until Your Ass Falls Off Would You Please Throw It In The Trash Next To Your Brain

Now, now, I'd hate to crowd out where your brain is obviously kept.

So, as is usually the case, you Liberal Progressives have no explanation as to how life was created. Yet your whole basis of argument against creationism, or intelligent design, is about the inability to explain how life even began to allow evolution. It's this narrow-mindedness of your Liberal Progressive thought process that creates the humor for us who at least accept evolution but ONLY as a result of intelligent design.

Your specious argument about not wanting creationism taught is due to your shallowness of thought beyond what your indoctrination allows.

To not at least offer a widespread belief because of your refusal to accept religion is testament to your simple mindedness.

But then again, you Liberal Progressives still believe in Keynesian economics so your illiteracy is understood.

Sounds like the dark ages in Europe. You either believed what the catholic church said, or else you were done for. If this man doesn't believe in evolution, I'd like to hear his explanation on where fossils came from.

The same asnwer (for Everything) that you get from these BuyBull-thumping idiots, or the BuyBull-Home-Schooled: god did it.

They say that, then brush-off their hands, put their hands on their hips, and dare you to challenge THAT "fact"...

As a strong believer in evolution, I have to say: Rick Perry is absolutely 100% correct on this one.

The theory has a lot of holes in it, and yes: it is just a theory.

It seems quite plausible, it seems like a really solid theory, and for all that strikes me as being completely true about it, it does not exactly rule out the existence of a higher power.

I also am glad to hear that Texas teaches both evolution and intelligent design. After watching "Creatures that defy evolution" it did occur to me that there really is no person who knows everything, and we won't make new discoveries if we keep ruling out anything and everything that doesn't jive with the conventional wisdom and popular opinion of our time.

And the mother is hilarious: "Why don't you believe in science?" Wow. She sounds just brilliant.

Religion is the first "science" in that it incorporates the original hypothesis of how human existence came into being thousands of years ago. Just because many of the organized ancient primitive guesses have been debunked since with new over-riding theories that incorporate evidence to back them, that does not rule out the existence of a higher power. We are still in guessing era on that one, as nobody has thoroughly debunked it either way.

Good for Texas if they teach both, because the most educated kids will have learned both prevailing theories, how they conflict as well as how they compliment, they will be better prepared to build on that going forward.

defenderoflogic....so you are suggesting that all creationism myths be taught then? Or are you just choosing your own judeo-christian one?

In a follow up question Perry explained how Dinosaur Bones were actually plaster models planted by the Obama administration.

You know I can take religion to a point, but when you challenge the age of our planet I draw the line.

However, unlike evolution (and I don’t mean adaptation), the bible has been scientifically, mathematically and biologically proven that many things within its contents could emphatically and undeniably only have been written through the direct, divine, influence and inspiration by a superior being

FALSE

It CAN be denied, it is NOT the only way it could have been written, and to say such things proves that you have no working knowledge of what either theories or science are.

StMiller

defenderoflogic....so you are suggesting that all creationism myths be taught then?

Why not? We do live in a multicultural society right?

Unless you Liberal Progressives truly are Xenophobic.

john3078515 - thank you for your well written support of the Christian faith. As one of the worlds largest belief systems, you have to truly wonder (if you do not already believe) what it is all about.

Regardless of whether you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior or not, the literal truth of every part of the Bible can not be accepted. Some readers would even point out that there are internal inconsitencies, even in the Book of Genesis in the creation story in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

Creationism is attempting to put the Judeo-Christian version of the creation of the world as fact. It is government sponsored religion. Since our political system is NOT a theocracy, attempting to indoctrinate children in religious belief is not what a presidential candidate should be doing.

Perry would have been better off if he had answered that there he does believe in science and that when he becomes President, he will make it possible for all the business people who use science to better be able to improve the eocomy. He could have also gone on to say that he personally believes that God will be helping the United States to have a better economy, and that will allow persons of all faiths to have a better life in America. Instead, he just put his Texas boot in his mouth.

Since when does "believing in science" make someone xenophobic?

Since when did believing in God and Creationism automatically make it impossible for someone to believe in science?

As for our so called politicians, people comment they have not got a clue as to the needs of the typical American citizen, well in order to understand the needs of the people you actually have to be one of the people that means you came from meek means not a RICH family just the average Middle class and if you look at the politicians today are they an image of the middle class, the point is how can you understand something like having to make a choice between putting food on the table vereses gas in your car if you never had to make those hard choices yet these are the people We keep on electing and We wonder why they are bought and paid for, I guess looking in a mirror would give us all a clue .....

markmich

Why not??? We don't teach Religion in our school here, remember??? No respect for science and no respect for the truth. That about sums you up.

defender-of-logic. you should throw the "logic" part of your name out. you are playing the part of a defier of logic, or a denier of logic.

Religion is the first "science" in that it incorporates the original hypothesis of how human existence came into being thousands of years ago.

Um, no, picking up an old, dusty, unprovable, mythical cult book, and believing it, is not science. writing a cult book is also not science, nor is it forming a hypothesis. religion doesn't test or retest its doctrines, it lives by them and doesn't question them. the BuyBull is a great example. several examples in there of poorly suggested theories of how things work, that are absolute nonsense. but believers still defend them and twist the cult-book's words to make them seem plausible...

what you say about evolution is rather nonsensical, as well. there's a great site (on-line) that gives very good examples of what makes a scientific THEORY and a scientific LAW, and why people "think" a scientific theory cannot also be a fact (which, in most cases, a scientific THEORY is a fact). people don't understand that the application of the phrase THEORY in that context is not the same as the word "theory" commonly used in day-to-day communication. check this website out, titled: EVOLUTION is a FACT and a THEORY.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The person who wrote this didn't proof his own work for typos/small spelling errors (I know some good scientists who are horrible spellers...LOL) but, beyond those distractions, what the writer of this website puts out there is something EVERY layperson should read, before sticking both feet into their mouths, or better yet, before venturing out to the ulitmate Trip of Nonsense: a visit to the Creation Museum -- where the Flintstones becomes a Documentary in the brains of the Mindless, Indoctrinated BuyBull Morons.

Can you tell me once again where that little muddy pond, or as you so cleverly call it, primordial soup, is again?

New Jersey, near Tom's River. Been there.

Since when did believing in God and Creationism automatically make it impossible for someone to believe in science?

Good question. But what you state is a alive and well in this country! Cult belief seems to go hand-in-hand with a hatred for science. Either a veiled hatred, or a clear, outspoken hatred.

I celebrate Christmas how about you ? I bet that little boy likes it also

tim-2799493

New Jersey, near Tom's River. Been there.

Damn.

I was hoping it would be around here in Detroit, maybe by Belle-Isle.

Bernitch, So what your saying is that every Doctor, Scientist, Mathematician, Engineer or any other professional who's work is based on Science is either an atheist or agnostic or has some secret hatred for the profession that they have worked all their life to perfect?

Believing in God or religion is the same as a cult? So what your saying is that in History with civilizations like the Egyptians, Aztecs, Greeks, where we get the basics of most of our literature,math, science, physics from and we consider to be "Advanced Civilizations which all believed in God or Gods were all just nutty cults as well right?

Well, I suppose it's possible to believe in gods and science at the same time (although I can't understand how), but it's impossible to believe in both creationism and science.

Toasty, Why is it impossible to believe in creationism and science? I will give you one such example, and please it is just an example or a scientific explanation for one of the greatest mysteries in the bible. I am not trying to speculate on how this would have happened but just here me out. The Virgin Mary that gave birth to Jesus. Now we all know that this is an impossibility for a virgin to give birth. One explanation would be she simply lied and did have sex and kept really good secrets. Another would be by an advanced procedure for back then which is pretty widespread today. Artificial Insemination.

I know where you might go with that but I am not crazy just giving an example on how to explain something now that they could not explain then. Although you are correct that the first is the most possible explanation.

Because everything that we've learned in the biological sciences disproves the concept of creationism, David. It's really just as simple as that. Creationism is impossible, and thus is incompatible with science.

Now, I'm not sure what the virgin birth analogy was supposed to contribute to the topic. Virgin births are just as ridiculous as creationism. And like you said, we have factual explanations for what actually happened. In this case, Mary of Nazareth either lied about her sexual history or just never actually existed and is merely a fictional character.

David

Possible explanations, what could have happened, are the starting point for science inquiry. Science does not accept those ideas as plausible until proof is supplied. But to believe something just because it could have happened is a true lack of critical and rational thinking. If you believe in virgin birth you have decided that proof is not necessary to support your beliefs.

It's very sad that you have no idea who came up with the idea of virgin birth and why they decided to publish such a myth. You just believe it because it is in the Bible. I suggest you study the history of the compilation of the Bible. That should give you a healthy skepticism for its contents.

Scientific belief is an oxymoron.

What can you expect from Christian Apostolic Reformers, like Perry?

He believes that if he and his people secretly take over the government and everything else in the nation, and set up a theocratic rule as God has ordered him and his followers to do, that their holy reward for doing this, is that the Rapture will happen only to them as God said they are the chosen ones, and they will in the blink of an eye become immortal without dying, and will float up to heaven while leaving behind the majority of the nation that they used, to get them up there.

I recall there was this one technician that was hired in this business phone manufacturing company I used to work for (ROLM Corp.) -- he turned out to be a real, "Bible-thumper." During his break-times he seriously went around the plant, quoting scripture and condemning people in the department, to a, "damnation fire and brimstone hell."

He especially got intense in his condemnation of hard-core scientists and engineers working in this one R&D department. They didn't like him, and he didn't like them. So, on his lunch break after arguing with them yet again, he shot off this email to their group ...and that infamous email eventually got forwarded to almost everyone in the manufacturing plant: "As I rise up to heaven in the glorious Rapture I will thumb my nose at everyone on the ground, and I will f**king gloat with glee over the suffering and dumbfoundedness of you stupid damn unbelievers I'll leave behind. Especially you, Vincenci and your ass-sniffing sidekick Merrick, and your crew of liberal athiest lapdogs that believe in Satan's theory of Evilution..."

A few months later, he was fired from his job because he had earned too many formal complaints from other employees, about his "holier-than-thou," provocative attitude.

@ Toasty and Don, First of all I thought it was Liberals and Dems that were supposed to be the ones with open minds filled with creativity and ingenuity but obviously yall are not those type. So I am going to try my best to explain what my background in science has proven to me what may be possible in the future and what then might prove creationism to be possible and use Science to prove it.

Since it is apparent that you believe that evolution is the only realistic, scientific possibility and creationism is just a crazy theory,

1. Look up Artificial Intelligence. Right now it is just a computer that uses equations it has learned and applies them to future calculations. It is in it's early stages but is very much a highly technical specialized field in science. With the eventual goal of having a computer that can think, feel, critically think, manipulate objects and so forth.

2. Look up stem cell research and Artificial Organs. You will find that we have been able to actually grow complete organs. Now this tech is also very new and yet we are having breakthroughs like this already. Now if we can grow organs why not organ systems and then why not complete beings. Then why not figure out a way to combine the being with the A.I. to have a completely artificial self reliant being that can learn and evolve with its environment. Now these techs are relatively new and a complete being like that is probably decades if not centuries off in the future but with a science background it has been proven to be possible.

3. Look up Terraforming. Its taking an existing planet and introducing certain bacteria or something like that that would create a rich environment for the existence of life. Once again relatively new but scientifically possible.

4. Now it all depends on what you believe, and if you do believe in science like I know yall do think about this. The Universe is about 14 billion years old. Now with the Trillions upon Trillions of stars out there which would mean that there would be many more planets that exist. Do you believe that we were the first to evolve? Science would suggest that and statistics would agree that we would probably not be the first. Just the numbers alone suggest it is possible. Now in that case is it not possible that those beings came upon the same tech that we have and existed long enough to perfect it and eventually use it.

5. Astronomy would tell us that meteors happen and life ending events happen and have happened in the past many times on this planet alone. Now with an advanced species would it not make sense to have a contingency plan for this occurrence which every astronomer will say with a hundred percent certainty this is not an if but a when.

6. Now lets talk about things that are said in the Bible. The great flood for example, it is being proven that the end of the last ice age coincides with the time line for the flood. Our species likes to live next the water and at this time just think about the many civilizations that would have flooded by rising waters from melting ice.

Sodom and Gomorrah - which some archeologist have recently (possibly) discovered and with layers of volcanic ash completely covering it suggesting that the cities were destroyed by a volcanic eruption in much the same way as Pompeii

Now I know that these are just two things out of the bible that if we look at it and think logically and scientifically would make sense with the natural environment of our world.

As far as I go I do believe in God and I do believe in science and I am fascinated by both and especially the way that it is possible that they both are very real. Now as far as the bible goes it was written down by human beings and has been translated a million different times and in some case complete parts are left out and rewritten to help some of the Popes of the dark ages to gain and keep their control or power. What I do believe is that the bible gives you a general guide on how to treat your neighbor and how to respect each other and help each other and how to live a fruitful and truly happy life. Now some people go over board and would heckle someone about their non believe but that is not what the bible teaches. It says let he who is without sin cast the first stone. In my believe their has only been one perfect person and he was Jesus so in essence we should not judge because we are not and will never be in a place to judge someone else. Basically live by the golden rule!!!!

I understand if you think I may be a little looney with the scientific thoughts from above but please look it up yourself. That is how I believe that both Creationism and Evolution can coexist.

David, the flood = ice-age-end doesn't work. We have trees older than that 2400 BC era -- in fact, they go back to 2800+ BC. We even have cities that existed before, during and after that period (much of Egypt, much of the Middle-East and so on).

If the flood wasn't global, if it didn't kill everyone then the bible story regarding the flood is just rubbish.

Chirmly out of that entire thing you focus on the flood????? The fact is that the great flood is a story that is not just in the bible and quaran, hindu, ancient china, and greek mythology, but your right they contribute it to a sunami of some sort. My bad I was getting different things confused its pretty late!

But it is pretty amazing that in that entire paragraph you find the one thing I messed up on. Good for you congrats. Now go prove me wrong about a great flood existing in pretty much every ancient history civilization. And that they contribute it to a sunami. Good luck.

David: First of all I thought it was Liberals and Dems that were supposed to be the ones with open minds filled with creativity and ingenuity but obviously yall are not those type.

oh, jesus h nipple... liberals aren't open-minded now, because they won't embrace your silly goddam mythology? What's next...accusing liberals/dems of being intolerant if they don't admit that Hogwarts might exist (just invisibile unless you're a witch) somewhere in the UK?

David: First of all I thought it was Liberals and Dems that were supposed to be the ones with open minds filled with creativity and ingenuity but obviously yall are not those type.

oh, jesus h nipple... liberals aren't open-minded now, because they won't embrace your silly goddam mythology? What's next...accusing liberals/dems of being intolerant if they don't admit that Hogwarts might exist (just invisibile unless you're a witch) somewhere in the UK?

@markmich

I stopped reading anything you posted, the moment you made a point to capitalize Obama's middle name. That right there tells everyone that you could care less about the reality or the truth of something, all that matters is your agenda.

Chris from Yucaipa, thank you. Thinking conservatives just despise people like markmich pretending to be either libertarian, or republican, or conservative. They are none of these and just are a bunch of self-serving, angry without thinking, loudmouths. The biggest tool that would help them is repeated looking at themselves in a mirror.

I think this is a brilliant answer. Perry DID NOT mess with the child's lessons from his parents.

That is ALWAYS the best answer.

silly mythology is never the best answer

Karen in Los Angeles

Parents sometimes tell their children the moon is made of cheese. Is this a competing theory? Should schools not "mess with" those gems of knowledge handed down by parent? Parents do their children a major disservice when they tell them to accept important knowledge based not on evidence, but faith.

The greatest impediment to children learning about the Theory of Evolution, one of the most important scientific advances in history, is the Creation myth. Creation is not a competing theory. Creation is not an alternative view. Creation is fiction. There is absolutely no evidence for creation while the Theory of Evolution is backed by over 150 years of research, observation and fact-finding. Parents should support learning and, especially, critical and rational thinking. Blind faith in Creationism is not rational and does not survive in the presence of critical thinking. Religion and interfering, science-ignorant parents should not stand in the way of children's chances at a reasonable, well-rounded education.

I totally reject any notion that a "believer" dose not believe in science:

Belief: God created out of nothing ie: man makes... God creates.

Fact: something must come from something. 1st rule of Thermodynamics Energy is neither created nor destroyed but changes states. I firmly believe both of these they do not oppose each other but compliment each other:

Belief: God Created man in his own image and gave him Earth as his habitation "Be fruitful and multiply"

Fact: Despite evolutionary evidence the elusive "missing link" seems to be getting closer... One thing is for sure the appearance of Homosapien i exceeded all other species and either crowded them out, hunted them out and "man" became the dominant species in the earth.

The first part of this "fact" is what science is saying TODAY and the second is the "popular" theory again... the two compliment they are not at odds... I'm not a believer in "evolution" adaptation is more realistic but "humans" are and admitted by the science/anthropological community, is a "surprisingly' dominant species. Our eyesight is average, hearing is average our agility and dexterity among species is just a little above average and if brain "size" is a indicator of potential intelligence we are one of the "dumbest" on the planet. Science is at a lost to explain the "suspension" of evolution in all species except humans... we continue to "evolve" (thought, lifespan, even height) while other species continue to adapt without no noticeable diferences (I am fully aware that on "tenant" of evolution is that changes cannot be measured in "short" time spans).

Belief: Jesus rose from the dead:

Fact: Through numerous scientific studies this is possible... but of course Jesus did more than just come back to life.

He dramatically changed the whole world... a "Fake" "archaic" "opium for the masses" "debunked" "no scientific basis" of a "man created" religion could sweep the world and continues to shape debate 2000 years hence. MMmmm I believe in gravity and the science behind it, as well as flight, atoms, DNA, physics, quantum mechanics, Mathematical principles... what in science I don't believe.... evolution as regarding mankind. AND I believe in God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit. If its fake... what do you have to Fear? If He's real then you cannot prevail against it... I leave you with a scripture:

Act 5:30-39 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (31) Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (33) When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. (34) Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; (35) And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. (36) For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. (37) After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. (38) And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: (39) But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Flame

I think that it is possible that a "believer" can believe in science. Faith must begin where science ends, though, and to reject that which is observable and proven is irrational. I also think that you have very little science knowledge and your comment is mostly from the twilight zone.

don with the number

You obviously don't have kids. ALL parents decide what their kids learn.

The parents even decide what is taught in school.

Perry gave a BRILLIANT answer.

I do not believe in creationism. I'm not even certain I agree with Darwin.

I don't really care how we got here. It's never been a burning question to me.

However, I do want to know who wins Project Runway.

Karen

Parents do great damage to their kids' intellectual development when they insist that they accept these myths as truth which, by necessity, requires that they reject scientifically verified theories and facts. For your information I am not only a parent, I am a former science teacher who taught children about the geological time line ..... children in many cases who had been indoctrinated by myth. The fact that you do not care where we came from does not mean that it is not important to know. Why would your interests be the measure to be used for our public school curricula?

karen the bigot: ALL parents decide what their kids learn.

True, but many of them make horrible decisions and do a great deal of damage to their kids. That is what don is saying. They are idiots who inculcate stupid mythology into their kids' heads. Pay attention. Now, go back to trying to set fire to a gay-person's house someplace.

@jon err "twilight zone' those really are the current scientific studies... research them your self and tell me where I have erred.

I'll let others more versed in scientific theory fight the evolution vs. Ginnungagap (I dig Norse mythology.) My personal favorite semi-related comment in the above thread is 1.104 where we get rid of all of the unnecessary classes and turn what should be a broad educational foundation into a trade-school system. I think if given the oppertunity to go through such an educational system, I would have picked shoe cobbler. Of course if we didn't have any foundation in science theory, or calculus based mathmatics (who needs that stuff right? right?) then going on to higher education in such fields would be a bit problematic. But hey, limiting your options from the get-go is a good thing.

On a side side not, the poster's reference to having the government demanding taxes directly of him must have meant he was being paid in cash for whatever his 18 year old profession was. Certainly when I was 18 the company I worked for set such things up and, given the fact that I didn't make enough as an 18 year old worker, my tax burden was an EZ form followed by a rebate check. Oh noes!

Flame

You are wrong. Those are not scientific studies, but they are a waste of time. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for resurrection and the Theory of Evolution is established science.

92% of Americans believe in God, so if Perry believes in God 92% of the people have some degree of connection with him. Evolution & Intelligent Design are theories (key word theories), and that in spite of billions of dollars being spent by the NEA & and other progressives trying to intimidate the youth to believe otherwise. Yet, 40% of Americans believe in strict Intelligent Design (Creationism), while 16% believe in strict evolution. Again, Perry’s beliefs line up with more Americans than those who have a different view than he does.

Brabon, you need to understand that in Science, "theory" has a different meaning than what the general population regards. To the lay person, a theory is little more than an "educated guess", but in science, theory has a more precise definition - see dictionary.com. The next thing you need to understand is that with regard to God, science is agnostic, thus subscribing to the theory of evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive. In the scientific context, Intelligent Design does not rise to the level of a theory because there is no evidence to support any of its precepts but there is a mountain of evidence that shoots it down. They is why you haven't seen any Intelligent Design articles/papers presented in any scientific journals. Finally, Intelligent Design and Creationism although related, with regard to their ASSertions regarding evolution, creationism encompasses much more B.S. For example, creationsim asserts that the age of the universe and the world is only 6000 years old. Creationism was shoot down so utterly and completely that the right wing lunatic fringe had to retreat and dream up something else: Intelligent Design, which is really an oxymoron.

@Paul (MI)

Oh please! You're just upset that I know more about your crappy little fairy-tale bible then you and 99.99999% of your brainwashed bible-thumping friends...

You neither mention nor defend against either point that I raised...because either you're ignorant of the facts or just don't have the brainpower to form a rational response...

brabon. if every person in this country walked through the idiotic Creation Museum, and 55% of all our population, or 65% or 75%, started to believe in The Flintstones - A Documentary -- it still wouldn't matter. They'd all be idiots. The majority rules thing DOESN'T make anything correct. Our American Majority has made some goddam stupid decisions in the past. Trying to ban interracial marriage comes to mind (which was a desire of the American Majority at one time) -- it was wrong and stupid then, and it still is! And guess what the driving force was behind THAT nonsense -- yep! You guessed it -- a bunch of goddam right-wing BuyBull thumpers!

This is why they call this a "vine," it grows in many directions.

There was once a difference between theory and fact. Pure Socratic Scientific Method is Dead. In short, give me any hypothesis and I can prove it any way you want; either true or false, or anything in between. First, I must be paid up front for my "research."

O'Keefe's Health Care Compact is a nice theory, but, as Rick Perry should know, unless Congress consents to it, it is not a LAW, and is unconstitutional.

Yet another attempt by Tea Baggers to overthrow the government through unconstitutional means.

First to John A in post 1.4 And people think this arrogant, ignorant clown has a chance of running this nation? Be careful, if you remember Bush was elected, and he was an ignorant and arrogant clown. but all kidding aside I'm an independent, and what really scares the hell out of me is no one that's running is really capable of running the country, you have republicans and tea baggers that have no idea what the meaning of the word compromise is, and would rather see the nation default, and you have the democrats that just keep spending us into oblivion. all the politicians care about is positioning themselves, and could care less about the job for which they were elected and that is to run this country. now we got guys like perry who say one thing but if you look at his record you see something else, you got Bachmann that says she can turn this economy around in just a few months, and now she tells a group in either S. Carolina or N. Carolina that she will bring back $2.00 a gallon gasoline during her presidency. man is she delusional. first even if they started drilling more offshore and in anwar, it would take years before that oil hit the market, and second the price of oil and gas as we all know is controlled by the speculators. then you got Romney who passes health care in his state, but now slams obama for doing health care. and then you got obama, and I don't think I need to say anymore about that, other than he is in way over his head. it's truly a really scary time for this country, until we take back our government from all the lawyers and lobbyists and truly make it a government for the people and by the people, I think we are screwed as a nation.

James D. - I guess Michelle Bachman is going to put the oil speculators out of business in the US markets (the largest commodoties markets in the world.) That would drive the price of oil down, by at least 30%.

dirp that made my day lol

james d: and you have the democrats that just keep spending us into oblivion.

nice argument, james, but if you look carefully, you'll note that spending sharply increases when the republicans aer in charge. Bush-2 and the Reagan/Bush-1 years are great examples of that, and great examples of how the GOP-talking-point of "smaller government" is a laugh and a fallacy when the Right talks about it. They simply justify it by telling you that it's ok, because their spending is on things like wars and tanks and bombs and the military and all that John Wayne crap. When it's spent on people here at home, rather than blowing the crap out of dark-skinned savages somewhere in a distant, dusty, overseas location, it becomes wasteful entitlement-money for "lazy people" because the partisan hackery of such statements gains yards around election time.

Wow...creepy.

At least he didn't blow him kisses & *wink wink*!

BLECH!

At least he didn't blow him kisses & *wink wink*!

...that we know of. Need a fuller report maybe.

At least he didn't blow him kisses & *wink wink*!

As far as we know.

The mother should have told him to take his slimy paws off of her son.

What a creep.

The mother should have told him to take his slimy paws off of her son.

You better believe I would of!

Why does a religious freak find it acceptable to cop a feel off a kid?

Last time I checked Perry wasn't Catholic!

Not as stupid as yo uthink

At least he didn't blow him kisses & *wink wink*!

...that we know of. Need a fuller report maybe.

Alrighty,

Here it is:

Texas Governor's Gay Sex Scandal Covered in Austin paper, the First Non-Internet Media Outlet to Report On It.

[snip]

Perry is going around condemning gays and signing laws against them in public while possibly doing something different in private

There is a court transcript or statement of facts in the Texas Court of Appeals that contains sworn testimony that former Waco Rep. Lane Denton had an encounter himself with Perry.

http://www.opednews.com/thoreau022704_texas_governor.htm

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe that's why Perry blew a kiss to Romney. Just wait until the media gets a load of this and passes it along.

LOL! The left will stop a nothing with their lies. Bev, you will never see this in the MSM because it is some loony-lefty's fabrication.

The funny part is that some of you loons will actually believe it. 8-P

Wait until they find out that Obamam is really a white-guy in black face! Hahahahahah!

Well you may not like Obama SOTP, but God created him just the way he wanted him and made him POTUS, it seems as if it is Gods will.

Sick: I think you're going to need a new moniker.

Hey AP... Google SARCASM or IRONY

(dork)

Hey Sick: Google common sense

This mother couldn't asked the questions directly herself? I can just see the kid's reaction when he gets older:

"Thanks so much, Mom, for using me for publicly visible political ploy 15 years ago."

Grow up Steve: no one and nothing is going to excuse this walking idiot of a Governor who thinks he's running for preacher in chief. This candidate is the best thing to come along for the White House since Bin Laden sent one too many text messages.

For the sake of the children of America! You all want to call Perry out as being a pedophile? My guess is that you don't think twice about the real ones across our nation who destroy the souls of too many children daily. What have you done to put a stop to them? Have you emailed your state legislators to increase the penalties from a few years in jail to life? In some states a rare punishment is castration. However, this solves only a part of the problem. These are acts of violence and that is not dealt with. These creatures are soon back on the streets repeating in a more violent way; eventually what is so commonly called, "sexual assault," leads to murder. Are you aware that one in four girls/young women have been sexually abused in our country? This is no joke. Generally, people only react when it hits close to home. As in, " I have plenty of food on my table, who cares about hungry kids in America?" The very least, you may want to consider giving a dollar to a group like Focus Adolescent Services. They have been fighting the fight to save the children in our nation for two decades. There are others. I hope it does not come near any of your children. Have you checked the so-called "Registry?" Not all of the creatures are listed, but it is a start.

Well said Mr. Cool!

These idiots would rather protect the REAL pedophiles and tell us to be tolerant of them.

(Bass-Ackwards they are!)

When you combine the MSM's microscope and Governor Perry's "um, spontaneity" How long can he possibly last?

There should be a pool...

I think it's cute the way some simpletons like Perry claim that the reason evolution should be rejected is because there are holes in the theory. One thing I've noticed about the faithful is they're always in a rush to fill in the holes of our collective knowledge with comforting claptrap, whereas a more scientific mind is content to acknowledge that which we don't know, and don't rush to fill in the blanks. 3,000 years ago we couldn't figure out why the sun transited across the sky from east to west every single day. The faithful of that era rushed to explain it by attributing it to a god flying a flaming chariot. Obviously the faithful were wrong even though no one was around to refute them at the time.

It is no different with evolution/creationism, or the big bang, or homosexuality, or...or...

The faithful feel all smug when the scientific community can't provide an answer to current holes in our collective knowledge. What they feel to realize is that the scientific community won't rush to conclusions until the facts support them, while the faithful fill in the holes with whatever brings them comfort. The fact that the scientific community is willing to accept that which we can't answer yet rather than rush to members-only feelgoodery is why they will win the day. When? I don't know and I'm content to not know, which is far better than pretending I do know. That's a lesson the faithful could do well to learn.

@Berry... except for Global warming... but your not alone... many of the "favored" post could be summed up as "Faith based Anything" has no place in the Classroom or Creationism (intelligent design) should only be taught in private schools or parochial or church.. not public school. I think that is the gist. I kindof don't want to get into the Theology of this but I do want to ask a question... When did America "restrict" knowledge available in public school... It is OK to teach Homosexuality as a "fact of life" without ANY opposing view... but it is not ok to teach that evolution is a theory of ongoing study and the competing view is XYZ.... Oh I see.. don't teach the competing view in public school.. just the facts 1+1 is 2... except when you proof it with "unreal" numbers...

Let me remind all You can not show me any country that DOES NOT have religious tenants taught in their schools. I do understand the danger of letting one trump the other but I do not understand of "Shielding" our children from "certain" information. Every "liberal" post I read assume one thing... "We are thinkers.. We deal in Facts... Unfounded theories.. (ie the Bible... etc.) need ONLY be taught in private schools (which few can afford) Religious School... (Not every one believes the same). You talk about freedoms... being behind globally yet America is the ONLY country to NOT ALLOW Creationism to be taught in Public school?... not as a fact just a THEORY

Definition; THEORY:

1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

To put it simply my over educated, liberal friends... A theory does not have to be based ONLY on facts it can be ALSO based on principles or system of ideas.

That was strait from the Google's first listing... They embolden the word. Perry had the good sense to include both THEORIES in the text books... While you guys want just the version you ascribe to. I would vehemently oppose just teaching Intelligent design without discussing Evolution. (Even in church Evolution is at-least addressed if not agreed with.) I now believe that the liberal view is the most narrow minded , exclusionary view that I ever seen... it borders on racism... It is wrong to judge someone on the color of skin but it is perfectly ok to judge someone on a religious belief... as a matter of fact.. villafy all you want. Well it is a FREE country.... still?

Excuse the length... I'll close with this: This Country... OUR country was founded on RELIGIOUS ideas... the early settlers was fleeing RELIGIOUS persecution... The first text books was Bibles... The IVY league school trained ministers and missionaries... I 'm not saying the Country should be run by the church... not saying that we need to setup "pulpits" in public schools. We should not ever restrict knowledge because it is "unpopular". It was THAT the settlers was running from.

[At least he didn't blow him kisses & *wink wink*!}

I wonder if Perry thought about pulling a Putin:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1760111n

This Country... OUR country was founded on RELIGIOUS ideas

No, not really. The founders were generally religious but the country was explicitly NOT founded on Religious ideas.

As for Evolution being just a theory, that is exactly how it is taught. So is gravity.

@Beverly-you evidently have a severe reading disability-the article clearly states they found no evidence to substantiate the rumors

King said he looked into the Perry rumors when they first surfaced some weeks ago and "found no evidence of any truth to any of them, whatsoever." He lamented that "nobody will go on the record." Did anyone involved in the story "go on the record" when everyone from Saturday Night Live to Reuters published the alleged affair rumor against John Kerry a few weeks ago? No, but of course, Kerry is a Democrat so the media and people in general believe the myth that Democrats are more likely to have extramarital affairs than Republicans.

King had this comment from Perry spokesperson Kathy Walt: "These are false, malicious, and hurtful rumors, and the Chronicle's own investigation acknowledges that fact."

King also wrote that "numerous other reporters, from here to New York, have looked into the rumors, with, as far as we know, an identical lack of results. Nor do we expect anything we say here to have any effect on the rumors, which have become entirely self-replicating as they echo through the blogosphere."

Excuse me AP-1414066, did I say anything about Perry's position on the issue, one way or the other? No, I didn't!! At the moment, I was so appalled by what the mother did, I didn't even bother to evaluate Perry's response!

All I was indicating was that the mother could have and should have asked the questions herself. She has the right to her opinion, and the right to ask the questions, but using her child in the manner that she did was totally inappropriate. Perry, likewise should have addressed his answers directly to her, and he should have kept his hands to himself.

In the future you might want to present your direct comments to specific individuals in a more civil manner. I can understand someone reacting to another person's negative characterizations by retaliating in kind. But, some of the Newsvine moderators scrutinize insulting remarks like yours very closely anyway.

his only reference is Texas, he knows nothing else. He has never worked but Government jobs in his life after his cheerleader days at Texas A&M

"Just the facts ma'am"

Not really but who's checking. Texas's text books, now that's scandalous!

Since, when do mortals get to validate the immortal?

No one needs another person to give them "instructions or information" from an Omniscient, and Omnipotent entity.

If "god" has information to impart, it surely wouldn't use imbeciles to deliver the info. It's all Ludicrous!

Rick Perry barely got through Texas A&M, so please spare me his "enlightening" of anyone!

Perry is just like Bush Jr., if the book didn't have pictures inside to color in, then he would never open it. I guess that's watcher call well-red in Tex-arse.

You would know about those wouldn't you Bob, admit it!!!

devie -

Apparently O'Donnell's still having a bit of trouble with those "tough" questions herself:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44182931/ns/today-entertainment/?gt1=43001

When asked why she's skirting the topic, O'Donnell responded, "I don't think it's relevant. It's not a topic that I chose to embrace, it's not what I'm championing right now -- I've been there, done that, gone down that road."

Thanks for the link JoAnne. I needed a good laugh today. I liked the way she tried to control the interview and portray Morgan as being out of line or in her words "rude".

Sorry Ms. O'Donnell but next time you agree to an interview, that is not on Fox, come prepared to answer questions especially the ones you don't want to. It's called being an adult.

I thought the TEA Party was about being straight forward and forthright. Well at least that's my understanding. "Fool me twice can't get fooled again."

That must be the problem, devie---no one told Ms. O'Donell that she wasn't on Fox and that if she wanted to plug her book (imagine who would buy that?), she had to answer whatever questions they asked.

See Christine run, run Christine run, run run run, her book was a quick read, although all the pop ups were distracting.

Oh, Forest, if only she would.....until I saw this video, I'd forgotten just how much I missed her antics.

Devie,

Ahhh, the "fool me" moment. Perhaps the best Bushism of all time.

Right out of Karl's Play Book. Stick to the script no matter what. Here we go again. Next up townhall meetings with only like mind nut jobs allowed.

HH...

With these left-wing loons it's all about hype and sensationalism. That kid will get a lot more hype from the media than his 'mother' ever could. And THAT is what matters!

What's odd about it? And I missed the part in the article saying she was pushing anybody, but hyperbole is always great...it says HE crouched down in front of the kid, but feel free to make up whatever you want to. This impacts the CHILD directly, but that kind of thing probably escapes both of you. He also had absolutely no business putting his hands on the child, but I'm sure you can rationalize that as well. Neither of you would have any problem at all with some stranger grabbing your kid, right?

WOW! You really are a left wing nut job! Now putting your hand on a kid's shoulder as you speak to him/her makes you some kind of a pervert! GO FIGURE!

@SickOfTheBickering

With these left-wing loons it's all about hype and sensationalism.

With these right wing loons it's all about competing to be dumbest person. Most Repuglicans want the government to give more money to the richest 2% while cutting benefits to the remaining 98%. Let's say Repuglicans are 50% of the US population. Than means that those 2% have convinced the 48% of US population to cut their own benefits and give that money to those 2%.

And when those Teabaggers are out fighting for those Millionaires, those Millionaires are in their lavish offices making more money.

@SickOfTheBickering

With these left-wing loons it's all about hype and sensationalism

How dare you call Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman left-wing loons?

Again with the EVIL MILLIONAIRES?

REALLY?

I sure hope you never get rich. I wouldn't want everyone to hate you and take everything you have.

(BTW... forget the 'American Dream' of seeking success. New America says we all get the same... so no need to strive for success... the government will just give it to someone else anyway.)

dasvidaniya comrade.

Oh, the hysterical fear that liberals will "take everything you have"! I am not rich and yet I wouldn't mind dialing back to Clinton era taxes if it helps dig us out of the hole we're in. I don't think I'll stop striving for that American Dream either - achieving success means that I can give back to the community/country that made it possible for me. Funny how the people that benefited the most from Bush Tax Cuts (hint: it's not the lower/middle class I'm talking about) are the ones that squeal the most about paying a few more cents on the dollar.

SOTB- did you see the Gallup "stand alone" poll this morning?

Did you read down to the breakdown on Obama's approval rating on the economy? Overall, it is 26% approval. However, 53% of Democrats approve of his handling of the economy- and a shocking 60% approve of his job creation.

You think you can reason with these people on any subject?

Hey, Sick, he did not put his hand on the boy's shoulder:

Putting both hands on the outside of the boy's shoulders, Perry, not acknowledging the mother says, "...because I figured you're smart enough to figure out which one is right.

And I did not say anything about anybody being a pervert, either. As a father, I would not want people grabbing my kids, but I guess I'm weird that way. Yeah, we lefties are the ones that twist things around.

If you can't come up with better responses, why not just go troll on the Highlights for Children site?

Well NJ maybe they can distinguish between what the president wants to do and has tried to implement and the situation as it is. There is a little thing between the presidents handling and what gets legislated called the Congress, care to check their poll numbers. I would add that two republicans recall elections and the democrats did not lose theirs, so what does that indicate about who is taking the blame for the economy?

NoJoe: did you see where Republicans rank? 18% and falling. Do you think you can reason with these people on any subject except creationism (not creation of jobs, just the theocracy creationism).

Nice deflections from those not defending Governor Perry's stance, or creationism...bravo!

Leftwingnutjob-

I'm sure you're sickened then by Obama who can't keep his hands off women and children, right?

Don't be such an ignorant ass.

Gee larry, I think you're on the wrong thread or something....

To be honest, it's a horrible answer. It plays people emotions and beliefs against actual hard data. At an emotional level, it's like saying if you "believe" in black holes a bunny will die.

you have to admit that was a good answer

uh, no you don't.

That's the answer George W. Bush used to give "teach both creationism and evolution and let the kid decide." The problem is, creationism isn't a competing theory in the scientific community. Creationism is a religious belief. You can't teach both to a child and ask the kid to "decide" which to believe, unless you also want to teach reincarnation, for example, and ask the kid if he wants to believe in that.

Evolution is a theory, it's subject to change, to experimentation and discoveries, it's not static like a religious belief, in other words, it belongs in a science class, and creationism belongs in church. (But not my church, BTW.)

No Amy... THAT is the problem with this country today. We act like we need to give EVERYONE equal air-time on all issues.

In case you haven't noticed... we live in a predominantly CHRISTIAN society. If you want to learn about reincarnation... go to India. They teach that there. Or take a little time to research it at the school's library. But don't expect us to give equal air-time to something that a fraction of a percentage of our population believes. If we did that we would NEVER get to anything else. I'd be willing to bet that the schools in the middle east are teaching Islamic stories. (and that's ok since that is what the majority of their people believe in.) What is great about our country is that we protect your right to believe in reincarnation.

Personally... I am an evolution guy. I enjoy the story of creation and I have made a point of teaching both theories to my kids. I also wonder why the two theories are in such conflict with each other. Evolution may be a fact... but where did the first creature come from? you know... the one that we all evolved from. If it was a single cell creature how did it get there? Some chemical reaction... perhaps. But it may also be that a greater being put the right pieces in place for it all to happen. And if that brings me (or anyone else) a little comfort... why should anyone else care?

It was a horrific answer. You want kids to make up answers based on what feels right? Isn't that what home schooling for religious dark age types is for?

Well hell why not offer your kids ice cream and vegetables and let them decide, why not offer them video games and homework and let them decide, why not offer them abstinance and condoms and let them decide, why not offer them straight sex and gay sex and let them decide, why not offer them Muslim and Christianity and let them decide. What a riduculus answer. Hey why not offer billionares like Warren Buffet taxes or no taxes and let them decide right NJ and Joey.

Theory of evolution belongs in a science class. The story of Intelligent design belongs in Fairy Tale class (if there is one).

Exactly, teach evolution in public school science class, teach whatever you want in Sunday school.

love 'em or hate 'em, you have to admit that was a good answer.

After watching the video I would say it was a standard pat answer he used to brush off the kid and his mother.

God forbid we teach children to think critically and reason their way to their own conclusions, right? Why that would be a tragedy of epic proportions! Science can't fill in all the blanks in evolution any more than religion can in intelligent design. I've never been able to see what the harm is in teaching either or both theories and letting kids explore the ideas for themselves. Its sort of like the age old chicken or egg argument. There is no right answer but there is extreme value in presenting both sides of story and letting kids reason it out.

Well then present them with the Hindu version of world creation along with all the other religious stories and let them decide. Hey you could teach faith healing in medical school and let your doctor decide, you can teach praying that the damn car will start in mechanics school and let them decide!

Thank you Suzy! And well said!

-----------------------------------------------------------

BTW Forrest... what an asinine response you gave. How smug and self consumed can you possible be. Typical liberal!

Really I am the one who is smug and self consumed. I am not the one arguing that my particular religious beliefs be taught in the public school system as science, it does not get much more self consumed and smug in your thinking than that now does it. Do you also want teach that you can feed the masses with three fish and three loaves will that be taught in science class or in the home economics class.

Grump, actually, one of the best classes I took in college was a theology class that gave us a smattering of many different world religions. Yes, it was a Catholic college so there was no fear in presenting faith based theory, but more to the point, it allowed me a chance to examine what I was raised with vs what else is out there. It's called critical thinking and I think many would agree, we are sorely lacking in that category.

Quite frankly, the theory of evolution was only developed because someone thought beyond intelligent design, right? So, in fact, that horrific religious theory you want to eliminate was the origin of the theory you want to embrace. It's only by embracing all theories as possible that we've achieved any advancement in society. This isn't about teaching kids about a specific god, it's about presenting all possible information and encouraging them to form a reasoned argument based on what they've been given and to use that information to learn something new. All scientific theory requires some leaps of faith- we don't know why gravity exists but we know that it does. We don't know why the first cancer cell developed but we know it did. We can speculate all we want but it doesn't mean we'll ever get an answer. Instead, we use the knowledge and skills we've gained through critical analysis to find ways to overcome what we don't know.

Yes theology belongs in theology class not in science class! Public Schools are not supposed to be affiliated with any particular theology. I went to Catholic Schools all my life however science and religion were two different classes.

@SickOfTheBickering You see though I don't agree with the (evolution) stance you hit the nail on the head. Why are so many afraid of "competing" point of view taught in school (public or private). I thought that what liberals were for? "No Knowledge restricted"... "Open information" (as long as "we" approve) Let the student, parents help the child "sort it out". If they can now teach Homosexual history (recently approved in California) they can also teach evolution AND Creationism.. with out fear. err This IS still America.... isn't it?

Flame - First Creationism isn't science. In science all parts of the theory has to be able to be emprirically provable. God cannot be proven nor disproven, so God cannot be a cause. This means that Creationism cannot be taught as true science, so maybe in a comparative religions class. This means the Christian creation beliefs will be compared to all of the other religions. For Christians, this is the problem, they believe that Christianity is the only religion and they can't handle competition.

I thought that what liberals were for?

No, liberals are NOT for teaching mythological cultism as "factual" information. Which is what you are trying to pass off. And why should it be YOUR cultism passed off as fact? Why not support teaching the islam mythology, or the norse mythology, or the american indian mythos, as your "facts" -- NONE of the cults have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that their cult claims are true. So, no -- liberals are NOT in favor of promoting your myths and cultism as facts. Sorry!

Teach your myths and crap in your cult buildings on the weekends. Brainwash your kids at home. Leave the public schools alone.

It's that "gotcha journalism" from the kid!

This is a serious issue. Gov. Perry apparently believes that you set out two ideas and let students choose between them, cafeteria style. However, the "choices" served are decided by the Texas schoolbook/curriculum committee and are voted on. Thomas Jefferson got dropped as a founding father because "someone" complained about his writings on religion. The word "free market" was supposed to replace the word "capitalism" because "someone" thought capitalism was a tainted word. If the choices set forth are already biased, and students are smart enough to choose between them, what's the need of school in the first place?

According to Perry evolution is only a theory. Interesting that electrical energy transmission is based on a theory, but evolution can't be true because its a theory. These nut jobs are applying for the most difficult task in American society, yet they will refute anything that does not tie in with their ideology, that's the reason they pander to the religious right, because if you believe that there is a man in the sky controlling everything, then you'll believe whatever crap the creepublicans are spewing. Global warming is a theory according to Perry, hell he'd put the Love Canal in your backyard and tell you that your getting sick was God's way of telling you something, not that its the effect of the toxic waste the rich cat industrialists insist on being deregulated from not dumping on you.

katie,

you are one sharp cookie. I didn't think of that.

Kate -

I agree, it's a very serious issue, and I like your description of it as "cafeteria style" education. This is particularly an issue with elementary age kids who are easily confused by conflicting points of view. It's interesting that a candidate like Perry who wants "big government" to stay out of our lives so much would actually advocate that the government - in this case, the Texas Board of Education - interfere with parents' rights to teach their children their own religious beliefs.

JoAnne: Gravity is a theory too. Let's see American school kids "pick" whether they believe in that one. And the world laughs at the idiocy that is American fundamentalism....

AP -

And American fundamentalists can't figure out why the rest of the world is leaving us in their dust in education, too. While we're busy arguing about whether or not English should be our official language - and cutting school programs that teach other ones - school kids in many other countries speak two or three different languages fluently and many speak better English than we do. Of course, that's probably just a "theory" too - but it was one firmly held by one of my Spanish professors in college who was trying to warn us about the competition we'd face for jobs in the global economy some day after just four years of college language classes. And that was almost 40 years ago......

Lets face it the average American teenager if you throw a quarter on the counter after they have already pushed the cash register buttons can't count your change back. They stand there staring at you like an Amish person at Circuit City.

Forrest Grump,

They stand there staring at you like an Amish person at Circuit City.

Good analogy.

AP-1414066

Gravity is just a theory and there is proof that it does not apply everywhere. We all know that Texas sucks.

But they never leave, they are afraid they will fall off the edge!

LOL!!

Rick, texas,

From U.S. News and World Report's National Universities Rankings and Best High Schools: State by State Statistics.

Texas's high schools rank slightly below average in 27th place, behind those in all other states with technology centers including (in order of rank) Massachusetts, California and Virginia (all first-tier), and New Jersey, New York, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, North Carolina and New Mexico.

States having above-average high schools voted Democratic 64% and Republican 24%; states having below-average high schools voted Republican 78% and voted Democratic 22%.

Just saying.

Rick, when you count to come up with "six figure salary", you are not supposed to include the numbers to the right of the decimal point. But I'm ignorant that way...I live in Illinois.

Hey vwterry...

Maybe that has something to do with the make-up of the students. How many kids do you suppose those educationally superior states have that don't speak english as their primary language?

I'll bet Texas has a LOT of them. Do you (in your intellectually superiority) think that may be a factor in the success of those students?

Just saying... (Oh and by the way... where did Illinois fit into that ranking? Just asking becasue Illiniois voters tend to pick democrats too.)

Just a note... I am from Illinois too :-)

Suppsedly educationally superior? Texas has the fewest HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES of any state in the union. Seriously? You think kids who don't speak English as their first language can't graduate from high school? Open your eyes. What the hell are you defending?

Sick, I didn't compile these statistics, so your snarky and misspelled comment about my "intellectually superiority" is meaningless.

California (39.5 percent), New Mexico (36.5 percent), and Texas (31.2 percent) had the highest percentages of residents who did not speak English at home, but the greatest increase during the decade occurred in states that experienced explosive Hispanic immigration: Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina.

In Massachusetts, 18.7 percent of the state's nearly 6 million people 5 and older, speak a foreign language at home

More than 60 percent of English language learners are in six states: Arizona, California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. Between 1995 and 2005, seven states had a 300 percent increase in English language learners: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

In a recent study shown here on MSN, colleges were ranked by corporate recruiters from all over the U.S. These schools in their opinions, have graduates that are the most prepared to enter the workforce. Number 1, was in Pennsylvania (sorry can't remember which school) and the other was Texas A & M University.

So I guess it must be all of those out of state students.................Since all us Texans is so stupid!!!

BTW Leftwing -- We know where the zeros and commas go!!

"Since all us Texans is so stupid!!!" uh oh! Well ya'all know what I meant to learn ya.