Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
I've found the same headlines. This one is less obviously wrong, but more importantly wrong. My objection goes to the proposition that "the evolution question" even has a side that creationism can represent.
I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just say this: Someone who says the evolution question deserves to include creationism doesn't know what they're talking about. It is a ridiculous mixing of two valid independent subjects of inquiry. But they have no business being compared by the same criteria. You might as well have this. I would add a fifth complaint, that it's impossible to scientifically measure, by weight a person's religious beliefs.
Discuss, sure. Gain information, I'm all for it. Treating creationism as a scientific subject, preposterous. |
The point of this is that it matters not about her ability to qualify for the position of VP. People love to make a big deal out of this very hazy quite debatable event. What is the fear? she is going to mandate some change to the Constitution? She is going to mandate teaching of Intelligent Design in our schools? People said the same things about Kennedy and his religious affiliation with the Catholic church. She has no power as VP to do anything. Even as president the wedge issues like gay marriage have no merit. These are all states rights issues. Presidents don't make the law.