True Stupidity: Sarah Palin On Evolution

Dorian Gray said:
An idiot who has one good thought is still an idiot, just like a broken clock that has the correct time twice a day is still broken.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the question is what the quality of the evidence that made people believe she is stupid is in the first place. Everything she says that one agrees with is credited to her "handlers" while everything she says that one disagrees with is credited to her personally -- much the same whenever Bush said something one disliked it proved he is "stupid", and whenever he said something one liked it was just his "handlers" telling him what to say.

All this sounds quite reasonable in each particular case, but one then wonders how such a total idiot who can't tie their shoelaces, apparently, manages to have such smart people working for him as his or her "handlers", instead of the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Yes, but the question is what the quality of the evidence that made people believe she is stupid is in the first place.
Click to expand...

Too easy.

The quality of the evidence is first-rate. Stuff like:

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers who are looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the, uh -- it's got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade. We've got to see trade as an opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation, The bailout is part of that."

There's plenty more.
 
Skeptic said:
Yes, but the question is what the quality of the evidence that made people believe she is stupid is in the first place. Everything she says that one agrees with is credited to her "handlers" while everything she says that one disagrees with is credited to her personally -- much the same whenever Bush said something one disliked it proved he is "stupid", and whenever he said something one liked it was just his "handlers" telling him what to say.
Click to expand...
I never said that, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

All this sounds quite reasonable in each particular case, but one then wonders how such a total idiot who can't tie their shoelaces, apparently, manages to have such smart people working for him as his or her "handlers", instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...
Money and coattail-riding.
 
Dorian Gray said:
I never said that, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Money and coattail-riding.
Click to expand...

And looks, which gets a lot of people working really hard to impress you. Especially if she looks out from the stands and winks right at you! And of course, her ability to annoy sensible people, especially liberals; "Dirty Ducking Hippy Punching" is an addictive drug indeed, so even if you don't actually believe in a 6000 year old Earth, why not vote for someone who says that they do and really stick it to those longhairs, eh? And don't forget the corporate sponsership culture; standards are going down on both sides of the political isle as fund raising becomes interchangeable with campaign winning. And... but do I really need to go on?
 
1. I can't believe I am even engaging in a discussion with people who think Sarah Palin is anything but an ignorant, NON CURIOUS, average intellect individual who seems to consider talking fee over country.

2. Her statement in the clip amounts to "I don't believe in evolution (she states she thinks god assists), but I am ok with it being taught in science class". How does that make her smart, rather then copping out?

3. The left wing media don't need to do anything to make Sarah look simple...

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
2. Her statement in the clip amounts to "I don't believe in evolution (she states she thinks god assists), but I am ok with it being taught in science class". How does that make her smart, rather then copping out?
Click to expand...

So Palin thinks we should teach theories (evolution) in the classroom that are not true? If ind that position to be very odd. If you think something is false why on earth would you want to teach it as science? Her answer is very political.
 
Just to follow up,
There is something deeply troubling about her clarification of her position:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."


This statement implies somehow that people ARE actively seeking to prohibit debate in class rooms if it were to come up. Is this actually the case? Are teachers ever being told to not accept questions in class? Against what counter argument is her position actually taking a stand against?

Further, What about teachers who simply do not wish to become sidetracked in a class, or become mired in theology during science class? Would her position allow for the teacher to limit debate and/or simply state "I respect everyone's personal beliefs, but creationism isn't science and therefore debates regarding it's relative merits to evolution are beyond the scope of this class..."?

Any way you cut it, her position really isn't friendly to science education and I find it, on it's own merits, to not be admirable.

However, as it seems people are extrapolating a lot here, I would like to add that I do not use this one issue as a litmus test in determining her worth as a politician. There are many other reasons to like or dislike her.
 
If you think about it, it actually makes sense that someone whose intellect hasn't developed much past a monkey's wouldn't believe in evolution.
 
johnny karate said:
If you think about it, it actually makes sense that someone whose intellect hasn't developed much past a monkey's wouldn't believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

I liken her more to a fox. Her intellect is average, perhaps a bit below. He intellectual curiosity is that of a rock. However, her cunning, her craftiness, her opportunism are well above average.

TAM:)
 
Lurker said:
So Palin thinks we should teach theories (evolution) in the classroom that are not true? If ind that position to be very odd. If you think something is false why on earth would you want to teach it as science? Her answer is very political.
Click to expand...

Correct, but it's the same idiotic position that the Creationist movement holds.
 
joobz said:
My complaint isn't that she states that evolution should be taught. It's that she said creationism should be taught along side it. Creationism (intelligent design) isn't science.
Click to expand...

To the people that say creationism should be taught alongside of evolution... I say bring it on. Demonstrate to students, using the scientific method, how the theory of evolution advanced from an hypothesis to becoming a very convincing theory, noting important observations, experiments and results that validate the theory of evolution, and then do the same for the hypothesis of creationism. It ought to be quite an eye opener.
 
Skeptic said:
Everything she says that one agrees with is credited to her "handlers" while everything she says that one disagrees with is credited to her personally -- much the same whenever Bush said something one disliked it proved he is "stupid", and whenever he said something one liked it was just his "handlers" telling him what to say.
Click to expand...

Rarely does the Arctic Twit say anything with which I agree. There are just times when she seems a little less guanophrenic than at other times. Now, if she could just give the same low-key, well-thought-out answers to the same question every time, she might even pass for a rational adult.

All this sounds quite reasonable in each particular case, but one then wonders how such a total idiot who can't tie their shoelaces, apparently, manages to have such smart people working for him as his or her "handlers", instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...

Have you already forgotten that senile old git from California? He had people feeding him lines since sometime back in the sixties when he started getting paid to make pro-capitalist tv spots. The puppet masters needed somebody on whose loyalty they thought they could depend. A second-tier actor was just the man they needed. Would the American public think that the charming man they had seen on the idiot box every week when they were young would lie to them?

(Bloody right he would, if he got paid enough for it.)

The PNAC vetrerans who were handling the presidential race for the GOP needed another tool as pliable as McCain, but preferrably better-looking and more charming to beguile the public, and perhaps get some of the male voters by their glands.

Phyllis Schlafley would probably have been more to their liking politically, but who would even want to look at her. They might have listened, but could they have avoided noticing that she is bat crap crazy?

The GOP has, for at least the last thirty years, stood as a monument to the triumph of form over substance.
 
I'm solidly behind the "teach the controversy" philosophy. They should teach children the controversy between those who accept evolution and those who don't, with balanced representation from both sides. Then they should immediately proceed to teaching the controversy between those who believe that God exists and those who don't, also with balanced representation from both sides.

I'd love to hear what the conservatives have to say about that idea.
 
DrBaltar said:
To the people that say creationism should be taught alongside of evolution... I say bring it on. Demonstrate to students, using the scientific method, how the theory of evolution advanced from an hypothesis to becoming a very convincing theory, noting important observations, experiments and results that validate the theory of evolution, and then do the same for the hypothesis of creationism. It ought to be quite an eye opener.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it gives more credibility to the creationist argument than it does to show evolution as the superior theory. The most that can be said is "creationism/intelligent design is not a scientific theory in that they do not result in testable hypotheses." It's a 30 second statement. Anything more than that, and the teacher runs the risk of insulting religious children and therefore violating 1st amendment rights.

Further, it sets a horrible precedent. Simply that just because people want to believe something, that it gets more face time than what we know to be true. What other aspects of education could fall towards that?
Teach the holocaust denial theory along side the real history?
Teach timecube along side physics?
teach stork theory in sex ed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom