Republican Strategist: Science Should Be Put to a Popularity Vote

Makes sense to me.  If they’re paying for their children’s education, then they should have a say as to how their children are educated.  The real problem is that they currently try to have this say by forcing their garbage into the public schools.  The solution: we can protect public education by introducing a voucher system so that those who want their kids to go to crazy-school can do so without affecting the rest of us.

Republican Strategist Noelle Nikpour: It’s very
confusing for a child to be only taught evolution to go home to a
household where their parents say, “Well, wait a minute, you know, God
created the Earth!”

Well, yeah, it’s confusing. And that’s why Christers should drop their creation myth — they’re doing nothing but confusing children with it.

I’ve noticed a common theme in criticism of Dawkins’s ‘Magic of Reality’.  People criticize Dawkins for ‘pushing his own view’ as ‘the truth’, as if light refraction through raindrops is somehow controversial.  I’ve asked people to give an example of anything they disagree with, and nobody provides anything.  The best I can explain it, “well, yes, that’s why we see rainbows, but we don’t want to tell CHILDREN that!”

In particular since he juxtaposes accepted science with myths, teaching science that even religious people accept next to the myth that previously explained it might threaten our ability to lie to our kids. 

This makes me sad. To these people it seems “truth” is a relative term, based on desires and choices instead of what is actually going on. 

“Forget all the evidence for evolution and other prominent scientific theories. I’d PREFER if god was real and the creation stories were true, so now they are true and you can’t tell me otherwise because its all about choice.”  

Give me a f***ing break.

That’s just plain silly.  Wether something is “popular” doesn’t make it true, and just because something isn’t popular doesn’t make it false.  That’s not how science works.

You are right, but this is NOT about science.

You are right, but what I am saying is NOT about science. Vote for school science is not the same as vote for science.

Ohhh I get it! You support having the quality and level of all children’s education to be in direct proportion to the wealth of their parents. 

Because you know, poor children should receive the poorest education so as to be poor adults because that’s the class they where born into right?

So, you want to take money from the rich and give to the poor for educating their children? Who are you? God?

If society places any value on its future, then quality education should NOT be up for debate.

No, just a person who has morals. Not an elitist amoral Social Darwinist like yourself. 

Also the no one has an unassailable, inherent “right” to property since all rights come from a societal contract and subject to societal standards, not some “god” that commands it. 

So then who are you to tell poor people they can not take something… God????

At least people who are listing to the bible are trying to be moral (misplaced, but trying). The Rand followers are just trying to remove all morals from society. 

You’re right that a vote for school science isn’t the same as a vote for science, but I think my point remains that science education isn’t something that should be put to a popular vote.  You don’t get to teach your made-up facts based on ancient goat herder writings and call it science.

I agree with you. Voucher is not a perfect system.

You are right. But can people chose no science education to their own children?

Yes, you are. You are advocating the the right of property to trump all other moral considerations. That is Social Darwinism in a nut shell.

Other than a fundementalist religous leanings, why would they say no science?  I can’t think of a swifter way to fade to irrelevancy on the world stage to let entire groups of citizens choose ignorance for their children.

It’s more moral than allowing a child to receive no education, or even starve so as to no remove property from another individual. 

Also define how someone acquirers property in the first place? Wealthy people for instance do not “make” the products they sell for instance, they do so by exploiting the labor of another human to do that. The taxes they pay (or money taken from them) is the way you create a functioning society that is not economic slave based.

So your “morals” are for there to be a class of people who serve only to give up their labor to another class of people, so they can claim ownership over the wealth the lower class creates all by birthright. 

Yea, your a real moral person!

Nope, I’ve read a lot of Rand. It’s her followers who jump though logical hoops to get around the fact for Rand all actions taken towards those not directly know to you are nothing but amoral financial transaction.

Charity is not enough, let rob save the morality.

First off, “charity” is a subjective platitude. 

And “rob”, once again what god came down and told us which monkeys get to “own” which sticks?

When I watched that, I kept wondering if this woman was a Poe. I mean, was she listening to herself?? Did she even realize what she was saying? I still find it hard to believe.

It’s more moral than national anarchy.

It confuses the children when they go home! We as Americans — we are paying tax dollars for our children to be educated. We need to offer them every theory that’s out there. It’s all about choice; it’s all about freedom.

No.  We just need to extend education to include those people who failed to learn science at school so they can stop confusing their children with mythologies masquerading as science.  I believe that parents have the freedom to withdraw their children from publicly funded education and privately find it instead.
I think that the USA needs to stop pissing about with half arsed curricula that is entirely dependent on local school boards and sort out a national curriculum of education.  This would ensure that all students receive the same level of education which would help universities to assess candidates based on a recognised standard.  It would stop local crazies from getting elected to school boards so that they can sabotage the education and future of the next generation with their stupid and irrelevant myths.

That’s what I think.

Wait a minute.  Wasn’t she in on the joke?  I watched the whole thing on Comedy Central and assumed she was either an actor, or going along with the joke.  Surely no one is that stupid?

“Why did she agree to an interview…?”
Look at here website. She is a publicity hound. She said nothing that will make here look stupid in the eyes of republicans and she does not care about liburals.

Did she really say “finantual”?

I agree. This school board nonsense is what got the US into this mess in the first place. They have their uses for local issues, but they certainly shouldn’t decide what is taught

Yes, that is exactly what I want.

Introducing a voucher system would probably create a public school system that is even more underfunded than it is now and destroy whatever hope we have of making it better.  Unless you can find a way to keep public dollars rolling into public schools with even less students in them to qualify for dollars.

More on Politics and Science http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/republican-science_b_1034205.html

Okay, just checking, but you guys do know that the Daily Show edits the interviews with guests to make for funnier TV, right? 

I don’t doubt the woman is an anti- science wackaloon, but the interview is clearly spliced together to make here look crazier than ever.  potholer54 has a great youtube video on editing interviews for effect. 

Only one of the times with a majority, though.