Re: [Phys-l] frizzi

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

As a conservative, the positions of the top three on these science  
issues do bother me. Teaching creationism in the classroom is nuts,  
and I cringe at Perry's ignorance on the issue, not knowing that  
creationism isn't science. I would feel comfortable with skepticism on  
AGW, but not a statement that it's all phony. However, these are  
issues on which the president has little effect. It's like abortion.  
You can have a pro-life president or pro-abortion president and  
neither will have any significant effect on the issue. It's pretty  
much up to the courts. What happens in the classroom is also something  
pretty much out of the hands of the president. He or she can make  
recommendations, and the Dept. of education can make recommendations,  
but as it stands the states completely control what's in their  
curricula. And with AGW, the president doesn't hire and fire members  
of NSF, the people controlling a large share of the research funds.

So, while you might have concerns about the president's views on these  
subjects, he or she has little effect on them. Better to focus on the  
economy and foreign policy.

Bill


On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:28 AM, John Clement wrote:

> The big concern is that among the current 3 top runners in the  
> Republican
> sweep stakes 2 of them espouse teaching creationism in science  
> classes, and
> are also anthropogenic global warming deniers.  The third admits to  
> global
> warming belief, and probably would not push creationism.