Bush wants Intelligent Design as Alternative to Evolution

[Tetrahedrite]

The Sydney Morning Herald (and I believe the New York Times) reported today that President Bush wants the Intelligent Design theory taught in schools, along with evolution:

 

A debate between scientists and religious conservatives has escalated after the US President' date=' George Bush, said the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in public schools.

 

In an interview at the White House on Tuesday, Mr Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters.[/quote']

 

The President's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr Bush's comments, while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them.

 

Critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God. The theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states.

 

Critics saw Mr Bush's comment that "both sides" should be taught as the most troubling aspect of his remarks. "It sounds like you're being fair' date=' but creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint," said Susan Spath, a spokeswoman for the National Centre for Science Education. "It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint by calling it the other side of evolution."[/quote']

 

Here is the link, but it is a subsciber only site (free to subscibe).

 

Surely if this was to go ahead it would be an outrageous attack on "secularism" in the USA. If they were to teach ID then surely they would also need to teach the stories other religions teach about creation. Will the general American public allow schools to be dumbed down to the level of the religious conservative right?

 

What do you think?

[beautyundone]

my personal opinion is that we should teach all ideas of creation... i mean, the kids deserve a right to decide for themselves. it's a topic not yet proven as a fact, so, until it is proven, they should teach other theories as well... and make sure to emphasize that they are THEORIES and not facts.

[Tetrahedrite]

my personal opinion is that we should teach all ideas of creation... i mean, the kids deserve a right to decide for themselves. it's a topic not yet proven as a fact, so, until it is proven, they should teach other theories as well... and make sure to emphasize that they are THEORIES and not facts.

Evolution is a scietifically proven fact. It has nothing to do with religion. Schools are supposed to be secular.

 

ID is a theory that has been put forward to appease those people who want to believe that God is the Creator, but who conceed that the enormous weight of scientific evidence suggests that a literal interpretation of Genesis is flawed.

 

edit: Should we also teach kids that there is a possibility that the Flying Spaghetti is the creator?

[silentsailor]

Honestly, I don't see how Bush's opinion on the matter is a shock to anyone, though the ID folks will probably take it and run with it.

 

Yes, we should inform kids about intelligent design - and the fact that it's absolute bullshit :\ Or maybe it could go in social studies classes. That would be fun. *IF* it happens - and that's a big "if" - I think that the kids who want to go into biology will (hopefully) be smart enough to differentiate between fact and fiction, so the percentage of kids interested in scientific fields won't really be affected regardless of what's taught (and as a highschool sophomore living in the bible belt, examples of that course of action are prevalent enough). The problem is what will happen to the less-interested majority, and their view of science as a whole. But I'm sure we've got a surplus of threads on this issue so I'll stop here

[DQW]

my personal opinion is that we should teach all ideas of creation... i mean, the kids deserve a right to decide for themselves. it's a topic not yet proven as a fact, so, until it is proven, they should teach other theories as well... and make sure to emphasize that they are THEORIES and not facts.

I can't begin to list the number of misconceptions of science you've revealed here.

 

Darwinian Evolution is a scientific theory - it is objective, falsifiable and predictive. In science, a theory is not something weak - it's the best you can get. Quantum Mechanics is a theory. It is not a fact. And it is this theory that is used to build the computer that you're presently reading this on.

 

ID is neither falsifiable nor predictive. It does not fall under the definition of science. Hence should not be taught in science class. Period.

[ku]

The following is fairly good:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

 

When a non-scientist uses the word "theory" generally he or she is referring to a hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes theory when more and more empirical data back it up.

[Mokele]

Yes, we should inform kids about intelligent design - and the fact that it's absolute bullshit :\

 

Personally, I agree. I think creationism and ID can be useful teaching tools, specifically because they point out the places where most people mis-understand evolution. In fact, I'd say I've probably learned about as much of evolution from debating these loons as I have from books and classes (including my evolution class). Teaching/explaining/debating something often shows you bits of your knowledge when there's a gap or where the pieces don't fit, which in turn lets you do some research to fill in this gap.

 

Frankly, I'd love to present ID/creationist arguments in class, in the context of "Tell me why this arguement is a load of horseshit." If the students really understand evolution (rather than just vomiting back textbook paragraphs), they'll be able to answer it.

 

Hrm, I smell an essay question... 20% of the total grade, say?

 

Mokele

[ydoaPs]

i'm glad i don't have to take biology.

 

i would organize a student strike until they teach FSM and Giant, Invisible, Polka-dotted Monky-ism too.

 

 

edt:

 

here is a day in the class of ID:

 

teacher: 6,000 years ago, God created the universe.

 

kid: where's the proof?

 

teacher: there isn't any.

 

kid: 6,000 years ago doesn't seem right...how can we see out into space millions of years if the universe is only 6,000 years old? what about fossils and rocks and such that are much older than 6,000 years?

 

teacher: BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! go to the principal's office!

[Phi for All]

In science, a theory is not something weak - it's the best you can get.

Next to what evolution actually is, I think this statement is the one most ID and creationism supporters fail to grasp. They lump "theory" in with "hypothesis" and "speculation" and see no difference between them. They join the science bandwagon long enough to scream, "It's not FACT it's THEORY!" and then jump off again with their fingers in their ears.

[Pangloss]

I think this thread should be restricted to the politics of the situation. There are many ID-vs-Evo threads around this board. We don't need another one.

 

The politics of the situation, however, are quite fascinating, and involve many interesting facets of political activity in this country (and by example, other countries which may be struggling with the same principles).

 

We should look at:

- Why ID has come to the political forefront (mostly obvious, but some aspects of this have yet to be fully explored)

- The birth of interesting catch-phrases, such as "anti-creationism", and what they mean and why they are used

- Why the ID-proponents are no longer satisfied with the teaching of religion in an historical context (e.g. the historical significance of christianity in western civilization)

- The political acceptance of evolution in other societies

- What aspects of ID-vs-Evo will be influential in the next Presidential (and upcoming mid-term) election(s), and how each candidate's position on the issue will be important

[ydoaPs]

i couldn't think of why a class on ID itself would take more than 1 day.

 

although history, why people think it is incompatable with evolution, why the arguments are logical fallacys, and showing intellectual dishonesty could take a semester.

[Phi for All]

The religious right is very strong at state and district levels. I see this as an opportunity to get their foot in the door. Get ID into the curriculum, then back it up with "creation science" later. They can make a rational case for well-rounded learning and push their agenda once ID is being taught. Slippery slope, I realize, but politics at the state level is full of issues that have slid to the very bottom.

[In My Memory]

Beautyundone,

 

my personal opinion is that we should teach all ideas of creation... i mean, the kids deserve a right to decide for themselves. it's a topic not yet proven as a fact, so, until it is proven, they should teach other theories as well... and make sure to emphasize that they are THEORIES and not facts.

Like other non-facts like the THEORIES of Relativity and Plate Techtonics THEORY, right?

 

(The word "theory" does not mean "unproven". It has a very precise scientific meaning, "a large body of related facts and observations to describe natural phenomena".)

[Phi for All]

(The word "theory" does not mean "unproven". It has a very precise scientific meaning, "a large body of related facts and observations to describe natural phenomena".)

I've always disliked the term "conspiracy theory" because it paints all wild ideas with the same wide brush. The term gives theory a bad name.

 

I move we slap down anyone who misuses the word theory from now on. Henceforth I shall call it "conspiracy speculation".

[ecoli]

I believe that ID is a valid way of looking at the world, but even I believe Bush's new idea is incredibly stupid. What a jerk. You can't teach intelligent design in schools, what about the religions that believe the universe was sneezed out of the nose of Arklesiezure.

 

This is completely unconstitutional, a blind violation of the seperation of church and state. We should give up teaching the bible in public school. There is simply no place for it. If parents want their children to learn about God, then put them in a private school or shut the hell up.

 

edit: I second your notion, Phi

[Pangloss]

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

 

One thing I wonder about is which Republican presidential hopefull, currently labelled a "moderate", will be the first to cave in on ID in the classrooms. It's an easy cave for a presidential candidate, if you're looking for a way to pander to the religious right, because they really won't have anything to do with whether or not it happens. (Seeing as it's something that typically gets fought out at the local level.)

 

Anyone want to take a guess? We should start a betting pool on this.

[MulderMan]

in america who decides the curriculum?

[Douglas]

One thing I wonder about is which Republican presidential hopefull' date=' currently labelled a "moderate", will be the first to cave in on ID in the classrooms. It's an easy cave for a presidential candidate, if you're looking for a way to pander to the religious right,[/quote']

I don't think any republican hopefull will cave in on ID. I think the Repubs have the religious right sewed up anyway. They don't have an alternative candidate like the Dems had with Nader, and I doubt they'd stay home.

[ecoli]

in america who decides the curriculum?

 

state education boards, but mostly local school district boards.

[beautyundone]

Evolution is a scietifically proven fact. It has nothing to do with religion. Schools are supposed to be secular.

 

ID is a theory that has been put forward to appease those people who want to believe that God is the Creator' date=' but who conceed that the enormous weight of scientific evidence suggests that a literal interpretation of Genesis is flawed.

 

edit: Should we also teach kids that there is a possibility that the Flying Spaghetti is the creator? [/quote']

 

my bad... i guess that's what i get for trying to make sense when i'm running on only 2 hours of sleep. i don't know what i was talking about haha. my apologies. *yawn*

[Pangloss]

I don't think any republican hopefull will cave in on ID. I think the Repubs have the religious right sewed up anyway. They don't have an alternative candidate like the Dems had with Nader, and I doubt they'd stay home.

 

This would be true of a general election, but remember, the candidate first must be approved by party voters, deciding amongst themselves (i.e. the "primary" system). Hence why we have George Bush in office instead of John McCain.

 

The old axiom is that candidates run to the extremes during primary races, and run back to the center for the general election. Which brings me back to the original question: Which moderate Republican will cave first on ID? (Or will they?)

[Mokele]

Personally, I don't see it as being a huge issue; at best, it's a minor side-issue. The big issues will be the usual, and as such, I don't see any candidates views on the topic being particularly influential to the overall outcome of the race.

 

Plus, IIRC, the President has jack all power over school curiculums, so the limit of their power would be as a talking head to popularize one side or the other. But, given the limited political payoff, I doubt they'll speak up much.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

But as we saw this week, and MulderMan pointed out on the previous page, the President often sets the agenda, or curriculum. So ID got a big boost this week when President Bush talked about it.

 

And this is often the case in American politics. The President has no sway over the issue of abortion, for example, but his position on the issue is certainly a great cause of concern amongst voters.

[john5746]

This would be true of a general election' date=' but remember, the candidate first must be approved by party voters, deciding amongst themselves (i.e. the "primary" system). Hence why we have George Bush in office instead of John McCain.

 

The old axiom is that candidates run to the extremes during primary races, and run back to the center for the general election. Which brings me back to the original question: Which moderate Republican will cave first on ID? (Or will they?)[/quote']

 

Rick Santorum will support ID. He won't "cave", because he supports it.

 

an excerpt from a speech he made

 

"The Ohio decision means that students will be taught to critically analyze Darwin’s theory, including the scientific evidence for and against it. The decision also allows but specifically does not mandate the teaching of the scientific case for intelligent design as an alternative theory."

 

This all shows the serious lack of science education in the US. I know I didn't learn didly about evolution in school. The more ignorant the population, the more likely they will succumb to fundamentalist and extremist ideas. The struggle against extremism the Bush admin is talking about may need to start in our schools.

[DQW]

Rick Santorum is a #$&^%$, IMO, but that's besides the point.

 

Just a few days ago, when I was talking about this wth friends, they were speculating that Bush will perhaps throw the left some scraps (as a trade) in the form of loosening up little on stem cell research. I was highly sceptical. And I was right.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4567253.stm

 

The more I read stuff like this and the fact that the Republican political machine is pushing Lynn Swann (yikes!!) to run for Goernor in PA, makes me believe more strongly in the Puppet Theory of Right Wing politics.