Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

[cquark]

From http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/12278497.htm

President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.
...
As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Of course, we know what the debate is about. It's not about the scientific evidence, because the answer there is the result of tens of thousands of researchers pursuing thousands of lines of evidence that all lead to the same answer: evolution. The debate is about a continual political campaign by Christian fundamentalists attempting to get their dogma taught as truth.

Unfortunately, this fundamentalist campaign has been largely successful, as 20% of K-12 biology teachers teach creationism and nearly 40% of K-12 biology teachers don't teach evolution in their classroom[/b].

Why Many Biology Teachers Aren't Teaching Evolution
by Richard Monastersky

Eighty years ago this month, the small town of Dayton, Tenn.,
played host to an unforgettable fight that captivated the nation: the
trial of John Scopes. The affair started as a publicity stunt dreamed
up by Dayton businessmen, but quickly exploded into a full-scale
cultural war that continues to echo today. In his 2001 book, Evolution
in the Courtroom (ABC-CLIO), and in his continuing research, Mr. Moore
has investigated the trial and the current battles over evolution in
America's classrooms, where he finds that some 20 percent of biology
teachers continue to teach creationism in violation of the First
Amendment and state standards.

Q. Your work shows that many teachers -- nearly 40 percent -- are
not teaching evolution, even if they believe it. Why?

A. It's just simpler for them to avoid it, politically. Their kids
are on the same Little League teams as the kids of other parents. ...
Biology teachers are pressured to not teach evolution and/or to teach
creationism. Almost half of biology teachers report being pressured
one way or the other, or both for many.

Q. What attitudes do the students in your introductory
[university] course have?

A. They are overwhelmingly creationist, 75 to 80 percent. It's not
so much that my students have an anti-evolution attitude. They just
don't know what it is.

 

[NJDevil]

Ah crap, why post this stuff here when you'll have the most non-rational debate. People will throw in all this crap about how you can't prove evolution, how dinosaurs and man co-existed.

I've learned to try to not read these threads where non-scientists will explain through non-scientific methods how a constantly changing (with new evidence) theory is wrong. Their arguments will pretend to not be based on a book written by man, and will use "expert" claims about how certain parts of the theory might not be completely sound, while ignoring the holes in the "theory" they want taught alongside real science.

I have no problem w/ teaching religion (not just one) in public schools, just as long as it is kept out of science class.

Edit: If any of you can in any way show me that ID is AS scientific by simply demonstrating an experiment, evidence, an example ... you know, the way real science works, then I will agree that it should be taught in science class. Until then, please leave biology teachers alone.

 

[nageov3t]

if they want to teach that evolution is a theory, I'd have no problem with that, because it is (albeit a fairly solid and widely accepted theory). in that regard, saying "the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning" is also a theory, because there's no way of knowing whether or not it will happen until it does.

and if they want to teach other theories, I'd be fine with that too, but please, find ones that have more of a scientific basis than ID, which pretty much just says "it's too complicated to figure out by using science."

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Ah crap, why post this stuff here when you'll have the most non-rational debate. People will throw in all this crap about how you can't prove evolution, how dinosaurs and man co-existed.

I've learned to try to not read these threads where non-scientists will explain through non-scientific methods how a constantly changing (with new evidence) theory is wrong. Their arguments will pretend to not be based on a book written by man, and will use "expert" claims about how certain parts of the theory might not be completely sound, while ignoring the holes in the "theory" they want taught alongside real science.

I have no problem w/ teaching religion (not just one) in public schools, just as long as it is kept out of science class.

SHHHHH! You're going to ruin all the fun.

 

[joshw10]

I have no problem if creationism is explained in schools. they can also teach what ancient civilizations believed about life, before christianity, as well as what other major religions believe today.

however -- it better not be done in the science class and I think that's what the debate is really about. fundies want it taught in Biology class which is just ridiculous.

evolution is a scientific theory. creationism is NOT. keep creationism in the history class, or english class if it relates to discussion of the bible as a literary work. when I was in school, an advanced class offered was World History and English as one class, and there was plenty of discussion about religion through history and their related literary works.

 

[EyeMNathan]

Creation should be taught at church, and the best current scientific theory should be taught in school. End of story. Science isn't a place to learn about religions.

Religion has its place, but its not with science.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm all for any theory getting equal scientific time in the classroom. A theory can be taught to the extent it can be defended on a scientific basis. No problem

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
I have no problem w/ teaching religion (not just one) in public schools, just as long as it is kept out of science class.

I agree.

 

[Rainsford]

It's actually kind of funny when you think about it. Everyone in favor of ID in the classroom tries to be all PC about it, suggesting students should be "exposed to it" so they understand the whole debate. I wonder how they'd like the teacher introducing the theory, then spending a few class periods explaining why evolution is a better theory. We're giving them equal treatment under science after all, isn't that what the ID squad wants?

 

[Amplifier]

I like GW and all, but keep the fairy tales in childrens books.

 

[clamum]

Religion and science just don't belong in the same sentence, or paragraph.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
I like GW and all, but keep the fairy tales in childrens books.

So was that cross just for show?

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Amplifier
I like GW and all, but keep the fairy tales in childrens books.

So was that cross just for show?

yes

 

[magomago]

Aside from the already countless threads on this....eventually if we just start attributing things to God and say "end of discussion" we will never further scientific knowledge and begin to lag behind other countries, especially in the emerging fields of biotechnology. Plain and simple.

I beleive in God, but I beleive in the advancement of knowledge and the more we try to figure out how god works, the more we will learn. Sitting back and say "we can never comprehend" will not further our knowledge (and no, I am not implying we can understand god, but the harder we try the more we learn).

Thank god I know another language, and am actively studying another. Gives me mobility to travel around the world where exploration of science is encouraged (regardless if they are pious or not)
....at the same time I'm now thinking that maybe private schools is a good thing...I wouldn't want to raise a child to beleive in god and then say "Our teacher told us that since we didn't understand it, God did it" or "Dinosaurs? They existed right along with us! Our teacher said so!"...I would want to raise a child that beleive in God and undersatnds that exploring science is what god wants us to do and in NO way contradicts his religious text(s).

 

[Todd33]

Why teach science in a science class? It's all just "theories".

The Christian right is a plague on this nation.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: magomago
Aside from the already countless threads on this....eventually if we just start attributing things to God and say "end of discussion" we will never further scientific knowledge and begin to lag behind other countries, especially in the emerging fields of biotechnology. Plain and simple.

True. In the cases where Intelligent Design creationism focuses on an area of a biology that we don't yet understand, it is nothing more than scientific defeatism. Their argument is that since we don't understand now, we might as well give up. That attitude won't get us anywhere, and we're already lagging behind other countries like South Korea and the EU states.

American scientists and engineers didn't say we couldn't get to the Moon because no one had ever done it before. They worked long hours, figured out hard problems that nobody had ever solved before, and they sent a man to the moon. That's the type of approach that biological researchers all over the nation apply on a daily basis.

What has Intelligent Design ever done for us, despite millions of dollars spent over the last 15 years? It's established no scientific results, provided no experiments to enhance our understanding of biology, and has developed no new technologies. Instead, it says we should give up in an era where our knowledge of biology is expanding exponentially. I don't have space to list all the accomplishments of biology in the last 15 years, but certainly all of you have heard of the Human Genome Project for one.

ID Creationism is religious fundamentalists preaching scientific defeatism, so they can get their dogmas in American schools, nothing more.

 

[chrisms]

Trying to teach students how we got here, however scientific, is trying to teach something none of us knows.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: magomago
Aside from the already countless threads on this....eventually if we just start attributing things to God and say "end of discussion" we will never further scientific knowledge and begin to lag behind other countries, especially in the emerging fields of biotechnology. Plain and simple.

True. In the cases where Intelligent Design creationism focuses on an area of a biology that we don't yet understand, it is nothing more than scientific defeatism. Their argument is that since we don't understand now, we might as well give up. That attitude won't get us anywhere, and we're already lagging behind other countries like South Korea and the EU states.

When we had the discussion here about a month ago about the school in MI that was considering teaching ID in their middle school science classes, there was an ID proponent who claimed that by attributing it to God some athiest would take exception and it would be more likely that work would happen in that area. I personally think he was full of crap and just wanted to be able to say 'but they teach it in schools, so it must be true!'.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: chrisms
Trying to teach students how we got here, however scientific, is trying to teach something none of us knows.

So what do we "know"?

Do you "know" how gravity works and where is comes from?
The strong nuclear force?
Weak nuclear force?

Science is just providing the best guess at the time, based on observation and experimentation and it's peer reviewed by countless educated people.

What exactly does presenting biblical stories in a science class do for anyone? It's just spreading children's fables and possibly damaging our long term competitiveness in science.

I have a better use of Federal effort, how about killing all the tax exemptions of the churches that preach politics?

 

[imported_meatball]

Wrong. The debate is about what rightfully is or is not a federal issue. And this is NOT a legitimate federal issue. GWB has more important things to do with his time, like killing Arabs. But there is nothing wrong with saying, in general terms, that we can't explain everything through science. Maybe someday we will. But today we cannot.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: magomago
Aside from the already countless threads on this....eventually if we just start attributing things to God and say "end of discussion" we will never further scientific knowledge and begin to lag behind other countries, especially in the emerging fields of biotechnology. Plain and simple.

True. In the cases where Intelligent Design creationism focuses on an area of a biology that we don't yet understand, it is nothing more than scientific defeatism. Their argument is that since we don't understand now, we might as well give up. That attitude won't get us anywhere, and we're already lagging behind other countries like South Korea and the EU states.

American scientists and engineers didn't say we couldn't get to the Moon because no one had ever done it before. They worked long hours, figured out hard problems that nobody had ever solved before, and they sent a man to the moon. That's the type of approach that biological researchers all over the nation apply on a daily basis.

What has Intelligent Design ever done for us, despite millions of dollars spent over the last 15 years? It's established no scientific results, provided no experiments to enhance our understanding of biology, and has developed no new technologies. Instead, it says we should give up in an era where our knowledge of biology is expanding exponentially. I don't have space to list all the accomplishments of biology in the last 15 years, but certainly all of you have heard of the Human Genome Project for one.

ID Creationism is religious fundamentalists preaching scientific defeatism, so they can get their dogmas in American schools, nothing more.

:thumbsup: Everyone should read that

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: meatball
Wrong. The debate is about what rightfully is or is not a federal issue. And this is NOT a legitimate federal issue. GWB has more important things to do with his time, like killing Arabs. But there is nothing wrong with saying, in general terms, that we can't explain everything through science. Maybe someday we will. But today we cannot.

"Killing arabs"? Seems like a pretty effective way to create a lot more terrorists to me...but maybe I'm just not as "special" as you are

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, was I the only one who was temped to make a joke about Bush endorsing anything involving intelligence? Just checking.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: meatball
Wrong. The debate is about what rightfully is or is not a federal issue. And this is NOT a legitimate federal issue. GWB has more important things to do with his time, like killing Arabs. But there is nothing wrong with saying, in general terms, that we can't explain everything through science. Maybe someday we will. But today we cannot.

"Killing arabs"? Seems like a pretty effective way to create a lot more terrorists to me...but maybe I'm just not as "special" as you are

Arabs aren't the only ones dying under Dubya's reign.

 

[Harvey]

Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

George W Bush and intelligent design -- What a perfect example of a contradiction of terms. :roll: