Bush promotes ID

But that implies even less about the opposition who is routinely outwitted and outmaneuvered by Bush.Aside from that, I don’t believe ID should be taught in public schools because there is nothing scientific to teach. It’s a belief. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a discussion about it. A discussion on ID is not the same as a fully developed lesson plan on ID.How should ID be treated in schools when a kid in biology class asks about it? It seems to me that a discussion is inevitable and needed. Teachers should be prepared to address the EvC controversy. I don’t see how it can be avoided.

Wait, I thought the topic was about ID in schools? There are other threads about the christian influence on the republican party.

Look at the semantics. I believe there is a big difference between formally "teaching" and informally "discussing". Kids are going to ask about it, so shouldn't it be discussed?

Then you believe ID should be censored?Ok, then what should the teacher say when kids ask about it?

Nice and glib reply, but not practical. Take it a step further. When the kids ask why, what is the teachers reply to that? And so on and so on. Guess what? It becomes a discussion. It can't be avoided.

We agree. The teacher should explain that ID, creationism, etc. is not science but part of many religious belief systems. There's no need to call it "bunk" or characterize it using any number of derogatory adjectives, any more than teachers should call Islamism "bunk".I believe it's sufficient to note that many people do not agree with all facets of evolution despite its scientific basis because of their religious beliefs. I believe this can be done without bringing politics into the mix.

We may be posting past each other. Read my message Message 16. We basically agree, but I don't believe one sentence will be sufficient.

Extreme right wing, but entertaining nonetheless.

I usually agree with O’Reilly, but in this case, his defense of the President was not accurate. In the article, O’Reilly said:

quote:

---

Now President Bush told the reporters that he favored an exposition of intelligent design so, "people can understand what the debate is about". It seems logical to me. But a Knight-Ridder reporter named Ron Hutchinson spun it this way.

​

"Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools."

​

Well, I didn't hear anything about equal standing for the president. Of course, the reporter spun the story that way to make it seem like Mr. Bush is a fanatic under the spell of religious zealots. That's what some in the press do all day long. ----Bill O’Reilly

---

Bush didn’t say equal standing for ID per se, but he did agree with the reporters question who asked if ID should be taught in school. That’s unfortunate and I disagree with it. Here’s part of the transcript:

quote:

---

Transcript of the roundtable interview of President Bush by reporters from Texas newspapers on August 1, 2005, in the Roosevelt Room.

​

REPORTER: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

​

PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

​

REPORTER: Both sides should be properly taught?

​

PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.

​

REPORTER: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

​

PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

​

Source

---

You know, that sounds good when posted on a forum, but it doesn’t wash as a viable approach. I can’t envision a teacher spending time to develop a false curriculum, then proceed to teach it in the classroom just to prove a point, especially when the teacher does not hold it to be truthful to begin with. It’s a waste of time.It’s like spending time in the classroom trying to show that God cannot be proven to exist through the scientific method. Why go through that sort of exercise when all it would do is generate bad publicity and irate parents. It would not benefit the students and no school administrator in his/her right mind would expose the school to that.As I’ve said up thread, I believe the reasonable approach is to have a discussion about the controversy. It can’t be ignored, OTOH, valuable class time shouldn’t be spent to debunk it. It’s sufficient to discuss that many people object to certain facets of evolution based on their religious beliefs and end it there.BTW: That must be the first time you agree with Bush. This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 08-03-2005 03:50 PM

Sometimes, on occasion, I get real close to understanding your posts, but then......alas......it slips away. It's sort of like chasing a feather in the wind. There's a song in that thought somewhere. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is ....... Dylan?

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I think.You seem to be saying that ID has a long way to go before it can comfortably fit in the larger conceptual framework and become a legitimate alternative to evolution. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the framework at all. That was Bush's point. It's possible that one day ID could legitimately grow more mainstream and eventually compete for science consensus. Therefore, despite it's obvious inadequacies, ID should not be discounted.My point is that because of these inadequacies, ID should not be taught in public high schools. As Jar pointed out, it's pseudoscience. I don't even know how it would be taught. The best I can come up with for the teacher of ID is:

1. Make the observation that nature appears complex,
2. Make the point that complexity doesn't evolve on its own, it needs an external intelligence
3. Throw in a few examples.

What else can be said? Maybe I'm missing something, is there more to ID than that?I believe in an intelligent designer because I believe in God. But my belief, (or anyone else's) is not sufficient as a basis for a science curriculum.

Hi Holmes,Bush’s selection of John Roberts for SCOTUS is one example. That choice was clever and shrewd because he selected a conservative who has impeccable credentials, extensive experience arguing before the SCOTUS, and one who has already been through the process and accepted by the vast majority of Democrats.Because of this acceptance, Bush has basically outmaneuvered opposing Democrats by removing most of their arguments. Sure, they can drum up new opposing arguments, but then they will be forced to explain their support for Roberts three years ago when he was overwhelmingly approved for the DC Court of Appeals by the same judicial committee.This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-04-2005 09:34 AM

We are in agreement on this issue. I don’t believe that ID should be taught in high school science classes because I consider it pseudoscience. In my message 67, I was attempting to understand Brad’s post by paraphrasing his comments I provided the transcript of what Bush actually said and it had nothing to do with questions from a student. Again, we are in agreement, because I have stated upthread that although I don’t believe it should be taught as a bona fide science topic, it will at least need to be discussed because kids will ask about it if the teacher does not bring it up. Not true. IF Bush has said ID should be discussed as a different idea or part of a variety of ideas in opposition to evolution, then I might have agreed with him. But he didn’t say that. A reporter asked him point blank if ID should be taught alongside evolution and Bush said yes it should. You seem to want to pick a fight with me. Perhaps it’s a carry over from our previous joists. But again I agree with you. ID is not science and shouldn’t be taught. The genie is out of the bottle on this, Holmes. Kids will ask about it sooner or later. Maybe not in every single biology class, but it will happen and teachers should be prepared to address it. I don’t think it needs special attention at all. IMO it can be lumped together with creationism as a broad category of opposition to evolution based on religious beliefs. Call it the opposition if you like, but the controversy should be addressed. Yes. If you can develop a theory that has wide spread support as does creationism or ID such that kids in many biology classes across the nation are likely to question their teachers about it during the course of evolutionary teachings, then yes, it would be correct to discuss it. Got any ideas?This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-04-2005 08:58 AM

I agree with most of your posts. The term theory has several meanings and while ID and creationism has not been tested or shown to be falsifiable, they are still theories in the sense they are unproven beliefs.But I don't think there needs to be class time spent on proving why ID or creationism fails as a bona fide science. Why go through the exercise at all? As I've said many times, all of these can be grouped into the category of opposition to evolution on the grounds of religious beliefs. Religion is not science. That's all that needs to be said.It is pointless to go through each opposing theory, (or "topic" if the term "theory" used in connection with ID is offensive), and prove that religious beliefs are not supported by the scientific method. I believe a teacher can handle the situation without condemning religion and thereby avoid a potential controversy.BTW: I'm not sure most of us are in agreement in this thread. Jar and Omnivorous support Bush's position.