|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,444 Year: 3,701/9,624 Month: 572/974 Week: 185/276 Day: 25/34 Hour: 6/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush promotes ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
This is from the washington post. My bro. just emaild it to me so I don't have a link:
washingtonpost.com Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate By Peter Baker and Peter SlevinWashington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, August 3, 2005; A01 President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity. Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories. "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes." These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it. Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review. The White House said yesterday that Bush's comments were in keeping with positions dating to his Texas governorship, but aides say they could not recall him addressing the issue before as president. His remarks heartened conservatives who have been asking school boards and legislatures to teach students that there are gaps in evolutionary theory and explain that life's complexity is evidence of a guiding hand. "With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans." John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said. Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. They see the case increasingly as a political battle that threatens to weaken science teaching in a nation whose students already are lagging. "It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading liberal lawmaker. Noting Bush's Ivy League education, Frank said, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education." Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula. Bush gave no sign that he intended to wade that far into the debate. The issue came up only when a reporter from the Knight Ridder news service asked him about it; participants said the president did not seem especially eager to be asked. "Very interesting question," he told the reporter playfully. At a morning briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was simply restating long-standing views. "He has said that going back to his days as governor," McClellan said. "I think he also said in those remarks that local school districts should make the decisions about their curriculum. But it's long been his belief that students ought to be exposed to different ideas, and so that's what he was reiterating yesterday." In comments published last year in Science magazine, Bush said that the federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach but that "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum." The president's latest remarks came less than two months after Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, archbishop of Vienna and an influential Roman Catholic theologian, said evolution as "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is not true. "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science," Schonborn wrote in the New York Times. He said he wanted to correct the idea that neo-Darwinism is compatible with Christian faith. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, warned this year in a "Dear Colleagues" letter of "increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution." The most prominent debate is underway in Kansas, where the conservative state board of education is expected to require the teaching of doubts about evolution to public high school students. A challenge to the teaching of intelligent design is scheduled for trial in Dover, Pa., while a federal court in Georgia said textbook stickers questioning evolution were unconstitutional. Slevin reported from Chicago. Bush is a moron.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I realize my comment on Bush being a moron can be incendiary to his supporters. I don't want the conversation really to be about Bush himself.
I am more interested in the influence the christian right is having on the republican party. Because, to be honeset, I agree with alot of the "traditional" republican economic values. What I heavely disagree with is current rightward trend that the party is on. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-03-2005 11:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Well, it's both really
I found the article both an illustration about how the christian right has influenced our politics, and secondly a story bringing up a contraversy about what should be taught in school. But I guess you are right in that "Should ID be censored?" is probably a better track. I would say, there is nothing to censor, ID is bunk and proven so. Would you call it censoring if a teacher chose to teach geocentric theory as an "aleternative" to heliocentric?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Then you believe ID should be censored? I don't think it should be censored, I don't think it should be part of the curriculum. It should not be legitamized as a "theory" or any such thing.
Ok, then what should the teacher say when kids ask about it? That its debunked science, it's not based on any real evidence, and it is largely a political movement promoted by some radical christian conservatives. Because, factualy, that's exactly what ID is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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. I agree that it should be discussed, as long as it is discussed in a scientific context. It should be explained that it is not science, because there is no eveidence to support it. They should explain the polatics involved etc. etc. If a kid walked into your science class and said "Techer, is astrology real?" a conversation will occure there as well. I just wouldn't expect the teacher to even consider portraying astrology as anything other than bunk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Well, I wouldn't go so extream as paisano, but ID does promote superstitious thinking over scientific thinking. Basicaly, it will promote bad science, and that's never good for technology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Ann Coulter is a right wing blow-hard anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I hear evolutionists say IDers don't do real science, but they do in fact. It's not that they aren't doing credible science. It's that evolutionists don't like it. Realy? Can you name some recent studies, expiriments, or developments ID scientists have had lately? Can you name any ongoing ID research, groups performing that research, and any significant findings they have had as of late. Also, what scientific goals do ID proponents have? What are the current debates WITHIN the ID community? Seriously, I would love to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Well, when I checked the Discovery institute they had a bunch of thier articles, and books that they sell but no info on research. I checked into their activities and it seems they aren't involved in any research at all!
Their opperations are purely political. They promote ID by lobying state and federal government. They loby school boards. etc. Real scientists don't usualy operate this way. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-03-2005 04:39 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024