Bush promotes ID

You'll have to supply some evidence that Bush ever outwitted or outmaneuvered anyone. It doesn't take any intelligence whatsoever to win a pure powerplay and that is all he has been doing since before he reached office.Can you name one thing he has done, which has not involved either the sheer power of the office to overrule dissent, or the republican control of the rest of the federal govt to crush dissent?The fact that his opposition is less powerful does not make him more intelligent. His repeated failures at intelligence and analysis of intelligence, while his opposition has been proven correct time after time, speaks to his level of intelligence.The fact that he equated ID with TOE, and treated science class as a place where kids should be exposed to "different ideas" rather than instructed in scientific theory, only adds to his definition of someone not very bright.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

He was not advocating that if a child brings it up, then a teacher should say it isn't a scientific theory at all, but rather a religious belief that might one day get enough evidence and its devotees actually construct a theory around that evidence to create an alternative to the TOE.He was stating quite clearly that it should be discussed as a different idea within a science class. ID is not a different idea than the TOE in a science class, it is an errant and incomplete idea and therefore deserves no mention in a science class.I understand that a reponse from a teacher to a student needn't be overtly poisonous, but it should be overtly negative. ID is not a theory as it has no model. Neither does it work with modern scientific methodology or accepted forms of logic. It is a political and religious movement.Because of this it is almost obscene for a president to suggest it should be discussed in a science class. And I would add it is false for you to state that it would naturally be brought up. It would only be brought up because politicians and religious zealots (like Bush) are pushing that "question" into the public spectrum. Teach the controversy... that they created. And then force people to discuss its possibility because it is a controversy?I'm all for teaching it in a history or philosophy of science course. In a science course it is no more relevant than phlogiston. If I make a big push for that such that kids will ask about it, would that make it right to be discussed?(AbE):I just realized a more important point. If a child asks a teacher about ID, wouldn't it be reasonable for a teacher to simply ask what is the theory of ID and state they have never heard of such a thing?Despite the hype there are many scientists who have still not heard about ID, or know it enough to discuss it, and are not any less a science teacher because of it.The idea that a science teacher should be able to discuss ID is a bit odd. So now all science teachers must go and brush up on a patently nonscientific subject, perhaps learning about it for the first time, in order to answer students questions... urged on by political and religious zealots?That's great promotion for the Discovery Institute. Create demand for fictitious literature which you created and sell by calling it real and any denial a "controversy" that scientists are trying to whitewash. Then get a president to portray questions regarding its legitimacy as real scientific query (even if it is admittedly not established yet) and so force teachers to get that literature and learn about it or promote its purchase by or instruction to students!It seems to me if no students would ever have been hurt by not ever hearing about it, and one takes away time from teachers and students in dealing with it. And it is patently a political/religious movement hawking its wares without viable scientific credential, yet dealing with it in science class will promote students to get interested in it, then there is perhaps a very real reason to censor such commentary.I do believe this is a major strike against Bush as a leader. Conservatives complained that Clinton caused children to ask about what blowjobs are... at least blowjobs are real. In this case a president is hawking snakeoil to kids, and forcing the ID agenda into a greater debate and exposure than it merited.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-04-2005 06:56 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First of all who says that Bush came up with that selection? And second, even if he did make the selection, I am uncertain how it counts as an example of outwitting or outmaneuvering anyone.Choosing someone likely to be selected is not an example of outmaneuvering, it is of being less radical. If he tricked everyone into believing a right wing fundamentalist with no judicial experience was worthy of a vote, then you might have a point.And I might also add that almost whoever he nominates can essentially be pushed through based on a naked power play regardless of the character of the nominee.Success does not equal intelligence, nor outwitting or outmaneuvering anyone.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think my point was a little too subtle. I get that you disagreed with what Bush said, and I did make a mistake in understanding what you thought he literally said but that is not important.ID is a movement without a theory, designed just to reinforce itself. It makes lots of money for the religious right and gets people doubting an actual scientific theory with no position of its own.What it is is "teach the controversy". What controversy? The one they said exists, because in fact there is no controversy. So why should teachers have to be prepared to discuss it, which will entail some feeding the coffers of ID movement and lend them an air of legitimacy, rather than asking "what controversy"?If a kid asks in a classroom about ID it will have NOTHING to do with a legitimate question regarding science, but rather a pop fad of bothering science teachers with bogus questions. I could just as well start my own self-fulfilling movement to pester teachers with nonissues which will require them to buy my books, but I don't have a built in audience like ID does, and I don't have the blatant lack of respect for intelligence and education that ID theorists have.If some hip actor started telling kids to ask their English teachers, "what's up with hooskidoo?", and that is something that he made up about how language is written and spoken, would you be suggesting teachers ought to consider answering and reanswering kids questions on "what's up with hooskidoo?"?Exactly how many times is this supposed to be discussed and so time alloted to it? And if its supposed to end up being a negative short response, why don't we take care of that culturally instead of having to expect teachers to handle it again and again and again...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I see what you are saying, and in general might agree, but this is playing right into the hands of the ID folks. If a teacher argues what you just said, then some kid can start quoting ID propaganda that that isn't true at all. What is the teacher supposed to do then?This whole thing manufactures a need for teachers and students to get involved with ID and so feed money into the ID movement, to perpetuate the "controversy", which again feeds money to the ID movement, to...If it is a nonissue, then shouldn't teachers treat it as any other nonissue question a student brings up, and indeed an attempt at dodging work? To allow it in as a legitimate question, given that it was destroyed centuries ago, only allows them to claim it wasn't and scientists are lying.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe that is what teachers need to start explaining so it isn't lost on the public, and to presidents so they don't make that mistake.They can also call it a theoretical model. That would then explicitly destroy ID as ID theory has no working model at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

??????? I didn't say tricked unless the guy was actually a right wing fundamentalist with no judicial experience... are you saying he's a right wing fundamentalist with no judicial experience?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hahahahahahahah!!!! See, even YOU don't know what the controversy is. Their catch phrase is to "teach the controversy" in science, not teach the controversy that is generated by evo vs creo debates.There is no controversy in science. If anything this site has proven it is that there is no controversy within science on that point. Yes I can speak for all kids. Where on earth will any kid get an idea about ID, except through the ID movement? If not for them ID would not exist. If you are asking about creationism it is true that some kid might ask, but ID is something more specific. My point stands. ID did not exist until some people dreamt it up. It was not controversial until they came up with the slogan to "teach the controversy" and pretended like there was some huge movement that was connected to science. It was all as bogus as my imaginary hooskidoo.But if you want me to use a real life example instead, okay fine, how about ebonics? Should suburban kids be bothering their teachers to "teach the controversy" and explain black speak to them as valid english? I already agreed that there is no need to disparage religion in order to say something negative about ID, but some negative things should be said about ID.Either way I don't see it ending at one question. If it is a valid question, then why are the follow up questions that ID promotes not valid as well? Why can kids not say that linking ID and creo (which you just recommended) is false and that the teacher is just covering up the controversy? Why can they not keep raising each criticism that ID proponents charge evo with, as if it were valid science?I guess I do not see a practical end once it had begun.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hey, you said he outmaneuvered and outwitted people. That requires some specific criteria:1) He managed to push through something that was opposed by others2) Those others had the power to reject what he was pushing through.All I did was ask for an example of that. The SC nomination is not that because it wasn't opposed by most people, and even if democrats were generally opposed, that nomination could get pushed through using power politics.I am not playing some game here, and tricked would be the same as outwitted and outmaneuvered so your invention that I was playing word games was wrong. That is a straw man of my position.It is very simple. Come up with something that matches the above criteria. I realize it must be tiring to keep stating incorrect positions and have yourself called on them and then not have your immediate responses hailed as correct.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure what you are missing. While we can both agree that ID is just a version of Creo, the ID theorists have as part of their literature that it is absolutely not. They also state that anyone who claims ID is a variation of creo is an evo who is lying.Thus for a teacher to answer a student's question that ID is a variation of creo, will fall right into that trap of the next question and the next question as well as accusations. You don't think the DI will sue teachers for misrepresenting ID to students? Yes I can. Without the people of the discovery institute and its supporters, where would a child come up with ID? It is just that simple. Even if I agree that ID is a variation of creo, ID is a specific manifestation with specific claims that are not part of creo and not simple enough for a child to have come up with. You have posed a false dilemma which shows why you are not understanding my position. Yes, one can argue that it is basically a religious movement and so should not be taught. I am arguing something else on top of that. Regardless of religious content it is not even science, as it does not contain a coherent model and rejects modern scientific methods.It should not be taught, and questions regarding it should not be given any credence besides a student trying to disrupt class with irrelevant questions. Yes, but dealt with how? My initial reaction would be the same as yours with the exception of we now have a history of what they do with such reactions. If one states that ID is Creo, then one gets in trouble for misrepresenting ID. Then they make even more noise about a controversy which makes for reasons why it must be taught clearly to the kids.I notice you avoided my direct and real example of ebonics. If an ebonics institute began calling for it to be taught and that everyone should be taught the controversy, would you agree that a teacher should deal with students questions on the topic of ebonics in class, or state that it is not part of standard english curricula and move on? I used to believe that. Honestly I did. But now I have seen their game of using any discussion to facilitate more discussion. Its like a virus. Despite conclusions being reached on the subject, they simply claim it hasn't and that any such comments are lies and so more hearing must be done.In some cases it is a pure power play with ID advocates in positions of power ruling that ID is separate from creo and so its tenets must be discussed.It seems to me feeding their selfmade industry is not conducive to understanding at all, it is simply good for sales and more rhetoric. Yes, questions that are on topic. As long as an ID related question is on topic then it should be answered. Most of what they have to ask is not. If a kid pulls out, or has been prepped on, Wells' Icons of Evolution, a science teacher is going to be in for quite a bit of off topic lecturing.Perhaps you are misunderstanding the extent to which I think it should not be discussed by teachers. I don't think it should be discussed in a science class. It could certainly be discussed by science teachers before or after class, or in a history or philosphy of science class. It just shouldn't be injected into a science class.I know when I or others had off topic questions the teachers would deal with them and I do agree should deal with them. They almost universally stated to talk about it before or after class. Is there something wrong with that? You are holding a conflicting position here. First you say the teacher should answer questions, and here you say the teacher can end on any question and its over. If this is true, why can't a teacher nip it right at the first question saying:"Well that's an interesting issue, and a complicated one, but the end result is it has no direct bearing on science or legitimate scientific theory and so I'm not going to use time on that issue during a science class. If you want to discuss it after class that would be fine."They can of course discuss it with the whole class if the whole class is interested and wants to hang around.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are wrong. Once again, you are wrong. While I do not think he is very bright, and I have been against much of what he has done, I have no inherent bias against him. I am unsure how many times we have to go over this ground. I prefered him to Gore in 2000, and have supported some of the things he has done.I am not a person who believes everything he does is wrong, though much of what he has done is wrong and there is evidence to back it up.I'm also not sure how controversial this is. You said outwitted and outmaneuvered. The conditions are set. All you have to do is show it. The above is not my strategy, it is a completely fallacious slander. I'll tell you what, I'll even cut you a break and not expect you to show that he himself did anything (which is a pretty big step on my part). Just show me where part of his agenda was pushed through in any manner that can be called outwitting or outmaneuvering.That entails defeating someone that had the potential to defeat you, by some sort of subterfuge. Nothing Bush has done has been subtle, much less describable as subterfuge unless you want to count his hoodwinking the nation into believing Iraq had some connection with 9/11, and later that the Iraq War had always been about democracy for Iraqis. No, you provided and example and I refuted it. It is done, though you keep popping up to smear me instead of either providing counterevidence to prove your position or admitting your defeat, or providing another example.I'll leave it alone, when your reply does not contain a strawman of my position as well as ad hominem attacks.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is semantics on your part. Okay, young adults. You just admitted the only point I was driving at. Without ID theorists drumming up a wholly nonexistent problem in order to make a name and money for themself (while advancing creo in sheep's clothing), no young adult would have brought up ID.No young adult would have looked around the internet and found data by which they would have come up with ID on their own. Yes they could have come up with creo as that is pretty basic. ID is not. It has specific arguments and "evidence". No I don't see how. They have created their movement as something wholly separate from Creo, and could argue suggesting such a thing in class is tantamount to misrepresentation. They themselves admit in their literature that they don't have a complete theory and that they require dropping long held scientific standards such as using logical tools like occam's razor and the fallacy of arguments from incredulity. Thus one would not be misrepresenting them in the slightest to say it has no bearing on modern science or scientific method. I only had two examples. One fictitious and one from real life. Republicans were outraged over the suggestion that ebonics be discussed in schools, which is why I brought it up. You didn't directly answer my questions completely, but now you have. There is no question that both are possibilities, and you have simply been treating my posts as more combative and contrarian than they ever were. My point has been that I see a problem with your possibility in that ID proponents use any discussion in order to advance more discussion.Because of this I see my approach as better as it eliminates the ability of a student to disrupt a science class to try an prolong discussion on a nonissue, which is their goal. Once the can of worms is opened in front of class I do not see a teacher ending it in any positive way to anyone's satisfaction. EvC is a great example of that.I think you are painting things much simpler than they are by using general statements that allow a depiction of the discussion as being easy to deal with or end in short order. If your answer to the specific question of if a student has more questions, is that the teacher should just end it... then why not start with that?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think we are closing in on an end here. I did not say no discussion at all. I said no discussion during the class as it would not be relevant to anything that would be within the scope of a science class.I do believe a teacher should discuss all questions a student has which are related to science and so speak to a kid (or young adult) outside of class. As I have said, this is what I have seen done in all other subjects and so don't see why ID would get an exception.I do not believe that once begun, that it will wrap up nicely as we see here that no ID discussion wraps up nicely. The stench of that debate should not be allowed to cloud the regular classroom curricula.{qsI would welcome HS biology teachers who may be lurking to throw in their 2 cents. Your opinion would be more relevant and informative than either mine or Holmes.[/qs]I believe I have already told you that I have taught students. It was chemistry and not biology and the students were not HS, but the experience was the same. And I have taught young adults in short term courses. I once made the mistake of entertaining a question regarding instantaneous human combustion, thinking that would end discussion... it didn't.I have also had a gf who taught students in biology. I suspect she would agree as she had similar experiences with students.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry about replying, but this really seems the best place to ask my question.Regardless of the worth of the rest of the thread, perhaps this is a good place to address what the Dover trial means for Bush. He came out in support of ID, and a court has shown that it follows a creationist agenda whose promoters are willing to lie to push religion into education.Doesn't this raise the issues about Bush's earlier backing of it? What can he say now in defense of his position?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)