Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in School

[peapod]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

Even more interesting is what other people have to say about this. For instance, the following was something I read, now....he makes some really good points there.

"It should come as no surprise that W. is trying to undermine genuine knowledge in Biology by claiming that he wants people to “hear both sides” about the Evolution Controversy. Substitute any pair of words consisting of (a) a scientific discipline and (b) an issue it informs for the italicized terms above. For example, we could try the following to start:

a——————— b

Climatology - Global Warming
Geology - Fossil fuel Conservation,
Epidemiology - Safe Sex,
Developmental Biology - Stem cells,

And so on and so on and so on…
It is doubtful that any President in history has been more ignorant of how science works…"

 

[Jay]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

Intelligent design is clearly a matter of faith and science cannot back it up. What you cannot prove you should not teach as being factual. I have enough issues with my tax dollars being spent the wrong way. Enough already.

So we should stop teaching philosophy?

English class to will have to be gutted and reduced to technicalities…

 

[I think not]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

Intelligent design is clearly a matter of faith and science cannot back it up. What you cannot prove you should not teach as being factual. I have enough issues with my tax dollars being spent the wrong way. Enough already.

So we should stop teaching philosophy?

English class to will have to be gutted and reduced to technicalities…

Philosophy is a matter of understanding critical thinking, it's not faith based. Sweetie

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

There is a difference in my mind, between religion class and say, ID theory class. We don't expect in such a class to discuss the book of Psalms, any more than in physical education class to discuss gravity.

Jay,

This is just one of several times that you've referred to ID as a theory. So here I'd like to provide for you some reference material that details exactly what the scientific method is, and the requirements that need to be satisfied in order to be recognized as a legtimate theory.

I want you to provide evidence that illustrates how intelligent design passes the criteria necessary to be considered a theory.

Could you have that to me by the end of the day please. That should be plenty of time to prove something that's been around for 5000 years.

Regards,

Vanni Fucci

 

[peapod]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

I cannot understand why people cannot "see" what is going on here. I just don't get it, honestly. Speaking of which....I read the following this morning :? :? :?


In Australia, there are a number of clergy who oppose the teaching of creationism in schools. They acknowledge creationism is an intrusion that serves no purpose except divisiveness.

Creationists think science and religion are interchangeable, and are totally unaware that if you bring God into science you stop doing science. Creationism (or ID) answers all questions and gives no explanations, which is why it is the road to the end of science.

Scientists, on the other hand, afford themselves no favours when they attempt to defend scientific theories by claiming they know all the answers, because an important attribute of science is that it is always open to question, a perpetually dynamic knowledge system. Frozen knowledge systems like religion cannot compete.

Seriously...could it not be crystal clear what is going on here 8O

 

[Jay]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

Intelligent design is clearly a matter of faith and science cannot back it up. What you cannot prove you should not teach as being factual. I have enough issues with my tax dollars being spent the wrong way. Enough already.

So we should stop teaching philosophy?

English class to will have to be gutted and reduced to technicalities…

Philosophy is a matter of understanding critical thinking, it's not faith based. Sweetie

Sure....so lets leave it at that. (This should satisfy all parties) ID is philosophy, much like string theory is. (Evolution in certain aspects could be considered philosophy too...)

 

[Jay]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

There is a difference in my mind, between religion class and say, ID theory class. We don't expect in such a class to discuss the book of Psalms, any more than in physical education class to discuss gravity.

Jay,

This is just one of several times that you've referred to ID as a theory. So here I'd like to provide for you some reference material that details exactly what the scientific method is, and the requirements that need to be satisfied in order to be recognized as a legtimate theory.

I want you to provide evidence that illustrates how intelligent design passes the criteria necessary to be considered a theory.

Could you have that to me by the end of the day please. That should be plenty of time to prove something that's been around for 5000 years.

Regards,

Vanni Fucci

Perhaps it was the wrong word to use...I used it out of politeness and I don't want people to believe I consider it to be fact.

I have a real theory though....it states I won't be able to meet the deadline you proposed...it isn't fact however, because I might be able to.

 

[TenPenny]

RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

I would love to see "Intelligent Design" taught...maybe then GM could build a car that isn't a piece of crap......oh, I see that "Intelligent Design" doesn't mean what I thought..............

 

[peapod]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: thats a good one ten penny. This is also a good article from the washington post.

But Is It Intelligent?


Thursday, August 4, 2005; Page A22

FOR MORE THAN 30 years, the conservative movement in America has been doing battle with the forces of relativism, the "do your own thing" philosophy that eschews objective truth and instead sees all beliefs and all personal choices as equally valid. Instead, philosophically minded American conservatives have argued that there is such a thing as objectivity and that some beliefs really are better, truer or more accurate than others. Given this history, it seems appropriate to ask: Is President Bush really a conservative?

The question arises because earlier this week, while talking to a group of Texas newspaper reporters at the White House, the president was asked his views on the subject of "intelligent design," the quasi-scientific, quasi-religious movement that promotes the idea that an unseen force led to the development of the human race, as opposed to the big bang, biology, physics and evolution. Mr. Bush said, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about." He added, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."


Of course the president is right that, in the context of a philosophical debate, it would be appropriate to discuss both sides of an issue before arriving at a conclusion. In the context of a religious discussion, it would also be very interesting to ponder whether the human race exists on Earth for a purpose or merely by accident. But the proponents of intelligent design are not content with participating in a philosophical or religious debate. They want their theory to be accepted as science and to be taught in ninth-grade biology classes, alongside the theory of evolution. For that, there is no basis whatsoever: The nature of the "evidence" for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming, and so powerful, that it informs all of modern biology. To pretend that the existence of evolution is somehow still an open question, or that it is one of several equally valid theories, is to misunderstand the intellectual and scientific history of the past century.

To give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt, he may have been catering to his Texas constituents, a group of whom, in the city of Odessa, were recently found to have turned an allegedly secular public high school Bible studies course into a hodgepodge of myth and religious teaching. But politics are no excuse for indulging quackery, not from a president -- especially not from a president -- who claims, at least some of the time, that he cares about education.

 

[Jay]

RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

ITN...isn't education in the states a state matter?

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory i

ITN...isn't education in the states a state matter?

Yes it is.

 

[Jay]

RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

So who gives a piece of rabbit terd what "W" thinks about it?

Or do you guys have the same problem we do in Canada....power distribution is all screwed up?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory i

So who gives a piece of rabbit terd what "W" thinks about it?

Or do you guys have the same problem we do in Canada....power distribution is all screwed up?

Well, we do care. Because he proposes to fund these programs for those states that wish to adopt it. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going there. I'd rather he buys condoms and spread them around the teenagers.

 

[missile]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

While I can see the Religious Right buying chastity belts for the teenage girls,they will never endorse condom use :lol:

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory i

So who gives a piece of rabbit terd what "W" thinks about it?

Or do you guys have the same problem we do in Canada....power distribution is all screwed up?

Well, we do care. Because he proposes to fund these programs for those states that wish to adopt it. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going there. I'd rather he buys condoms and spread them around the teenagers.

If it is a state matter, he shouldn't be involved.....

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory i

So who gives a piece of rabbit terd what "W" thinks about it?

Or do you guys have the same problem we do in Canada....power distribution is all screwed up?

Well, we do care. Because he proposes to fund these programs for those states that wish to adopt it. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going there. I'd rather he buys condoms and spread them around the teenagers.

If it is a state matter, he shouldn't be involved.....

The government funds programs in school, the states don't have to take the money if they are not going to implement the programs.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

 

[peapod]

Re: Bush Endorses Teaching 'Intelligent Design' Theory in Sc

Just been reading at the pandas thumb...

The Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division really isn’t just going to like what just got broadcast on ABC’s Nightline. Nightline essentially did an exposé on (1) how ID has no scientific support, but (2) has gained national attention through clever marketing. Nightline, unlike most other media which tends to rely on the “dueling quotes” model in a “controversy,” did the obvious thing for once. They contacted their partner U.S. News and World Report, got the list of the top ten biology departments in the country, and got the chair of each department to give their opinion on ID. This seems to have informed the rest of Nightline’s analysis. Good for them.

Following the news segment was a discussion between Cal Thomas and George Will — theocon vs. neocon — on the politics of ID. Refreshingly, Cal Thomas didn’t attempt to obfuscate the fact that promoting a particular religious belief is really what ID is about. Thomas argued that ID is part of a larger cultural battle involving school prayer, ten commandments, and similar religion-and-government issues — a politically astute analysis, by a supporter of this agenda. George Will, on the other hand, acknowledged the political appeal of ID but made a stand for restricting science and science classes to studying testable empirical hypotheses, and leaving other discussions for other arenas. At the end of the show I was left with this indescribable fuzzy warmness for George Will. I assure you this is a singularly peculiar feeling for me — I may have to seek medical treatment if it doesn’t go away soon.