According to a recent statement by Bush, “Intelligent Design” ought to be taught along side evolution:
Well, I guess we’ll have to start teaching the
Another reason to despise Bush and his administration :raspberry:
Why? Did Bush and his administration invent creationism?
I wouldn’t mind putting creationism into a course teaching social psychology…how many billions of people on this planet believe in a Supreme Spirit/Being and it would be nice it we got a more rounded understanding of why that is IMHO.
But, no, it does not belong in a biology class.
Why? Did Bush and his administration invent creationism?
[/quote]
No, but they’re really confused about the basics of church and state separation.
P.S. - “Seeker4 Advocates Intelligent Chief Executives”
No, but they’re certainly pushing for it to be made part of the science curriculum much harder than any other administration I know of. And even if someone else did the same, that doesn’t make it any less irresponsible.
[quote]I wouldn’t mind putting creationism into a course teaching social psychology…how many billions of people on this planet believe in a Supreme Spirit/Being and it would be nice it we got a more rounded understanding of why that is IMHO.
But, no, it does not belong in a biology class.[/quote]
I agree entirely - I have no problem with kids learning the creation story, as long as it’s in a society- or culture-oriented course, but sure as hell not in a science one.
Why? [/quote]
Because Bush advocates the teaching of psuedoscience in a science classroom. I thought that was pretty clear from the article.
It is amzing the intolerance that is exposed on topics like this.
Also the dis-jointed connections that are put forth.
President Bush publicly acknowledges his Christian faith. To expect him to deny the teaching of Creationism or “Intelligent Design” side by side with evolutionism is folly.
As the article clearly states, his comments were:
Why should those who profess acceptance of divergent theorys castigate him for this belief?
Oh…and “seperation of church and state” was in regards to The Government NOT establishing a State Religion. Can you say…strawman? Sure…I knew ya could.
Why?
[/quote]
Because Bush advocates the teaching of psuedoscience in a science classroom. quote][/quote][/quote]
And this is reason to HATE him? I would think Bush is simply pandering to the Evangelicals here, and he knows that there’s no way Creationism is going to be taught in the way the Evangelicals want it to be.
Again, I do favor an examination of Creationism in a Sociology class, where it IMHO belongs. As for the separation of church and State, until it is debated by our representatives in the Federal Government, I’d say it’s a non issue…but that’s just me, I don’t like to worry about speculative things like this…
Bush and his cohorts obviously don’t care much for science.
[quote]. . .In Washington, D.C. [b]more than 60 of the nation
I would “despise” anyone who would promote religion and claim it is science, especially when it’s for political gain. What
[quote]
President Bush publicly acknowledges his Christian faith. To expect him to deny the teaching of Creationism or “Intelligent Design” side by side with evolutionism is folly. [/quote]
Uhm… Just because you might be a Christian, doesn
Did Bush actually SAY he believed in Creationism?
I’d say this is a PAC getting some candy thrown at them and nothing more.
The Economist had a good article recently about Bush and their take on his relationship with the Evangelicals…he never gives them what they really want, but he does know how to stroke them…
case in point…
And rightly so. If you want to teach Intelligent Design among other creation myths, be my guest, but to suggest, and that is what has been happening so that now even the US President is caught up in the (intentional) ignorance, that Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to Evolution or that Evolution is an incorrect theory is pathetic and deserves all the intolerance it receives.
It is the agenda of advocates of Intelligent Design to discredit Evolution and that is disturbing. For a technological society like the US it is incumbent that people think rationally and independently to make sense of all the information that they are bombarded with every day and also to produce new scientists to support and develop the technological infrastructure which has always been a big reason why the US is a world leader. How can these things be accomplished if truth and fiction are mixed together in science classes?
This isn’t about attacking religion either. Evolution and its proponents are not seeking to rewrite the Bible with Genesis replaced by Darwin’s works. This is about some religious extremists who want to put a non-scientific theory into science books. Now Bush surely has a duty to his God and he can believe what he wants, but he also has a duty to the American people and that duty requires that he be responsible and truthful to the American people. Making statements such as he did are neither.
TC, that is the biggest crock of shit. Why should anyone put up with ridiculous attempts to inject the irrational views of any particular religion into public school courses on science?!
Let me elaborate then.
President Bush has used the power of presidency to lend a sense of credibility to this intelligent design movement. I despise him and his administration because this is just one more example of how abusive and careless he has been when it comes to the judicial use of executive power and authority the people of the USA vested in him.
The only place creationism and intelligent design belongs is in Religious class and Sunday Schools.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Couldn’t have put it better.
[quote]It is amzing the intolerance that is exposed on topics like this.
Also the dis-jointed connections that are put forth.
President Bush publicly acknowledges his Christian faith. To expect him to deny the teaching of Creationism or “Intelligent Design” side by side with evolutionism is folly. [/quote]
Tainan Cowboy:
Common now . . . you have got to be kidding. Although I often disagree with your point of view, I do believe you are intelligent & your posts generally reflect that . . . . except this time. 
Bodo
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Let me elaborate then.
President Bush has used the power of presidency to lend a sense of credibility to this intelligent design movement. I despise him and his administration because this is just one more example of how abusive and careless he has been when it comes to the judicial use of executive power and authority the people of the USA vested in him.
The only place creationism and intelligent design belongs is in Religious class and Sunday Schools.[/quote]
Ok, that is an excellent post. Although I disagree with the last sentence. 
[quote=“Bodo”][quote]It is amzing the intolerance that is exposed on topics like this.
Also the dis-jointed connections that are put forth.
President Bush publicly acknowledges his Christian faith. To expect him to deny the teaching of Creationism or “Intelligent Design” side by side with evolutionism is folly. [/quote]
Tainan Cowboy:
Common now . . . you have got to be kidding. Although I often disagree with your point of view, I do believe you are intelligent & your posts generally reflect that . . . . except this time. 
Bodo[/quote]Bodo -
I call 'em like I see’s 'em.
Read the posts. Once again, a complete absence of tolerance is being prominenetly displayed.
Sheer hypocrisy.
ID’ers vs Creationists: There is controversy on both sides.
Here is a good read I was led to in regards to this thread.
Touches on quite a few related topics -Good vs Evil, Design Inference,
Homo floresiensis, on Flores Island in Indonesia and a good bit more from the
Conference.
[quote]“God Said It, That Settles It”
Deity’s evidence muddled, contradictory as Creation Mega-Conference wraps
Ronald Bailey
Lynchburg, VA
It’s the Theory of Electricity and the Theory of Gravity too. Which of those do you consider to be mere speculation? “Theory” in this context is not something that may or may not be true as you are suggesting. “Theory” here means the principles and facts that explain some phenomena and that’s how it is being applied to the Theory of Evolution. Those who’ve taken a few college science courses aren’t fooled by the dual meaning of “theory”.