Bush also believes the world was created in six days and that God made him president..
this is so sad i don’t even know what to say…
This is 2005 right?
“President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush’s voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.
On other topics during the group interview, the president:
_Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a CIA officer’s identity, but he stood behind Rove. “Karl’s got my complete confidence. He’s a valuable member of my team,” Bush said.
_Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
_Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman”
Problem is, that there is only one theory between those two views. Who would object to discussing the assumptions and limitations of science? But pretending that creationism or intelligent design amount to anything even resembling a theory is a bit silly, I think.
I’ve forgotten who it was, but someone once said that if creationism or intelligent design were to be taught as an alternative to evolutionary theory, that we should teach the stork as an alternative to biological reproduction.
I hesitated to post the bit about “silly” because I know there are people who believe in creation. And there are some serious issues with evolutionary theories that can easily lead you to conclude that evolution cannot satisfactorily explain the world. I would hate to disparage anyone’s views. But I still think schools should stick to science in science class (and point out the limitations of science.)
I wish schools would teach critical thinking. Then kids could be presented with all sorts of theories, but they would have the tools available to determine which had value, or probablility of being true, and which did not.
If my kids’ science textbooks are any indication, we haven’t been teaching science for at least 12 years. And you do NOT want to get me started on either the 5th grade science teacher (“all metals are hard and shiny”) or the high school chemistry teacher (“I teach them that method because they can get the right answer and not need to understand what they are doing”)!
It’s no secret that I believe in fiat creation. I do wish that the notion that the issue must be one-sided in favor of evolutionary theories in order to be true education were not so widely brandished about. However, mostly I think too much is made of theories of origins. It is not the end all of science one way or the other. Science is concerned with observing. Science is concerned with learning. Science is concerned with using reason to postulate and to attempt to solve problems, of both practical and abstract nature. We’re all agreed as to what a liver does, but we’d rather argue over who put it there. Let’s lampoon anyone who disagrees with us. Let’s see if we can find some clever way to make ourselves look smart by calling people by religious titles that they never claimed.
–that they have to “believe in” either evolution or creationism. (Science neither needs or gains from your belief or disbelief; there may in fact be more than just these two choices available; and, in fact, you don’t have to believe in either one.)
–that creationism is a scientific theory (it is not).
–that evolution and creationism are opposite equals (they are not)
–that evolution states man descended from monkeys (it does not; evolution has two key elements, the first being that life adapts, and the second being that all life on the earth shares common ancestry)
–that science is as faith-based as is religion (it is not)
Then there is Bush, probably one of the best counter-arguments I have encountered that perhaps, just perhaps, man really did descend from monkeys.
… nothing, as long as the different ideas are clearly identified as to what they are. Religious faith in creation should not be identified and taught as science. Should we start requiring churches to teach “faith in evolution” as a viable alternative to creation?
He doesn’t mean it. He means that the government should teach HIS church’s ideas, and he thinks it should be happening in biology class.
I think that if there was a serious proposal to teach the students about one-eyed Odin hanging on the world-tree, or about the Wiccan earth mother along with the Christian creation myth, there’d be hell to pay.
The last thing the president or his church are interested in is the teaching of a whole lot of different creation myths, creationism among them, as being equivallent “different ideas”.
