http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002415528_bush02.html)
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.
What a dumba**
"Different schools of thought" also includes the idea that drinking kool-aid laced with cyanide or taking potassium chlorate before bed will expedite the ascension to an afterlife. Do we want that offered as well? Of course not.
This is very obviously a political attempt to appeal to the undereducated who subscribe to "intelligent design."
Why not teach it correctly then? Call it what it is: extraterrestrial design. Obviously if an 'intelligence' designed the life on earth, it was not of this earth. The reason, of course, is that what ID proponents really mean is creation by the god of abraham.
Pure bunk. Yet another reason to impeach the dumbass that pretends to be President.
Isn't this stuff why we have Sunday School? So the religious people can learn all their fun little creation things and the like.
Isn't this stuff why we have Sunday School? So the religious people can learn all their fun little creation things and the like.
^ My thoughts exactly.
And on the news there was a story how bible study could become an elective class.
So much for separation of church and state...!
Edit:
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said
Okay, yeah, that makes sense. So they teach in church that god created everything, but then let's also teach in school that god created everything. That way it's balanced!
Personally, I wonder why our schools concern themselves with teaching any aspect of creation/evolution - after all, both theories are inherently unprovable under the scientific method.
However, I do take exception to this remark:
This is very obviously a political attempt to appeal to the undereducated who subscribe to "intelligent design."
There are many and more scientists who, after long and arduous research, have come to believe that Earth was created, for one reason or another. Creationism isn't just the realm of the 'undereducated'...it has some extremely educated proponents.
From your own article: "The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life," John West, associate director of the organization's Center for Science and Culture, said in a statement.
And, when it gets right down to it, it takes nothing more than a leap offaith to believe in either theory - evolution or creation.
Oh, and on another note, this by no means makes President Bush a theocrat...it simply means that he believes that we shouldn't be shoving secularism down everyone's throats. Besides the fact that there is more logic to creationsism than there is to kool-aid laced with cyanide, if President Bush was truly anything approaching a theocrat, he wouldn't have needed Colin Powell to go to the UN to justify the Iraq war - all he would have needed to say was, "God wants us to kill Saddam." In fact, if he were truly a theocrat, he could (and would) justify any action by merely saying "God told me to"...but he hasn't done that.
Skin, I liked you better when you argued logically...but it seems that recently, all that comes from you is nothing more than Bush-bashing (and religion-bashing). So I think that the real question is, what is it about President Bush and other religious people that has you so scared?
Oh, and on another note, this by no means makes President Bush a theocrat...it simply means that he believes that we shouldn't be shoving secularism down everyone's throats.
...You have got to be kidding me.
No where does the U.S. push secularism on people. When I studied evolution in school my teacher always said that evolution is only a theory, and you don't have to believe it if your religion teaches otherwise.
None of the christian students (even the highly religious ones that keep a bible on their desk) felt that they were being "persecuted" or anything. They have their faith, and no educational system can shake them out of it.
If Bush doesn't want beliefs shoved down peoples' throats, he should stop pushing christianity on everyone.
There are thousands, if not millions, of "unproven" theories in science (including almost everything that Einstein set forth...) so why does this one get all the really great hate mail? :rolleyes:
Teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools is an unbelievably bad idea. American students have already fallen far enough behind the rest of the civilized world in the realms of hard science. Sure, the theory of evolution of the species isn't proven (yet) but so far it is the most likely explanation, and more importantly the most accepted by the world's scientific communities, that we have come up with that doesn't reduce the question to theology and myth. Even if an American student doesn't choose to believe evolution, they should know the theory and the mechanics of it in order to compete on the world stage.
It's like exposing kids to the Metric system: We may not use it here,.. but pretty much the rest of the world does, and if kids aren't exposed to it they'll never be able to keep up later.
But teaching "Intelligent Design" automatically begs the question of an "Intelligent Design-er" and who it might be, and the purposes behind the design. You can't teach one without going into the other. That leads me to some questions:
First: Is that something you really want an overworked and underpaid public school science teacher to really get into... especially if it's against their principals? It seems to me that it could ultimately do far more harm than good.
Secondly: In the interest of fair treatment, are we going to give equal time to all the different creation mythologies if we do go down this route? Not only all the different Judeo-Christian variations of creation, but also Hindu and Buddhist as well. How about the creation stories of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Vikings, all the various indigenous tribes of Africa, South America, Australia, and the American Indians as well? Perhaps we should throw a little L. Ron Hubbard Scientology in there for good measure, too. Seems to me that if you offer evidence of a design without being able to give hard proof of a designer, then all these different theories are now equally valid.
Third: If "Equal-Time" exposure of children to different ideas is so important, then will it be possible to scientists to come and teach scientific theories to them in Sunday School? I have my doubts on that one.
Religion belongs in church and at home. Science belongs in school.
For American students to be taken seriously in the field of science by the rest of the world they need to know what the theory of evolution is and how it is supposed to work without it being watered down and/or confused be supposedly equally valid 'theories' about the origins of life on Earth. They may choose to believe something else, but they need to be taught it.
Make him a Theocrat? Not really. Make him an idiot? Doesn't everything he says?
If you throw out Evolution from school feaching you need to throw out most of physics as well, plus a lot of other science that is the basis of the way our world and technology works.
The way science works is that scientists put together theories that match the observable facts. Other scientists then try and disprove those theories. If they can't disprove them then that theory becomes the working theory and subsequent science improves, refines, corrects and backs it up.
There have been half a dozen highly important breakthroughs in understanding evolution in the last year or so alone (creation of eyes, spliting of butterfly species, etc..)... and these only happened because scientists had a working theory to use as a template. So as a theory (in the scientific use of the word) it is being improved and tightened up all the time.
Skin does bring up a good point when he says that even if you can find any evidence for "intelligent design", you can find NO evidence for who is behind it. It could be god, it could be budda, it could be aliens, it could be robots from the future.
I feel that there IS a place for teaching ABOUT religion in schools as, like it or loath it, it is a major factor in the world. However it should be taught in a seperate Religious Education class, it should include ALL major religions and it should be taught fromt he point of view of an external examination of their beliefs... not as a "bible study group" or any other method that has the intention of making belivers of the students.
he Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle that is the leading proponent of intelligent design, said it has compiled a list of more than 400 scientists, including 70 biologists, who are skeptical about evolution.
That is hardly the same as saying that all those scientists support intelligent design. Many scientists say that the more they learn about the complexities of life the more they believe there may be some will behind it. But that will, if it exists, is manifested in the beauty of the processes like the big bang and evolution... not an alternative to it.
And on the 5th day god created the squid, and its eyes were perfect. On the 6th day god created man, but he forgot how to do eyes therefore man begot a blind spot in his eyes. On the seventh day, as he was resting, god said "Doh!, i could have just used the squid-eye method... what an idiot"
Personally, I wonder why our schools concern themselves with teaching any aspect of creation/evolution - after all, both theories are inherently unprovable under the scientific method.
Poppycock from an undereducated point of view. One is a theory the other is barely an hypothesis. "Theory" implies that it is comprised of one or more hypotheses that have been successfully tested. Atomic theory, for instance. Worried about nuclear attacks from terrorists? Don't worry. It's all just theory. ID is based on unsupported and untested hypotheses. Evolution happened. Of this, science is certain. It is some of the mechanisms of evolution which are still being explored, but even still, we have some very good working and testable hypotheses.
There are many and more scientists who, after long and arduous research, have come to believe that Earth was created, for one reason or another. Creationism isn't just the realm of the 'undereducated'...it has some extremely educated proponents.
More poppycock. There are supposedly over 400 scientists on a "list" by the Discovery Institute who reject Darwin. First, the only thing this really says is that there are a very small minority of educated people who allow their belief systems and superstitions to override their critical thinking. Nothing surprising here. We even had a President and his wife that routinely consulted an astrologer for advice.
But when you look at their list and actually break it down, the majority of the names are not relevant to fields that are associated with evolutionary study. Ther are only 26 biologists, 2 anthropologists and 3 geologists.
Rather than say that "there are 400 scientists," what do you suppose the effect would be if you attempted an appeal to authority (a fallacy of pseudoscience, btw) by saying, "X% of the world's scientists" or perhaps, "X out of Y scientists?"
Fact: Evolution happened. That it happened is verifiable and provable.
Fact: Those that doubt it or disbelieve it are either undereducated or guilty of allowing their own religious superstitions to supercede their educations.
We certainly do not need a President that attempts to codify his own religious beliefs into law or policy.
And, when it gets right down to it, it takes nothing more than a leap offaith to believe in either theory - evolution or creation.
Only for the undereducated. For someone that was able or willing to get an education in the sciences -either in High School or college- that gave a fair examination to evolutionary theory, it takes no "leap" of anything. It all seems quite logical.
Oh, and on another note, this by no means makes President Bush a theocrat...it simply means that he believes that we shouldn't be shoving secularism down everyone's throats.
That's part of the whole problem. Teaching good science in public schools is in no way "shoving secularism down people's throats." Suggesting creation is as likely is however shoving the religion of one cult down peoples, thus excluding all the other cults that exist. Our nation is comprised of Hindu, Muslim, Native American, Buddhist, etc. cultures, each of which deserve not to be pressured by the majority cults of Christianity.
Besides the fact that there is more logic to creationsism than there is to kool-aid laced with cyanide,
Really? I fail to see it. There is absolutely nothing logical about the creation myths of humanity beyond the fact that they provided ancient and primitive humans with an ability to explain their existences in the absence of science.
if President Bush was truly anything approaching a theocrat, he wouldn't have needed Colin Powell to go to the UN to justify the Iraq war - all he would have needed to say was, "God wants us to kill Saddam."
I was under the impression that Bush didn't need General Powell, particularly since his visit didn't appear to accomplish anything. Moreover, I believe Bush was actually quoted somewhere saying something very similar to that.
In fact, if he were truly a theocrat, he could (and would) justify any action by merely saying "God told me to"...but he hasn't done that.
Not yet. But theocracy need not be as blatant as that of the Muslim world. We are living in a very subtle theocratric nation, comparably. But the evidence is there. Politicians use religious appeals to constituents to get votes; make public policy based on religious superstition and beliefs; seek approval from the religious majority; etc.
Skin, I liked you better when you argued logically...but it seems that recently, all that comes from you is nothing more than Bush-bashing (and religion-bashing).
Both of which are issues that have significant, negative impact on our nation. I'm not against religion or the religious. In fact, I have great respect for those that choose religion for personal reasons. I *do*, however have a problem with religion when politicians want to use it to codify law or policy; when it is used as *proof* of anything; when someone says they have *proof* of their religion because of science; or when religious ideals are imposed upon those of other religions or worldviews.
So I think that the real question is, what is it about President Bush and other religious people that has you so scared?
Their disregard for the basic tenants of this nation, which include freedom from religious persecution and domination. Also their ability to use their beliefs to impede progress in this nation. Our kids are not getting the educations they require to be competitive in this world, which will result in outsourcing and importing to those better educated elsewhere; or simply losing entire industries to other nations.
Wait, Skin, was this a debate or a rant? Admit it, you indulged this time. ;)
Is the debate whether or not Bush is a theocrat or whether or not that he should be impeached for (apparently) siding with the creationists? Or is it a debate over whether or not Creationism is logically valid?
And not to be a devil's advocate (since I don't approve of their agenda) but IF the teaching of creationism is legal, then it's not a crime to endorse it and thus not something you can impeach a president for ("high crimes and misdemeanors"). You're saying that it has to be an establishment of religion or prohibition of the free practice thereof, right?
Is the Constitution a Living Documents or is it something set in stone? That's another issue that could be debated here.
And Skin, while I respect you to do research, direct quotes are always good when making accusations against public figures. Otherwise it's simply hearsay, and anyone can badmouth a public figure without checking up on it.
And a final question, is it possible for a religious person to be president? That's probably the most interesting debate question you're fishing for. ;)
Carry on...
Wait, Skin, was this a debate or a rant? Admit it, you indulged this time. ;)
Okay. I indulged a little... but I was genuinely put off by the President's position and I *do* think that the topic deserves serious discussion. Suggesting that a psuedoscience be offered as a viable alternative in our public schools is a very serious matter.
Is the debate whether or not Bush is a theocrat or whether or not that he should be impeached for (apparently) siding with the creationists? Or is it a debate over whether or not Creationism is logically valid?
I realize that an impeachment of Bush, particularly for simply being undereducated or allowing religious beliefs to dominate his expectations as President, is not going to happen. The guy is, in my opinion, the worst President that I've seen in my lifetime. In fact, I liked all of them even back to Nixon... (well Ford was boring and a klutz) but Bush is bad for this nation. But a republican Congress will ensure that their sugar daddy remains in office. The "impeachment" remark was simply a reminder of another thread's topic.
But I do think that a debate over the validity of the creationist argument is warranted. And I think I can easily demonstrate its invalid nature with logic and reason. I also think that this is now something that the scientific community is going to have to grab by the horns and actually deal with. Until now, their official policy has been to give it as little acknowldedgement as possible since it is clearly psuedoscience (particularly with regard to 'intelligent' design, which is creationism wrapped in scienctific-sounding words).
And not to be a devil's advocate (since I don't approve of their agenda) but IF the teaching of creationism is legal, then it's not a crime to endorse it and thus not something you can impeach a president for ("high crimes and misdemeanors").
Not that it matters, since an "impeachment" isn't likely, but teaching creationism is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
Is the Constitution a Living Documents or is it something set in stone? That's another issue that could be debated here.
It is clearly a living document. But to codify it with the doctrine of a single religion would not only invalidate it's purpose to begin with, it would "kill" it!
And Skin, while I respect you to do research, direct quotes are always good when making accusations against public figures. Otherwise it's simply hearsay, and anyone can badmouth a public figure without checking up on it.[/QUOTE]
I think the only quote I used is clearly sourced in the link.
And a final question, is it possible for a religious person to be president? That's probably the most interesting debate question you're fishing for. ;)
The real question would be, "is it possible for a non-religious person to be president, would it not. I can't think of a single President since WWII that wasn't religious. Indeed, it was Eisenhower that added the "trust in god" "motto" to the American coinage and "under god" to the Pledge of Allegance. This marks the beginning of the end of the separation of church and state, and ideal that, contrary to the rhetoric that religious leaders spread, was very clear early in American History.
Well, the Americans can bash the french all they want, they still got it right. They've had non-religious public schools since 1881.
The answer to the final question is clearly No.
Would it be possible for a politician of a non-christian religion to become president, even if they were sufficiently pious? I suspect the answer to this would also be no.
As the third world continues to overtake the US and it's economy and related economic power starts to decrease its quite likely that more and more people will turn to religion in the hopes of an answer... so its likely that the split between the conservative centre states and the coast will get bigger and bigger.
PS/ 400 scientists? In the world? We have more than that at the company i work for. Thats like 0.000001% or something?
Okay... now I know what you were referring to, Kurg. Good call.
I said, "I believe Bush was quoted as saying something very similar to that" with regard to rrcar's comment about "god told me to kill Saddam."
------------------------
"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. [...] And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned." -- George W. Bush, Press Conference, New York Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/politics/14BTEX.html?ex=1123300800&en=03624eccdf5d57e5&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=login).
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." --George W. Bush, `Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas (
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y), The Haaretz - Israel News.
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."
-- George W. Bush, in private meeting with an Amish Group, Lancaster New Era (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172948/posts)
"I believe that God wants me to be president."
-- George W. Bush, according to Rev. Land via Understanding the President and His God (
http://www.beliefnet.com/frame_offsite.asp?pageLoc=http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=56).
Well, its a theory... not sure i'd take it that far...
Okay. I indulged a little... but I was genuinely put off by the President's position and I *do* think that the topic deserves serious discussion. Suggesting that a psuedoscience be offered as a viable alternative in our public schools is a very serious matter.
Okay, so long as you admit it. After all this is the "Senate Chambers" not the "rant forum." As a fellow occasional ranter, I sympathize. ;)
I realize that an impeachment of Bush, particularly for simply being undereducated or allowing religious beliefs to dominate his expectations as President, is not going to happen. The guy is, in my opinion, the worst President that I've seen in my lifetime. In fact, I liked all of them even back to Nixon... (well Ford was boring and a klutz) but Bush is bad for this nation.
I'm not as old as you, but you're serious.. Nixon?? I admit it's probably easier to see the current administration as worse because it's in the "here and now" rather than from decades in the past, but still. Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned (the only president in US history to do so) amid a huge corruption scandal. Then there's all that crap about his paranoia, closet anti-semitism, the Vietnam debacle (which admittedly was dumped on his lap from previous administrations, but still), etc. I agree that Bush has turned out to be a "bad president" for all intents and purposes ("good" only that he manages to stay in office with loyal support despite his flaws and bad decisions of course). I know there's plenty of people who admire Nixon, but really. I'm just a bit surprised.
As for Ford being a "klutz" many would point to Bush's public speech gaffes and bad jokes as a similar public presence flaw (and remember the "pretzel incident"?), but whatever. The guy was just keeping the seat warm during the transition and I realize many never forgave him for pardoning Nixon.
So the real question is.. does Bush scare you because of his "I'm a cowboy on a Crusade" type treatment of 9/11 and Iraq? Or the "faith based initiatives/not-quite-prochoice rhetoric" thing before that? I remember how before all this "War on Terror" people were already doomsaying how Bush was this fundie idiot who was going to turn us into a theocratic state (based on nothing but the fact that he dropped the J-word a lot, which virtually all the candidates were doing at the time too).
I guess the question is isn't whether or not you hate Bush, or that you and I voted against him, but rather "what makes Bush special" ie: why single him out as the "worst of the worst" ? That could make for some interesting discussion.
Right now it's just sort of a mixed bag of rambling possible debates.
We have the debate over Creationism Vs. Science. We have the responsiblity of education. We have the history of the Presidency. We have the "War on Terror/Iraq War." We have Religion in the Public Sphere. Then we have all the other hot button issues tied in every election...(I need not list them you can think of them in like 5 seconds).
But I do think that a debate over the validity of the creationist argument is warranted.
Have we ever debated Creationism in the Senate? Lately? I think that each of these topics should be split off into their own topic. That avoids confusion.
Otherwise we'll have people going "OH YEAH? Well Creationism Intelligent Design Evolution in Schools!" and somebody else going "HA! Abortion Death Penalty War on Terror!" and "NO, you're WRONG! Stem Cell research Supreme Court Patriot Act FCC!" etc.
And I think I can easily demonstrate its invalid nature with logic and reason. I also think that this is now something that the scientific community is going to have to grab by the horns and actually deal with. Until now, their official policy has been to give it as little acknowldedgement as possible since it is clearly psuedoscience (particularly with regard to 'intelligent' design, which is creationism wrapped in scienctific-sounding words).
First I'll caution you about the case of Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky. Noted? Okay, carry on (new thread please?).
Not that it matters, since an "impeachment" isn't likely, but teaching creationism is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
That would be a good debate. But you've really got two topics... the Creationism thing itself and then the Constitutionality of it. While it's nice to see you confident you can refute the entire Creationist argument in a single post, I question whether such a "fire and forget" debate can really end that quickly. I say don't light the candle at both ends, put these in seperate topics.
It is clearly a living document. But to codify it with the doctrine of a single religion would not only invalidate it's purpose to begin with, it would "kill" it!
Fair enough. Then you'd have to argue the Constitution thread, and show why the Creationist argument is one segment of one religion's viewpoint (or possibly 2 or 3, depending).
I think the only quote I used is clearly sourced in the link.
Okay. I just get a bit nervous when I see "I think somewhere he said..." used as an argument against somebody. ;P
The real question would be, "is it possible for a non-religious person to be president, would it not. I can't think of a single President since WWII that wasn't religious. Indeed, it was Eisenhower that added the "trust in god" "motto" to the American coinage and "under god" to the Pledge of Allegance.
Another good topic. There's plenty of people who for example wish to paint Abraham Lincoln as a Deist. Others as an Atheist. Which was he? While we can't know a person's inner thoughts, we can examine their actions and writings. So what's the difference between a faithful religious person, a hypocritical, backsliding (or nominal) religious person, and a non-religious (atheist?) person who just uses religion to appease the masses (who happen to be religious)? Deists and Atheists are always quick to point out that few of the recognized "Founding Fathers" and early presidents of the US were avowed Christians. Maybe times have changed? In any case, another topic.
As to the president above, I thought it wasn't his initiative, but his bowing to the desires of interest groups (the Knights of Columbus for example). The Pledge came from the Civil War Era, but the "under God" part wasn't added until later, again by the pressure of interest groups. The above makes it sound like Eisenhower came up with it on his own. Without popular support, I doubt it would have happened (insert old rhetoric about how it was "the Christian West vs. Godless Communism" back in the day).
You've got a lot of great topic ideas here Skin, I'm just trying to be the (hopefully helpful) voice of reason here and see that it doesn't turn into one jumbled mess. One good rant can spark a thousand great debates.
This marks the beginning of the end of the separation of church and state, and ideal that, contrary to the rhetoric that religious leaders spread, was very clear early in American History.
Topic # whatever in the many topics mentioned above. ;)
It's just such a complex thing it really deserves multiple topics (or contributions to otherwise established threads.. I haven't dug into the history lately).
One more thing.. I honestly think Religion DOES belong in schools, but of the academic comparative variety (as opposed to the "this is the TRUTH" and/or devotional approach used in private religious schools)
If we can handle sex in the schools (the education aspect, for any pervs out there who like to take things the wrong way) we can handle religion. This is done at the college level, but why wait that long to inform people about religious differences, etc from a detached viewpoint?
Germany already handles it in High School sort of (you can choose to take Catholicism, Lutheranism or Ethics iirc). But a nice academic study of religion comparative study (that was required, not optional) could be good for all concerned. Like it or not, religion is a part of life in the US, might as well get a head start instead of just entrenching an "us vs. them" mentality.
Another good topic. I mean think about it, we can start heading off the dangerous of fundamentalism (based on intolerance and misunderstanding) earlier, no? Why is discussion of religion a taboo topic until University?
There is already the appropriate amount of religion in school.
In history class we studied buddism, hinduism, christianity, and islam. We even studied the earliest caveman religions.
Just out of curiosity where'd you go to public school? I seem to remember us studying various creation myths of different cultures in elementary (grades 1-5) sometime. I went to Catholic school after that so I can't say. In my first year of H.S. spent at a public school here in Iowa religion came up occasionally in American history class, but we didn't spend any real time on it, just passing mentions (like the "Scopes Monkey Trial" and Puritans, etc).
It does fit into history, I agree. I guess I was thinking of something with more focus, ie: the religions themselves. But I realize there is only so much time and people already argue over what gets focused on with regards to historical periods, much less religions that people may or may not believe in.
It hurts that I've barely set foot in a public grade school or high school since those days as a kid (except on occasion to vote for example). From the sound of it sometimes one can't say "God" without somebody raising a fuss.
;)
<_< I'm still in school. It's just regular public high school...
We spent a great deal of time studying religions, researching their origins and beliefs. I found it pretty interesting.
Oh yeah, and we studied judaism too.
I have no problem with discussing religion in school, in the proper context. In fact, I think it's an excellent idea. Religion, faith, and spirituality have played an important part of humans lives for as long as we have existed, so I don't believe it can be ignored.
I do have a problem with direct religious education in school... unless it's a parochial or other religious-intended school.
In public schools however, it must not be an exclusive "THIS is the only way!" approach, though.
However, many fundamentalists would have a problem with that, so perhaps it's better to leave it alone.
My problem is that they want it taught in science class. Atleast they do here.
They being the ID people.
My problem is that they want it taught in science class. Atleast they do here.
They being the ID people.
"...and so, God smited the humble heathens with fire and brimstone, delievering them to the firery gates of Hell..."
"What did Allah do?"
"Excuse me, Billy?"
"We're learning about intelligent design, right? Allah created us too."
"You're mistaken."
"...but my uncle is a muslim and belongs to a mosque in New York and he said that Allah created us all."
"Now kids, Billy's uncle is what we call a 'heathen,' would everyone pronouce 'heathen?'
"Heathen."
"Good. Now Billy, your uncle is a heathen and he's going to hell."
"But shouldn't we still learn about Allah? This isn't church..."
"Don't be silly, Billy. You get an F for the day."
":("
"Back to the lesson; and so God laid the Three Plagues unto the Pharoh..."
Okay, so long as you admit it. After all this is the "Senate Chambers" not the "rant forum." As a fellow occasional ranter, I sympathize. ;)
I think I would have to first disagree that everything in the Senate Chambers must be a debate. In the subforum description, we see the addition of serious discussion. At one point in the Senate's history, I'm positive I remember seeing it described as "serious discussion and debate only."
My point being, this is a topic of serious discussion and, while it began with a rant (albeit one that had a point), it also is a debatable position as there are those that readily buy into creationist point of view.
Right now it's just sort of a mixed bag of rambling possible debates.
We have the debate over Creationism Vs. Science. We have the responsiblity of education. We have the history of the Presidency. We have the "War on Terror/Iraq War." We have Religion in the Public Sphere. Then we have all the other hot button issues tied in every election...(I need not list them you can think of them in like 5 seconds).
And I actually started the process of isolating these subtopics above and creating a new set of threads. I even considered pointing to them from within this thread by editing my opening & following posts.
But as I labored over how to do it, I realized that when we discuss the issue of President Bush openly giving his support for a pseudoscience, we have to take into consideration "creation -v- science," "religion in the public sphere," and perhaps even the "history of the Presidency" in order to adequately discuss such a complex and serious topic.
That a President offers his support so openly for something that runs counter to everything that is considered to be good science is truly unprecedented as near as I can tell.
Have we ever debated Creationism in the Senate? Lately? I think that each of these topics should be split off into their own topic. That avoids confusion.
We haven't debated creationism in the Senate in the last few months. Moreover, if the topic is to be discussed, then perhaps it should be given a fresh look. My perspective, while still the same, is better educated. Perhaps that is true of the opposition as well. But, again, I believe it would be more confusing to split off the topic of presidential support of a pseudoscience. I will, however, agree that perhaps the thread title could stand a change in order to more accurately reflect the topic.
The topic is the President's support of "intelligent design." The issues that are directly relevant to that are: 1) is "intelligent" design a science; or 2) is it just "creationism" in a new wrapper; 3) if the second is true, then is presenting a religious opinion of untestable proportions in the science classrooms of public school children acceptable; 4) if the answer to #3 is "no," then is it appropriate for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world to announce that a pseudoscience is acceptable in science classrooms as a "viable alternative."
Otherwise we'll have people going "OH YEAH? Well Creationism Intelligent Design Evolution in Schools!" and somebody else going "HA! Abortion Death Penalty War on Terror!" and "NO, you're WRONG! Stem Cell research Supreme Court Patriot Act FCC!" etc.
Hmmm.. perhaps we should hope that a moderator participates in the debate, eh :cool:
Point taken, though. The more dichometric the debate, the more polar the debaters, the more likely non sequiturs and strawmen are to be tossed about, along with red herrings, slippery slopes and other fallacies of logic. But I'm convinced that splitting beyond the topic outline above would be the wrong move. Certainly, if a decent tangent discussion emerges I would be ready to split the thread. That's a standard practice with many of the threads that go beyond a few pages around here. Threads like that are "good for business" in the Senate, actually.
Please don't take my disagreement as any sort of insubordination (or a continuation of my earlier rant!), as I am completely open to modifying my opinion regarding a thread of this sort *do* see your point. I started to PM this to you, but I wasn't sure if the character limitations were still in effect. I also didn't want posters in the thread to think that I simply disregarded an Administrator and did my own thing regardless. At any rate, I have high respect for your opinions in matters like this and, as I said, I nearly created a half dozen threads (and my hope is that a few daughter threads will emerge).
My dilemma is that if a debate is begun on the validity of Constitutionality of creation in the classroom, would not that imply that the validity of creation must also be examined?
First I'll caution you about the case of Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky. Noted? Okay, carry on (new thread please?).
I'm very familiar with the Sagan/Velikovsky debate, actually. Indeed, Sagan was one of the few in the scientific community that stood up for Velikovsky's right to profer his opinion in public forum. Sagan was also one of the most critical of his "theories," but in respectful fashion. I'm still attempting to determine the analogy you're trying to make here, though. Could you expand upon that?
In regards to the Velikovsky debate, some feel (notably "bad" astronomer Phil Plait, whom you're free to disagree with of course) that Sagan made a rather poor showing of the Scientific community by handling his end of the "debate" with Velikovsky by using lots of debating fallacies and being a bit of a condescending jerk. Sure, those who recognized Velikovsky's ideas as being balderdash might feel that he deserved it, the less informed public basically got the impression that scientists are a$$holes and the poor man was a "martyr" merely because his theories were unorthodox (not because his ideas were completely wrong). I'm sure Sagan meant well, but, anyway that's the critcism of how it turned out.
I've read parts of Broca's Brain dealing with it (and I like Sagan's writing style) but he does tend to ramble and it's possible he dropped the ball on this one and did more harm than good. Since it's the public reputation of science that he's representing, not just his own reputation.
And I don't mean to sound like a nitpicky nag either, I was just hoping I could offer some helpful suggestions. I'm not saying the Senate HAS to be only debate, but that's why people come back is it not? It's the "meat & potatoes" of the Senate Forum. Otherwise, like I said, it's just rants. Or just news links. I can get news on Yahoo and I can get rants all over the entire internet ("blogs" are just serialized rants for the most part). But SERIOUS DEBATE and discussion is something that's a bit harder to find. I'm not saying we're the Brain Trust here, but we try.
Anyway, no offense taken or given (hopefully) just trying to be helpful. Passionate beginnings, fruitful results. Hopefully we all learn something. ;) I wish I had time to participate. But I'll look forward to checking up and reading what happens...
One more thing.. I honestly think Religion DOES belong in schools, but of the academic comparative variety (as opposed to the "this is the TRUTH" and/or devotional approach used in private religious schools)
That seems to be what happens in most of the rest of the world. Its definately what happens in the UK. I guess you could argue that one of the problems with a written constitution is that it tends to seperate everything out into black and white (ie: either NO religion in schools at all, or fully religious schools).
The problem with many scientific issues is that scientists will NEVER stand up and unequivocally support or denounce anything. Whereas religious leaders and politicians are always quick to do so. This leaves the public feeling that the scientists are less certain than the demagogues, and that therefore their evidence is less conculsive.
Given this reluctance, I've created a handy cut-out-and-keep comparisson between ID and Evolution.
| Evolution | Intelligent Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially inspired by: | Scientific Observation | A Story in a Book
Supporting Evidence: | 100s of independent scient- | None
| ific observations & studies |
Proven: | 95% | 0% - Impossible to prove
Disproven: | 1% | 10% - Impossible to disprove
Scientists supporting: | 99.999999% | 0.000001%
Good use of the "code" feature. ;)
Is it really that bad over there? I went to a Catholic primary school actually called 'St. Marys', and we were still taught science. Sure, we had religious assemblies and the like, but it never interfered with our lessons. It's been a few years now, but I think we were taught about other religions as well. And Americans don't even have this at secondary school level?!
We already learn about religion here in social classes. The thing is people are wanting ID to be taught in science class alongside evolution.
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't just a case of a few schools who have "problems with evolution" and created these media incidents. Intelligent Design, like Creationism is a philosophical idea, not a scientific theory, it belongs in a study of religion, not science (unless it is filed under "unproven or discredited ideas"... I mean old theories like the steady state theory, the geocentric theory and spontaneous generation were mentioned in my science classes in Jr./high school, to show the progression of thought).
My take on it is that ID is not science and should not be taught alongside 'real' science. It should be in whatever religion classes you might have. ID is quite simply just an opinion, and you could take the same 'evidence' (ok I'll stop using quotes now :p) and just say that the reason things are the way they are is because we wouldn't be around to talk about them if they weren't. This is rather dissatisfying answer, but it does fulfill the same role.
I could not suppress the urge to share with you all the following blog entry at Panda's Thumb (
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/the_reaction_to.html), which effectively satirizes the President's position regarding the pseudoscience of 'intelligent' design.
I am pleased that President Bush and my own Senator Rick Santorum have voiced their support for the teaching of “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution in our public schools. This is because I, myself, have an alternative explanation to a scientific “theory” that I believe should also be considered for inclusion in the public school curriculum.
It has been apparent to me for some time that the sun revolves around the earth and not, as many scientists contend, the other way around. We can observe the sun circling around us in the sky everyday, yet the scientists stubbornly contend that this is because the earth is spinning as it orbits the sun. Surely, if the earth were spinning so rapidly we would be able to detect its motion. Yet I can stand perfectly still and I cannot detect any motion whatsoever.
Every scientist I’ve talked with about my explanation disputes my contention, and talk about how their “theory” of planetary motion successfully predicts or explains numerous phenomena (the turn of the seasons, space flight, eclipses, and blah blah blah); however, I believe it is critically important that both sides of this argument be heard in our public schools. The education of our children deserves no less.
I soon plan to write to President Bush and Senator Santorum to seek their support for my alternative explanation to the ”theory” of planetary motion. Given their track record of supporting alternatives to teaching science in our public schools, I am quite hopeful that my views will be favorably received.
Several of us in the Senate Chambers recently engaged in a short debate on Evolution vs. Creation elsewhere on the internet. That discussion was cut short, but should any proponents of either Bush or "intelligent" design wish to debate the merits of one or both, I'm willing. Indeed, I feel confident that I can effectively refute any argument that a proponet of creation/intelligent design might have. The latter is a pseudoscience based on a the former, which is myth. The science is clear and testable.
But beyond the merits of creationism, the President's support of it's presentation in science classrooms is deeply troubling. I would not be surprised if even the most staunch Bush supporters chose not to side with his position on this. I've even noted several conservative blogs that have been critical of it.
A war gone bad; treasonous acts of one of his top aids and closest friends; the appointment of a UN Ambassador that was booed his first day on the job; the exposure of lie after lie from his office; and the worst popularity poll results since Sept. 11, 2001... what's a lame duck President to do? Was he attempting to appeal to the religiously inclined in this nation or was he simply speaking without thinking?
Okay, the latter is probably a given regardless. But I think there is still a considerable desire of his to appeal to the religious conservatives and the Wedge Strategy (
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) is a very real push of theirs.
Actually, Santorum is against teaching ID in schools.Story here. (
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-04T191725Z_01_N04247382_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-POLITICS-EVOLUTION-DC.XML)
I only noted it because it's the very first thing that I have ever agreed with him on, although his reasons are different than mine.
I enjoyed this editorial (
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/080505/loc_column001.shtml) about it as well. A couple of very good points, especially the bit about how the correct answers on every test will become "Because it is God's will."
Another takeoff of intelligent design here, with this guy's equally provable Flying Spaggetti Monster Theory
http://www.venganza.org/)
Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, was quoted in The New York Times this week as saying intelligent design was not a scientific concept, and that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean he thinks the concept should be taught as part of the "social context" in science classes.
So, even the bush side aren't willing to say ID is rea science, but they think it should be taucht anyway? Well, when 2/3rds of the US population think it should be taught alongside evolution its hardly surprising that politicians are gonna try and appeal to them.
I'm sort of an agnostic leaning towards atheism, so I am probably biased, but I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the clergy and Religious zealots/fanatics take the book of Genesis as anything more literal than a metaphor. 2/3rds of the US population? Mankind is doomed.
Well, it's funny... back when I used to attend church semi-regularly, I remember all kinds of Bible studies and discussion groups on decoding the symbolism of the prophesies, especially Revelations. Nobody actually imagined that a giant, multi-headed beast was going to rise up out of the oceans, and that the people of the world were going to follow it unquestioningly. There were many long discussions on what all the various symbols really meant, and how to interpret them. Even passages of the Bible that seemed pretty straightforward were dissected this way for clues to prophetic truth.
Only Genesis was unique. This was interpreted as literal truth, with no symbolism encoded. No questions were to be asked.
This always struck me as odd. If the last chapters of the Bible can be filled with symbols with other (sometimes many other) meanings, why can't the first chapters also be such?
After all, what is the purpose of the Bible? Is it meant to be an in depth, encyclopedic reference to everything that humans will ever need to know about the culinary arts, science, architecture, history, and politics? Or, is it meant to be a guidebook on how humans are supposed to relate to each other and their deity, with enlightening examples and stories?
I tend to lean towards the latter, thinking that if God really did reveal the text of the Bible, then it really couldn't have served His purposes to spend the first 40 chapters going over the minute details of the big-bang, and the intricacies of natural selection and genetic mutations in ways that would make Stephen Hawking's head swim, just to get to the good part about being nice to one another.
Besides, think about the way the early chapters of the Pentateuch were supposed to have been written: With God revealing all to Moses on Sinai, and him later setting all down. Now think about it: Moses was hardly a man of science, even such as it was back in ancient Egypt. He was probably well educated for the day, but I doubt that he could have kept up on a discussion of universal expansion and cooling, baryons, and trilobites for long before getting lost and starting to glaze over. So when it came time to set it down on paper, he took what he remembered, and what little of that he actually understood, applied some judicious editing, and came up with: "In the Beginning..."
It still strikes me as odd that any religious person would choose to interpret it literally. Why cling to that one particular book as totally non-symbolic? What exactly does it have to do with salvation if man wasn't created in exactly that manner? Why must there have been an actual, physical Adam and Eve for the rest of the writings to have any value?
It does seem to be a new, or at least growing, phenomemon that more and more people seem to be taking the bible literally.
There is no legal "seperation of church and state" as such in the UK, and there are loads of Faith Schools (mainly catholic). A lot of the other non-faith schools have Church of England elements in morning assemblys. But as far as i know it never even occurs to these schools (catholic, CofE, whatever) NOT to teach evolution and to talk up Creationism.. as it seems to in the US. The religious elements are kept seperate and taught in the religious studies classes, the science is taught in science classes.
I went to sunday school, my mother was a church warden, we knew our vicar fairly well, never, at any point, did any of them imply that every bit of the bible was to be taken literally, and that evolution was wrong. It was always treated as an alegory, never as fact. To be honest i'm having a very hard time understading how anyone COULD think it was fact... religious or otherwise. So much of the bible is obviously about demonstrating ideas through soties (the parables for example) that it always seemed logical that genesis was too. Even to the priests, sunday school teachers and (i think) the last pope.
Do you think 2/3rd of the US has always felt this way, but only with the election of someone like bush they have had the courage to come out of the closet? Or do you think it is a new and growing phenomenon of literal christian fundamentalists now outnumbering the moderates (as a lot of the moderates have lapsed)?
Well, America has always been about going to the far extremes. Moderates have always been somewhat frowned upon as wishy-washy, which is a fate even worse than clinging to the totally wrong belief, in many people's view. In this case, people tend to grab onto one side of the debate and just hold on for dear life.
Fundamentalism is growing, not only here, but around the whole world. Partly, I think it's a reaction to a culture that is changing faster than the human mind was meant to cope with. Late in the last century the world was forced to come to grips with all the technologies that effectively erased all the old tribal and national boundaries we had all gotten so comfortable with, and forced people who had never had any contact with the outside world to accept any number of different cultures, ideas, and schools of thought that they may never imagined existed.
I think a lot of people weren't mentally ready for this, and closed up their minds instead, and adopted a highly literalistic view of the "old ways" that simply couldn't be corrupted by all this new stuff being thrown at them all at once. In that way, at least subconsciously anyway, they believe that they can keep their tribal heritage pure.
That's a good point, but does it apply to America? America doesn't have a history, at least not much of one, definitly not a tribal history. By the way, I like your theory about God telling Moses about creation how it really happened, and Moses, not understanding it, simplifys it to the Book of Genesis. I think some scientists have divided the history of the planet into 7 phases, or 'days', before, but I suck at finding sources to quote. This seperation would obviously lend credence to Christianity and Judaism, if scientific 'support' were to be found for Genesis.
Well, tribal culture has been expanded into regional and nationalistic tendancies. Any group with a common culture and belief code can adopt the tribal mindset. That's all I meant by that. For example, if you don't think Texans can see themselves as a type of tribe, then think again. :D
Christians can see themselves as a tribe. So can Republicans or Democrats.
I was actually thinking about folks from small-town rural southern and Mid-Western America, for whom life hasn't changed much in the last couple of hundred years, (mostly revolving around family, farming, and religion,) suddenly besieged with big-city and foriegn cultures coming at them from thier radios, TV, movies, and internet, shattering thier long held and largely unquestioned beliefs.
Just like the desert Arabs reacted when they found the rest of the world on thier doorstep with radically different ideas on cultural matters, they folded back into Fundamentalism rather than seek to embrace the alternate cultures they were now suddenly exposed to.
As to the 2nd part of your post:
I once fell asleep on the couch watching a program on Genesis, and awoke a couple of hours later watching a show about the big-bang. I was shocked at the similarities between them. If you replace "days" with "eras" and "Earth" with "Universe," then Genesis is actually a really good 1 paragraph shorthand synopsis of the early history of the universe... at least in the basic order of events. So I guess I can totally see that theory.
For those interested in signing a petition, click here:
http://ga1.org/campaign/intelligentdesign)
After signing the petition, users are sent to CSICOP's creation and intelligent design watch page.
Heh - gotta feel sorry for you Americans sometimes ;)
...donno if any of you have seen this, but made me chuckle :D
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2)
Why is there a J-List ad there?
It's just...weird...
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2)
I'm... speechless...
As for teaching ID in schools... why bother? They can teach that stuff in church.
Edit: Yeah I know about the Onion... I'm just speechless at the thought
I hope you guys all realise that it's a parody - right?! (If you do, I apologise, but some of the replies gave me the impression you guys think it's a 'real' article...!)
Damn good one though :)
Let's not forget that The Onion is satyrical work, albeit an often funny and relative one as we can see here. :)
Still, I'm forced to backpeddal a bit and give the President a little credit. It would appear that I accepted the media accounts of his statements out of context and made some assumption about his position.
Bush’s science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, said in a telephone interview with the New York Times that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” He added that the president’s comments should be interpreted to mean that ID be discussed not as science but as part of the “social context” in science classes, and that it would be “over-interpreting” Bush’s remarks to conclude that the president believes that ID and the theory of evolution should be given equal treatment in public school science courses (Bumiller, 8/3/05).
Some would conclude that the Marburger is "down-playing" the President's remarks, but I can see how Bush's statement that "intelligent design" should be discussed so that students are at least aware of it and why it is flawed were misunderstood. Certainly the "IDers" exaggerated the remarks as did the liberals in government and media who were critical.
Bush is still a dummy, though. :cool:
Reference:
Bumiller, Elizabeth (8/3/05). Bush Remarks Roil Debate Over Teaching of Evolution. New York Times, National Desk Section
But teachers already do that. They already say that some people believe in creation, but evolution is the most accepted theory among scientists. We get taught all about religion in history class. If that's all "intelligent design" would be, then we already teach it.
His scientific advisors have been saying for weeks that he didn't know what he was talking about. I guess the question is whether you think
(a) He gave a reasonable answer but was misquoted out of context.
(b) He gave a dumb answer without thinking and has since backpedalled after finding out it was unsustainable.
(c) He calculatingly gave an answer that he knew would go down well with most of middle america, and then used his advisors to give a small disclaimer that he knew wouldn't get as much coverage or be noticed by much of middle america.
I'd go with B.
I also go with B.
Sounds like this was a bit of an 'off-the-cuff' statement he made at a 'wide-ranging Q/A session' (according to the original article this thread is based on) - so he was probably told afterwards 'Hmmm - you may have to take that back ya know' ;)
Based on his history, I think I would have to choose "C"...
But I can be a cynical bastard even at the best of times...