I say C.

He may not be the brightest person, but even an idiot can learn to con people.

Leave it to The Onion to show just how silly this whole "Intelligent Design" thing really is. Personally, I think we Americans are in the midst of a crisis. We need to be careful with how we handle the balance between church and state because there are people in our government right now who would impose their own personal and religious views on everyone if we don't speak up and say, "This is not what we elected you to do." Intelligent Design is one of those things that scares me because if we let something as seemingly harmless as this slip through the cracks then pretty soon someone will be proposing things as ridiculous as "Intelligent Falling" be taught alongside widely accepted theories, using the whole idea that they simply want to expose children to different theories as a cover to teach personal views as fact without any consequences.

I don't think intelligent design needs to be taught at school. I'm a somewhat spiritual person and, from a spiritual standpoint, I believe it's possible that some higher power is responsible for laying out a pattern of evolution, but that's not something you can prove. You CAN, however, prove that species have undergone mutations throughout history by the discovery of "missing links" that show where one common species began to diverge and "evolve". Evolution, therefore, though not 100% solid, is a theory based on provable fact. Besides, intelligent design is inheritly religious in nature and as long as a school is funded by the government, religious topics have no place in a classroom setting. Intelligent design may be discussed in an after-school hours club setting but the government cannot fund this. Intelligent design is also a Christian/Catholic concept. If it's taught in school, equal time must be given to all theories on creation, and that's a huge can of worms I don't think many people want to touch.

As for why, Mr. Bush said what he said, I don't know if it was planned as a way to appeal to his base, with the cleanup meant to calm down the left, but it certainly works to that affect. I'm going to say C.

| 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%


You should dash off a couple of digits on your probabilities. You indicate an inaccuracy of less than 1:10^8. There aren't 10^8 scientists in the world... \end

An article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?ex=1126152000&en=ae0133badfda431f&ei=5070&emc=eta1) just came out today in the New York Times citing a Pew poll that shows that 64% of Americans favor teaching creationism alongside evolutionism:
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
Also notable is this paragraph:
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Also, this (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) piece by religioustolerance.org cites a 1997 Gallup poll which found that while only 5% of scientists believe in Biblical creationism, 40% believe in 'theistic evolution,' a type of creationism (also, among a general survey asking the same question, 83% of respondents believe in some type of creationism, while only 10% believe in evolution).

An article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?ex=1126152000&en=ae0133badfda431f&ei=5070&emc=eta1) just came out today in the New York Times citing a Pew poll that shows that 64% of Americans favor teaching creationism alongside evolutionism:

[more polls]


Hardly surprising or relevant. The term 'scientist' is far too broad in this kind of survey (and they didn't, AFAIK, bother to come up with a definition of the term either). While scientists are - on average - probably a little smarter, a little more open-minded and a little more exposed to information than John Doe, most are far from experts on this field. The relevant group to survey - if you look for expert opinion - would be paleobiologists, geologists, paleobotanists, etc.

Sadly, that is always, or almost always, the case. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority would even differentiate between scientists of different fields.

They see the white coat, and think 'Look, a scientist. He knows everything about everything'[/steriotype]

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.103 is a ridiculously small number, but even so, I think the results speak for themselves.

An article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?ex=1126152000&en=ae0133badfda431f&ei=5070&emc=eta1) just came out today in the New York Times citing a Pew poll that shows that 64% of Americans favor teaching creationism alongside evolutionism:

Over 50% of Americans also believe in ESP, but that nonsense hasn't been demonstrated true and, indeed, all empirical tests have shown it to be bunk. That 64% statistic (what's the p value, by the way?... I didn't see it) is just added reason to discard the bunk of creationist nonsense and actually teach science in classrooms so students can get an actual education instead of a set of mythical beliefs that fill the void of it absence.

Besides, what a percentage of a population believe is irrelevant. Science isn't something to be "voted" on. Either there is empirical data or there isn't. With regard to evolution (not evolution"ism" as you so casually attempt to assign a meaning to equate it with a "belief" system), there *is* empirical data. With regard to creation, there is none/zilch/nada/zero empirical data. Therefore, mythical explanations can be discarded in favor of that which we can actually observe and test.

So, the will of the people doesn't really matter in America, only the liberal agenda.

Well like I said before, we're already taught ID. Just not in science class, which is good becuase it's not science. But the ID'ers are wanting it taught in science, which is why it's irrelevant. It cannot be taught in science class if it can't go through scientific method.

So, the will of the people doesn't really matter in America, only the liberal agenda.

Since the non sequitur is being employed, allow me to use my own: so if the will of the people is to declare that the sun orbits the earth, should we teach in the classroom?

It's true you never see articles that specifically state what kind of scientists were interviewed, just "that __% of scientists believe..." That's why we have to read between the lines, more so than ever in today's culture. Bring on the spin doctors! Or should I say, "scientists".

Skinwalker, that's a very good point about ESP. Just because a majority of people in this country believe in something doesn't make it a proven fact. If it did, we would be teaching religion in public schools right now, not to mention UFOs, ghosts, and a whole host of other crazy, as-of-yet unprovable stuff. But, clearly, we're not.

Since the non sequitur is being employed, allow me to use my own: so if the will of the people is to declare that the sun orbits the earth, should we teach in the classroom?

Now that's a perfectly valid point of view. As long as you remember to make the neccesary corrections for using a non-inertial frame of referance, it's a perfectly fine way to describe the Solar system.

(But the math gets a lot prettier when you let everything go around the Sun.)

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

* 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
* 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

103 is a ridiculously small number, but even so, I think the results speak for themselves.

Which possibly explains why some of us from outside the US (me in particular) are having such a hard time getting to grips with quite how much the american version of christianity differs from our own.

As i've said before, most people (whether priest, layperson or scientist) tend to feel that evolution and god aren't mutually exclusive. Its only in the US (and certain parts of africa) where christianity has evolved (:p) to believe the two are mutually exclusive, and that if you accept any part of evolution you are somehow undermining the bible.

Its no suprise to me that many scientists believe that there is a god guiding everything, as i've also said before - many scientists find that the more they uncover the wonders of the universe the more they feel a guiding hand may have been behind it.
But what they don't do is assume that everything they see must fit some ancient description of that guiding hand, and dismiss it as false if it doesn't.

Thats like the religious mainstream that thought that the first guy to split white light into colours was a heretic and that it would undermine people's belief in god's creation. You'd hope we would have moved on from that.

When looking at those figures rccar328 quotes i'd have to say "don't be too proud of this ------- terror you've created". You might take it as some sort of justification for your belief in creationism, but to me (and a lot of the world looking in) it just makes americans look rather backward and foolish... and indicates that it is always much easier to convince people with "sound and fury" than it is with reasoned arguments.

Hehehe put your trust in The Panda's Thumb (www.pandasthumb.org)...

Look what they dug up for us this time. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html)

In particular: Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. [My emphasis]

Hehehe...

And another one. (http://www.slate.com/id/2124952/)

If we take the president up on his deceptively fair-minded idea of "teaching the argument," I think we could advance the ball a little further in other directions also. Houses of worship that do not provide space for leaflets and pamphlets favoring evolution (not necessarily Darwinism, which is only one of the theories of evolution and thus another proof of its scientific status) should be denied tax-exempt status and any access to public funding originating in the White House's "faith-based" initiative. Congress should restore its past practice of giving a copy of Thomas Jefferson's expurgated Bible—free of all incredible or supernatural claims—to each newly elected member. The same version of the Bible should be obligatory for study in all classes that affect to teach "divinity."

[...]

Equal time. It has a nicer ring the more you say it. Bring it on.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I was actually half-inclined to make a similiar snide remark at the hypocricy of dubya's PoV - but Slate beat me to it.

I love this part:

Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.

In other words: "Who created God?" Answer: Man. We believe in a higher power(s) to ease the pain in our lives and put seemingly incomprehensible things into perspective. ID is not science and this article does an outstanding job of making that clear. Now go listen to some Aqualung and it will make even better sense. :cool:

I like that first article (though it is a bit long).
It makes some good points that just because there are two sides of an argument doesn' mean one is without merit, and that there are real debates within evolutionary theory to be debated (natural selection vs genetic drift, etc..) rather than false debates outside it.

the stork theory in a sex education class
I'd vote for that!

Shouldn't they be putting stickers in bibles that state "all events depcted withen are merely theoretical, multiple alternative theories exist in both alternate religions and scientific theory"?

Whoever designed George Bush wasn't very intelligent...

Hmm... it could be that he's a 'self-made man.' :dozey:

But he's hardly the pinacle of evolutionary development either....

Now, one thing I've wondered is this: Creationists often claim that they are 'unfairly excluded from peer reviewed litterature' or somesuch. First of all, I wonder what they are actually bitching about. Is is the fact that peer reviewed litterature doesn't accept models that do not conform to methological naturalism? In that case, well doh. Anything that doesn't fall withing the goalposts of methological naturalism has no predicting power - if it had, it would be in the realm of methological naturalism by definition.

Or are they claiming that an evil, atheist conspiracy is controlling the peer-reviewed litterature? This is actually the more common of the two in my experience.

And this leads me to wonder... Such a conspiracy would have to include not only the editors of the journals in question, but also the peers who do the review part. And, by extention, their immediate colleagues, because you have to be terminally stupid to be able to work closely and for extended periods of time with a person who so utterly lacks intellectual integrity without noticing.

Now, for the exact same reason, the conspiracy would have to include many scientists from other fields than biology, since scientists of many diverse fields work together on many projects. So let's make a conservative estimate, and call it a hundred thousand scientists.

I'm now going to apply two fundamental axioms of covert operations that every intelligence service around the globe take for granted: That politicians are blabbermouths and should not be trusted with sensitive information and that the probability of keeping covert operations, information, or organisations covert decreases exponentially with the number of people who know/are part in the information/organisation or operation.

Considering these two fundamental principles of covert ops, I arrive at the following conclusion: If indeed such a conspiracy exists it has 1) Ridiculously few whistleblowers for its size, and 2) An extremely well concealed burocracy (remember that the politicians of roughly 125 countries are being kept in the dark - so unless you suggest that virtually every intelligence agency in the developed world is in on the joke - or that no intelligence service finds a large, secretive society of highly educated people from a variety of fields suspicious - the structure of this 'global conspiracy' is extremely well concealed).

Now this raises a stark question: Assuming that an organisation exists that can keep such amazing dicipline against dissent (while maintaining a facade of open and public discourse) and organise a worldwide organisation that can hide from and/or co-opt every intelligence service in the developed world, why on Earth and in Heaven would it limit itself to suppressing ID? Why not take over the World, instigate a regime change in the Vatican, get Dubya killed or somesuch? Come on, IDers, do you really think you're that important?

Hmm... it could be that he's a 'self-made man.' :dozey:

Heh. Hardly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by edlib
Hmm... it could be that he's a 'self-made man.'


Heh. Hardly...Beat me to it.