AU: Bush Endorsement Of 'ID' Irresponsible

[Lazy Agnostic]

Bush Endorsement Of 'Intelligent Design' In Public Schools Is Irresponsible, Says Americans United
Tuesday, August 2, 2005

AU's Lynn Criticizes President's Support For Teaching Religion In Science Class

President George W. Bush’s endorsement of teaching “intelligent design” in the public schools is irresponsible and undermines sound science education, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

During a White House interview with a group of reporters yesterday, Bush was asked whether “intelligent design,” the latest version of “creationism,” should be taught in public school science courses.

Bush told the reporters that he favors teaching intelligent design “so people can understand what the debate is about.”

“I think 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 Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, called the president’s comments uninformed and reckless.

“The young people of America are ill served by a president who confuses religion with science,” Lynn said. “Bush has used his presidential pulpit to advance the ludicrous notion that evolution is in controversy and that ‘intelligent design’ is legitimate science. Surely, he knows that most religious people see no conflict between Bible teachings and the evidence of science.

“His irresponsible comments will likely score big points with Religious Right leaders, but they undermine the teaching of sound science in the nation’s public schools,” Lynn said. “The president has demonstrated a disturbing degree of scientific illiteracy, which may also explain his ideologically driven positions in other areas of scientific policy including stem cell research.”

Added Lynn, “As a Yale graduate, President Bush should know basic science. Maybe he signed up for Biology 101 but didn’t report for duty.”

Americans United and the Pennsylvania ACLU are currently challenging an intelligent design mandate in public schools in Dover, Pa. The case is set to go to trial on Sept. 26.

The National Academy of Sciences, which was created in 1863 to provide information on the sciences to Congress and other branches of the federal government, has staunchly opposed teaching religious concepts as if they were sciences. In a 1999 statement, the Academy said, “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of aspects are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 ruled that public schools may not teach creationism or “creation science” alongside evolution. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the high court invalidated a state law requiring “creation science” to be taught if evolution were taught. The Court said the state law violated the separation of church and state because it sought “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.”
http://au.convio.net/site/News2?abbr...s_iv_ctrl=1241

[jason]

Well of course they call it irresponsible. They don't want the teaching of their creation myth compromised.

Jason

[Minnesota]

Love Lynn's comment:

“As a Yale graduate, President Bush should know basic science. Maybe he signed up for Biology 101 but didn’t report for duty.”

That and a lot of other classes. Of course, with Papa's pull why bother going to class when you don't have to.

[Busheses]

The only problem I see, is that it seems to be the first step toward the elimination of the teaching of evolution. I have no problem with the teaching of intelligent design as long as it is balanced with evolution.

[The Laughing Man]

Love Lynn's comment:

“As a Yale graduate, President Bush should know basic science. Maybe he signed up for Biology 101 but didn’t report for duty.”

That and a lot of other classes. Of course, with Papa's pull why bother going to class when you don't have to.

Yeah, we should've had Kerry for president instead. He was the better student after all. Oh, wait...

[The Laughing Man]

President George W. Bush’s endorsement of teaching “intelligent design” in the public schools is irresponsible and undermines sound science education,

Actually, I think stifling any and all opinions that differ from your Sacred Cow is far more irresponsible and hurtful to sound science education. 400 years after Galileo and things are pretty much the same, just with the tables turned.

says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"Who cares?" says the rest of the country.

[Arnold]

Yeah, we should've had Kerry for president instead. He was the better student after all. Oh, wait...

And of course Kerry would certainly have attended every class. But he was still the underdog - how much more of an idiot does that make him?

[The Laughing Man]

Just FEI, I don't agree with ID, but that doesn't mean the anti-religious bigots should stifle any and all discussion of it.

[jason]

Actually, I think stifling any and all opinions that differ from your Sacred Cow is far more irresponsible and hurtful to sound science education. 400 years after Galileo and things are pretty much the same, just with the tables turned.

Actually if you check your history book properly you will discover that the tables have not turned at all.

Galileo was persecuted first and foremost by fellow scientists because he taught unorthodox ideas at odds with Ptolemey's vision of the heavens.

Jason

[The Laughing Man]

Actually if you check your history book properly you will discover that the tables have not turned at all.

Galileo was persecuted first and foremost by fellow scientists because he taught unorthodox ideas at odds with Ptolemey's vision of the heavens.

Jason

You're right, and I stand corrected. Bad day for me. I've even argued that before, too. *sigh*

[Arnold]

Actually if you check your history book properly you will discover that the tables have not turned at all.

Galileo was persecuted first and foremost by fellow scientists because he taught unorthodox ideas at odds with Ptolemey's vision of the heavens.

Jason

I didn't know that. Why am I not surprised?

[EvoUK]

Isn't there already a thread on this?

The general consensus is that we have no problems with another scientific theory being taught along side ToE. It's just that no other scientific theory has presented itself.

[Arnold]

Isn't there already a thread on this?

The general consensus is that we have no problems with another scientific theory being taught along side ToE. It's just that no other scientific theory has presented itself.

You don't think it could be the same resistance that Galileo encountered from the scientific community of his day?

[EvoUK]

Difference being he had scientific evidence on his side. Though perhaps you can correct me and point to the scientific evidence for ID. While you're at it, you can also point out the scientific theories research in the area has come up with.

Though I must say, with all the Id threads going on, I have to wonder why nothing has come up yet. Perhaps you're saving yourselves for later?

[Arnold]

Difference being he had scientific evidence on his side. Though perhaps you can correct me and point to the scientific evidence for ID. While you're at it, you can also point out the scientific theories research in the area has come up with.

But the scientists of his day obviously thought they had science on their side as well - sorry, no advantage there.