Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush Endorsement Of 'Intelligent Design' In Public Schools

  1. Aug 2, 2005 #1

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7497&news_iv_ctrl=1241&abbr=pr

    The previous thread on this topic is not longer available, so here's an update on Dubya and further suppression of science and proper methodology of theories our children may be exposed to.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2005 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    By saying the difference between evolution and ID is just a difference of opinion, the President strokes his right wing religious backers and destroys any lingering hope he might understand anything about science. ID is even less predictive than superstring theory, while evolution ihas successful predictions to its credit - including the missing link!
     
  4. Aug 2, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I never thought of it that way! Does this mean that DIT [Divine intervention theory] should rank with SST in the physics forum?

    That is, if DIT is almost as good as SST. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2005
  5. Aug 2, 2005 #4
    Yeah, I was complaining about this article earlier today on another board.

    Blech.

    I teach college level introductory Microbiology. We administered a questionnaire last fall to assess views on evolution and creation and so on among the student population. Although there isn't much call for creationism among the college micro students (thank God they absorbed a bit about the scientific method earlier in their education) , some of the responses were still disturbing.

    Bruce Alberts, president of the NAS, sends letters to science educators through which we can keep abreast of education issues on this matter. I learned through those letters that in Kansas, it isn't just evolution that is in the fundamentalists sights, but plate tectonics and the Big Bang as well. So physicists and earth science educators: They'll be knocking on your doors next! No doubt they'll have reason to question teaching on health (unclean women), paleontology (the whole dinosaur thing has *got* to go), chemistry (turning people into pillars of salt for example), etc etc....

    Hell, let's just throw out all scientific disciplines and teach Genesis, instead! We'd save a bundle on textbook costs.

    The sad thing is, a devout fundamentalist would probably think this course would be a good idea. And that's precisely why it's wrong. Because they have no clue what science is as a system of study. It isn't a book of answers. It is a method of asking questions. God. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Aug 2, 2005 #5
    Err... I don't know about you guys but I see ID as something completely different from creationism. It isn't a literal "world created in seven days" kind of thing.


    Why do fundamentalist make such a big deal about this? People who fight this stuff are weak in faith. I'm not afraid of hearing new ideas because I back up my faith with facts and I'm intelligent enough to make up my own mind about what I want and don't want to believe. I know what I believe is right because I can support it. As where these people want shut themselves off from everything in fear of being contradicted making them weak in their faith.

    As long as public teachers aren't directly saying something like "well, this scripture is obviously wrong because [insert-scientific-theory] says [insert-event] is impossible" then I'm not offended about being taught different scientific ideas.

    You never hear these people complaining about "World Religion Classes" which educate students about other religions and what they believe. By their logic, hearing about how Hindus believe the world was created is wrong because it contradicts their faith. But they don't complain about it.
     
  7. Aug 2, 2005 #6
    Actually, there IS a whole field of pseudo-geologists who claim that the world is indeed only as old as the Bible says it is.

    http://www.creator-creation.com/earth.htm

    Have a look at some of the sites .
     
  8. Aug 2, 2005 #7
    VERSUS
    There is a difference between teaching ID in a science class versus teaching it (or creationism) in a theology class. Unless there is a different definition of 'scientific' I am not aware of...?
     
  9. Aug 2, 2005 #8

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    They aren't ID advocates. Those are Young-Earth Creationists. IDers believe in evolution, but say the process must have been started by divine intervention due to what they call 'irreducible complexity' in certain biological systems.

    Bush has probably never looked at either school of thought and has no idea what he's talking about.
     
  10. Aug 2, 2005 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Listen carefully : ID is NOT science, because IT HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

    Something has to satisfy the definition of SCIENCE, to be taught to students in a SCIENCE class. Show that ID satisfies objectivity, falsifiability, and predictive ability for starters. If you can't do even that, keep it the heck out of SCIENCE classes because IT ISN'T.

    <sorry for the outrage, I think this will be the last time>
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2005
  11. Aug 2, 2005 #10
    Loseyourname is right. Intelligent Design and Creationism are very differant. Intelligent design I think has even been around longer. Creationists try to prove that the Bible is true through science, and do a pitiable job at it too. Fundamentalists just use ID as a sort of compromise figuring that more people will be ok with it than the specifically christian creationist theories.
    To their credit some of the real ID scientists are not promoting a "divine intervention" theory but possible "law like processes" that may have shaped evolution or more especially life orgins.

    ---edit---
    Ofcourse I don't think that it should replace evolution, especially since a key aspect of it is evolution. And if it does find it's way in to text books it should only be an aside in referance to the debate on life origins and the manner in which evolution occurs. There are several schools of thought on this as far as I understand and I don't see what it would hurt to mention them among the others.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2005
  12. Aug 2, 2005 #11
    It seems a bit silly to argue if creationism and ID are different, when the issue is whether the idea of a supreme being belongs in science education.

    As Scientific American pointed ou in April, the two are distinct:

    and yet they aren't. I recommend reading the April Fools SciAm letter linked below.

    http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/1842/Scientific_American_apologizes_for_not_being_balanced
     
  13. Aug 2, 2005 #12

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    What seems silly to me is that anyone would think ID should be taught in schools as anything other than a cautionary tale of how not to conduct a scientific inquiry. I highly doubt that Bush has ever looked at someone like Michael Behe's research or that he would even know what he was reading if he did.
     
  14. Aug 2, 2005 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Or perhaps, ID doesn't get bogged down in reality. :biggrin:

    That is the key issue.

    I think it disingeous of Bush to suggert ID should be taught so that students understand the debate. ID is not on equal footing with science.

    I do think comparative religion is worthwhile.
     
  15. Aug 2, 2005 #14

    kat

    User Avatar

    I wonder though if it might help to clarify things for a lot of kids who are getting mixed information. By discussing creationism and intelligent design to or to "expose people to different schools of thought " and questioning whether they can be falsified or whatever...then wouldn't it help kids to be able to differentiate between what is supportable and what is not?
    Brought up properly and disected correctly, I think it would really help kids develop better critical thinking skills. *shrug*
     
  16. Aug 3, 2005 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just don't commit the crime of calling it Science.
     
  17. Aug 3, 2005 #16

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't mind seeing this taught in a college course for bio majors. It's really pretty advanced for high school, though. If you teach the specifics of irreducible complexity and then get into the evidence against it, you're dealing with topics in biochemistry that are beyond what the average high schooler will understand. On the other hand, if you just discuss the politics of it, or perhaps why it is considered pseudoscience in the context of the philosophy of science, although not as technical, those are still college-level topics that don't get touched on in any other high school courses. The only place I could really see it being appropriate is in a current events course. Perhaps they could briefly explain the history of the debate and what is currently going on without getting into any of the more intricate aspects of the dispute.
     
  18. Aug 3, 2005 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In my experience, religious teachings, particularly those of funadmentalists, generally discourage "critical thinking" in favor of acceptance or 'belief'.
     
  19. Aug 3, 2005 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Its a bit misleading quoting an April Fool's joke - I did a double-take, anyway, when I read it...
    That would be my guess as well. But he hears the word "theory", thinks that makes it scientific, knows it is connected to religion, and thus likes it.
    I wouldn't go that far. ID may not be Young Earth Creationism, but its still creationism. ID seems to me to be a creationist ploy - a way to dress-up creationism to make it sound scientific so it can be injected into schools or to fool people who aren't paying attention (Bush) into thinking they can have it both ways (in fact, you can have it both ways, but I'll save that one for later...).

    I read the book on ID ("Darwin's Black Box") and it is well-written, but it isn't science, no matter how much the author wants to claim it is. Its actually pretty bizarre - the author provides the counter-arguments for his claims, then summarily dismisses them. Ie, the eye cannot be reduced - but here are examples of partially formed eyes - but that doesn't mean the eye can be reduced. Er, come again? :uhh:
    If I were a science teacher who'se job it was to teach the scientific method, I'd do precisely that. The problem is that kids learn the scientific method in 8th or 9th grade physical science, then never touch it again. Spending a day in the beginning of every science class going back over the scientific method would be a good idea - and then spending a day discussing why ID is not a counter-theory to evolution would be worth the day just to help kill this issue.
     
  20. Aug 3, 2005 #19

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is a little old (Jan 2005), but pertinent nevertheless :

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/103/31.0.html

    How can anyone that knows anything about science approve a statement like that ? It's pretty obvious what kind of building that statement got written in.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2005
  21. Aug 3, 2005 #20
    I just love the way he tells them what their question was. Maybe he is not as dumb as he sounds. More likely Rove has already coached him how to re-frame the question so that it is about exposing people to different ideas. That way he panders to his fundamentalist base while sounding tolerant and accepting to the more reasonable people who still support him.

    Wouldn't it be nice if he exposed himself to different ideas?

    On second thought he doesn't seem to have the mental capacity to wrap his brain around complex issues and ideas.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush Endorsement Of 'Intelligent Design' In Public Schools
Loading...