Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

During a roundtable discussion with reported from 5 Texas newspapers, President Bush was asked if Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. To this Bush answered

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Mr. Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Bush: Teach 'Intelligent Design

I have to disagree with this article to an extent. The article is advocating that ID should be part of a schools lesson plan and that ID should be taught alongside evolution. I disagree with that.

I do believe strongly that school is a place to learn, to (to use Bush's words) be exposed to different ideas. At present, the subject of ID is taboo in schools to such an extent that teachers fell that even having questions asked of them by students that deal with ID, creates a confrontational situation.
Many here on ATS as well as many in the US believe that the very mention of religion ID is wrong in any situation. Yet these same denouncers of ID will vehemenently support freedom of speech.
If the ideals on which ID is based on are incorrect, if the "science" that it is based off of is bad, if the questions that students are asking are wrong, why is it wrong for a teacher to teach these students why the questions are wrong? Why can't these teachers at least point out the flaws of ID and then refer the students to the parents, their religious leaders, heck even the library to learn more on the subject.

How about if it is offered as an elective.
Would you have problems with that?




seekerof

as an elective nope but there was a news story yesterday on FoxNews that had people denying that ID should be offered as an elective.
Don't get me wrong, I am actually someone that believes that there is a basis for ID. What I actually have a problem with is that schools shouls at least address questions asked by students. If as what was occuring recently in Topeka, there was a religious activist group passing out fliers to students. These fliers had many questions which the activists "suggested that the students ask their teachers.
If the activists had just kept to this and did have a hidden agenda of denying science altogether, then I would have supported them. I am a firm believer that teachers are there to teach not to hide, not to beat around the bush. One of the reasons that was presented as to why the teachers "should not" answer the questions was that the questions were based off of bad science.
My response, If the questions were based off of bad science, why nopt teach the students what was wrong with the question.
Unfortunately, today, the teachers would rather duck or deny the questions rather than actually teach.
And before the question gets asked by someone, I am not advocating any one single religion nor any one single creation / ID belief. I am advocating that the teachers should at least be familiar with the subjects, infomr students of what is "bad" science, instruct the students to seek instruction form parents, religious leaders, libraries etc.

[edit: thanks to kenshiro2012 for letting me know about this thread, you're certainly not one to shy from discussion!)

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Mr. Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

I don't know if its because he's a politician or what, but thats a rather lukewarm endorsement.

I can't see any reason for Intelligent Design to be taugh in schools either. Its not a scientific theory, and its not a scientific research programme. The existence of the wedge document, mentioned elsewhere in this forum, also shows that the ID movement is something of a front that is not really interested in teaching ID, but rather wants to literally destroy 'secular, naturalistic science'.

IF intelligent design was a subject that was discussed in peer reviewed biology journals and evolutionary theory journals, and it was an actual science rather than a political movement, then anyone would be on pretty weak grounds for excluding it (almost regardless of its conclusions). So definitly not in science classes.

I also don't think that it has any place in public schools at all, not even in history of science classes nor philsophy classes, nor really even comparative religion classes. As far as religion classes, its a minority movement that is little more than a revival of what in the pre-darwin days was called "paleyean natural theolgoy'. I can't imagine a public school class that is that detailed, whether its for religion or philsophy or history of science, and certainly not detialed enough to include this modern revival of natural theology.


As far as teachers teaching whats wrong with creationism, I don't think that they shoudl be doing that either. The subject shouldn't be covered at all. Creationism is first an foremost a religion. We really don't want public school teachers explaing why any particular religion is wrong, and you can't really address creationism in an upfront manner without getting into religion.

The best way to teach these things is to simply give students a good, strong, thorough education in science, that includes gracity, astronomy, chemistry, and evolution. Given that, the students will be able to understand these issues for themselves.

I also think that its underhanded to have a political movement handing out lists of pre-approved questions to 'ask' in a science class, given that those precise same questions have been answered long before the pamphlets were printed out. THe people handing them out weren't interested in the answers, they were interested in the politics of it all. But generally if a student asks a question, it should be answered sure, bt its not so cut and dry.

"If we evovled from apes then why are there still apes' is a decent question (if the class hasn't covered evolution at all. Its a stunningly basic question, and if you've covered evolution a student shouldnt' even be asking such a question, they should already know whats going on). And a science teacher can answer it by going over the mechanics of population isolation and the accumulation of differences over time in response to different environments for the two now seperated populations, etc etc.

However, do we really want biology teachers answering
"If man evolved from apes, then that means that there was no original sin and that jesus's death was unecessary and infact probably didn't happen doesn't it?"????? I mean, does anyone actually want open and honest discussion like that in schools???

And to take it a little further, what happens when you have schools with large populations of islamic students in it, say in detroit public schools, and you are trying to teach biology, and you have fundamentalist students askig about how such and such finding doesn't correlate with the holy koran, and then has to explain the context of the verse and the students have to be taugh at least the basic components of islamic theology and islamic scientific thought? Let alone what would happen if some schools start actually teaching out and out Christian Creationism, and then we have Islamic fundamentalist maddrasses being supported by Public Funds!

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Nygdan]

Nygdan
We are pretty much in agreement on most of your post.
I agree, that ABC takes a weak response from Bush and make it sound like he is indorcing ID. I believe that Bush actually was trying to say that education should not be stymied and should embrace open discussion.
Maybe this just a continuation ABC News woes. Look at Russia's response to ABC News and it's agendas
quote.bloomberg.com... refer=home

We both agree that ID / Creationism is not something that should be taught in of itself. Especially not in either history or science classroom It is not something that has been held up for peer review nor has ID / Creationism been able to stand up for scientific review. Such being the case.... then the subjects should not be handled as class material in anything other than a philosophy class.
I do disagree with a couple of things

As far as teachers teaching whats wrong with creationism, I don't think that they shoudl be doing that either. The subject shouldn't be covered at all. Creationism is first an foremost a religion. We really don't want public school teachers explaing why any particular religion is wrong, and you can't really address creationism in an upfront manner without getting into religion.

You may have missed my point on this one. Granted, ID and Creationism are religiously based topics. What I advocate is that if / when a student asks a question in a classroom environment, the teacher should either respond to the student. Inform them of why certain "scientific" questions are based off of "bad science" and all other ID / Creationism questions should be directed towards the student's parents, religious leaders, public libraries etc.
By not responding to a question posed by a student due to it linkage to a religion will only foster the perception that there is something to hide. If the question is of a "scientific" nature and it is based off of bad usage of science, then the teacher should instruct why "such and such a conclusion" is incorrect. The teacher should then instruct the students in the proper use of scientific methods. By doing this, not only will the students learn that certain ID / Creationist assumptions are wrong, but now the students are better equipped to understand science and how it works.

The best way to teach these things is to simply give students a good, strong, thorough education in science, that includes gracity, astronomy, chemistry, and evolution. Given that, the students will be able to understand these issues for themselves.

Agreed! but as I stated above, by not instructing the students in how to properly utilize the scientific methods, then the students will not have the foundation of knowledge that they will need in order to dismiss incorrect assumptions put forth. If the teachers were actually providing the students with a solid education in science, then of course, the "questions" raised by ID / Creationism would not be put forth in the classroom in the first place

I also think that its underhanded to have a political movement handing out lists of pre-approved questions to 'ask' in a science class, given that those precise same questions have been answered long before the pamphlets were printed out. THe people handing them out weren't interested in the answers, they were interested in the politics of it all. But generally if a student asks a question, it should be answered sure, bt its not so cut and dry.

We both heartedly agree on this point. As long as the group had held to the assumption of presenting a possible alternative to evolution, I supported them. But as soon as they started to show their true colors then of course, I joined the decriers and poo-poo'd them.
Again though, once the teachers refused to respond to the questions, when no one from the scientific community appeared during the public forums in Topeka, then they the teachers and scientists were also in the wrong. If (and I agree with you on this) the questions had been responded to previously, and shown that the questions had no merit, then why the head in the sand response. I would have thought that since the ground work had already been done, it would have been so very easy for the educators and science community to show just how fraudlent the questions were. This would have strengthened the teachers position instead of weakening it as they have done.

"If we evovled from apes then why are there still apes' is a decent question (if the class hasn't covered evolution at all. Its a stunningly basic question, and if you've covered evolution a student shouldnt' even be asking such a question, they should already know whats going on). And a science teacher can answer it by going over the mechanics of population isolation and the accumulation of differences over time in response to different environments for the two now seperated populations, etc etc.

With that one statement, you have proiven my point. Unfortunately, instead of taking the steps that you have outlined, the teachers response has been...............................................nothing

However, do we really want biology teachers answering
"If man evolved from apes, then that means that there was no original sin and that jesus's death was unecessary and infact probably didn't happen doesn't it?"????? I mean, does anyone actually want open and honest discussion like that in schools??? ;

100% behind you on this. The question as you have phrased it should at the very most be somethign to be discussed in a theology or philosophy class and the teacher should be open and able to respond to such a question easily by directing the student to the proper forum / sources. Instead, the teacher's response............................. Nothing.

And to take it a little further, what happens when you have schools with large populations of islamic students in it, say in detroit public schools, and you are trying to teach biology, and you have fundamentalist students askig about how such and such finding doesn't correlate with the holy koran, and then has to explain the context of the verse and the students have to be taugh at least the basic components of islamic theology and islamic scientific thought? Let alone what would happen if some schools start actually teaching out and out Christian Creationism, and then we have Islamic fundamentalist maddrasses being supported by Public Funds!

Nygdan, you missed this

And before the question gets asked by someone, I am not advocating any one single religion nor any one single creation / ID belief. I am advocating that the teachers should at least be familiar with the subjects, infomr students of what is "bad" science, instruct the students to seek instruction form parents, religious leaders, libraries etc.

If by chance a question is posed by a student in school that is more properly addressed in another forum such as theology / philosophy classes, or by parents religious leaders then the teacher should say so. If as you have put in your example, the population of the school is largely Islamic, then the teacher may (teacher's perogative) at least familiarize themselves with the Quran or if not, once such question is posed, tell the student "I do not know but let me take a look and get back with you on that" or then again... tell the student to go to their religious leaders.

Schools can teach the possibility of Intelligent Design without pointing to or quoting religious teachings. Deists believe in the idea of ID but don't espouse the Bible in the process. There is nothing wrong with addressing ID in public schools.

I think Mr. Bush is just using this as a tactic to appease the same religious groups that he has turn his back with his re-elections.

Is just like anything else propaganda.

I believes that if the creationist ideology is to be included in schools it should be up to the parents if they want their children to take it or not and they should have that choice.

Taking in consideration the state of the education in this country is nothing that more unnecessary load for the already exhausted teachers.

Soon Preaching will be part of the school play grounds like it was back in the seventies in my Island of PR, until the disruption became so severe that they had to remove religion from school.

It became such a mess when the main religion been Catholic the students were in a war of preaching against evangelist in the school grounds.

Yes I remember how out of hand certain religious views and denominations can become specialy among teens.

Plus it was enough of a stress to have prayer groups all over the school yard every time it was resess.

This has no place in public school imho. It is based on religious thoughts/ideas, and religion has no place in a public school. I'm a spiritual person, but I believe strongly that this new, stronger push to get religious ideas into public schools is harmful.

I do not advocate that religion should be taught in schools other than in something like a theology class.
I do promote the ideal that if / when a question is posed to a educator from a student, that the teacher answers the question to the best of their ability.
Creationism as well as ID really have no "scientific" basis. They are based mainly on faith. ID is sort of like someone taking the half step to the middle between Creationist and Evolutionists. Even still ID should not taught in schools and given the same weight as evolution.

Marge6043,
I have a question for you.
How does what other are doing putting pressure on you? If others wish to have a prayer meeting, how does this affect you? You do not have to participate nor even give such occurances your attention.

I went to a private Christian high school, so obviously creationism was part of the curriculum. Even though I was taught about it growing up, I was still able to form my own opinions about it as an adult. I have accepted a blend of creationsim and evo that can work together.

So, do I feel it's ok to teach ID in public schools? Surprisingly to myself, I have to say no. I don't want my kid learning about ID from someone who most likely thinks it's not a legit subject. The chances are the subject would be taught as a skeptical topic, rather than an alternative to evo. I'd rather teach that to my children myself and let them come up with their own conclusion.

Fine, while they are teaching them BS in science, I mean different point of view that is completely wrong, in history can we have Nazi's come in and scream

"JEWS ARE GONNA EAT YOUR BABIES!!!!!"

Or KKK/WKK/CCC/GOP scream

"DARKIES ARE GONNA EAT YOUR BABIES!!!!!"

FOr if you allow one wrong POV in school why not let the rest in? Why not teach in math,

"2+2=4? NO! Only satanists and smart/athiests believe that, all good christians know 2+2=22!!!"

Although I wouldn't want them in elelmentary schools, all those little boys, not good.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Marge6043,
I have a question for you.
How does what other are doing putting pressure on you? If others wish to have a prayer meeting, how does this affect you? You do not have to participate nor even give such occurances your attention.

Very simple, as a teen along with other teens we were caught up in the battle between the establish church in the Island "catholic" and the new movement "evangelist" they brough their fights to the school ground with prayer meetings, in which each other would scream that their religous views was the work of the devil and not the right way to worship God.

It was hard enough to have other students coming to you to tell you how wrong was your religion over the other religion.

This happen when I was in junior high, and imagine what can do to you when somebody is shoving the bible to tell you that you are worshiping God the wrong way in your own school.

To tell you the truth they were vicious in their preaching of salvation and hell.

I even had a bible with me because it was given for free.

I remember to this day when the first Baptist church was open for business across from the catolic church.

I even went to the first service to see all by myself the difference between both.

Occurs this was going on rampant and without supervision.

By the time I was in high school the school board had to put a stop to the fights and end the preaching and prayers in the school grounds.

Only outside the school limits were permited.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by marg6043]

Bush was definatly put in a bad spot with that question. A strong answer would only get people to be angry if they didnt say their "correct" answer, and a weak response gets him in trouble as well for avoiding the question.

This is a hard subject because evolution is based on science, while ID is based on religion. Religion is not allowed in schools, so evolution is taught instead. However, despite what many people (including some ATS members) believe, both are theories. It is frustrating when either is taught as fact.

Now, before i get attacked from both sides, let me say that i dont think ID can ever 100% be proven, and niether can Evolution. And dont tell me evolution has been proven, because it is still called a theory.

I think if teachers should have to say that the big bang/evolution is one of multiple theories (instead of "well, its a theory, but its actually true") and if students want more information they can talk to a local religious leader or search the internet.

---Pineapple

marg6043,
Thanks for clearung that up.
From your earlier post, you had not indicated that the groups were not doing anything other than bible study. I agree with you,if they were pushing their religious views on you or any others.
I was a bit concerned as there was a recent sound bite on one of the news stations about some parents were up in arms when their children were faced with suspension due to them reading the bible while on recess. Another parent had seen these students reading the bible and then complained to the schools administration. The administration sent letters home with the bible readers informing their parnets that the students faced suspension for reading the bible.

mpeake
I completely agree with you that creationism or ID should not be taught in school. I do though promote that the teachers should at least respond to questions posed by students. Informing the students where they should get their answers such as their parents and religious leaders. I would also engender that the teachers inform students what makes some of the questions illigitimate and inform them what / how proper scientific methods should be used.

James the Lesser,
Well Done! Well Done!
Once you again have spewed your excrement of hate and blindness on a thread and forum that YOU should really keep your nose out of.
You have once again so eloquently demonstrated in very succinct, direct and of course right on topic of the thread.
Since I have challenged the basis that you CLAIM to have based your hatred on and you actually responded ONCE. I demonstrated to you just how baseless your inane hatred is. You have ever since failed to respond to questions as well as requests that you keep your idiotic hatred to yourself and unless you actually have something to contribute to a thread don't.
Hopefully after you have a few more years under your belt, you will have grown up and will be better able to converse intelligently on religious topics or even better yet, learn to ignore them, What a thought.....

What? If you teach one BS teach all! Teach holocaust never happened, 2+2=22, and that the world is flat. What? You only want your BS taught? Guess what, BS is BS.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
What? If you teach one BS teach all! Teach holocaust never happened, 2+2=22, and that the world is flat. What? You only want your BS taught? Guess what, BS is BS.

Ah, yes, dealing in absolutes, how wonderful. You know, if skepticism was applied evenly to all topics, we would probably realize that we know next to nothing. Maybe some things like, I think therefore I am. But, I'm sure some people have found logical arguments against that as well.

But, your posts on this thread work on a basic assumption, that ID is not feasible. Well, obviously many on this thread do not share that basic assumption. So, your posts have reduced to nothing but an exercise in typing on a keyboard.

Your first mission, whether you choose to accept it, is to actually show everyone here why ID is not a feasible theory for the evolution of life.

Originally posted by pineappleupsidedown
However, despite what many people (including some ATS members) believe, both are theories. It is frustrating when either is taught as fact.

Actually Intelligent design is not a theory. Although it is an idea which is widely accepted, it is based on an experience and not observation. Definition of Theory:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

.
And I think Satanism should be presented in schools so kids are present will another viewpoint.

If someone has good research that challenges the concept(s) of evolution, then by all means present and discuss it, in school or out.

But if you are simply grasping at straws as roadblocks and red herrings because your superstitions don't go along with evolution then YOU have an AGENDA!.
A religious political agenda.

Children make excellent little dogma spouting automatons if they have been programed that way.
If Children have read or thought of something that raises questions, by all means discuss it. You want to encourage genuine thinking. If on the other hand they have been spoon force fed mindless dogma they should not be allowed to interrupt the learning of others or themselves.

Like Joe Friday said, "Just the facts maam."

If it is actual science and not religious politics it is useful to examine.

ID ain't science. Creationism ain't science. They are superstitious beliefs.

You want to teach Christian Voodoo, do it in your private Church on Sunday.

BTW Bush is the guy who advocated Going to war in Iraq.
Can you say credibility gap?

edit:

ID and Creationism are intellectual Cholera.
Science can not be tainted and infected with these superstition based ideas.
It must be pure and adhere to strict method standards.

[edit on 7-8-2005 by slank]

Exellent posts on this thread. Slank's suggestion to open the religious argument to all groups in schools trumps the presidential "open-mindedness." Undoubtedly creationism belongs in a class on Mythology rather than in any study of science.

However, I would think that "intelligent design" is theologically offensive. After all, what it amounts to is an attempt to prove a design and an intelligence. Parenthetical to the argument is of course a god. Apparently then, the proponents of this hypothesis seek to scientifically prove the existence of a supreme Creator God. But obviously, the premise is scientifically untestable. How could one ever find control conditions for an experiment to test for the presence of an entity that exists everywhere? Besides, the primary tenent relies upon a priori belief, and thus will not be proven false, without regard to experimental evidence.

Aren't the theological writings of the group who are propounding this hypothesis insistent that faith is primum mobile, and that knowledge is not required? So equating "intelligent design" with science is anathema. Simply then, the latest group of religious heretics is stirring up the faithful. Why should such frenetic maenads be allowed to cause more problems in already troubled schools?