Bush Endorses 'Intelligent Design'...

[bridgit]

"I think that 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." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0802-01.htm

a resent thread in gd resolved 'intelligent design' to be akin to deism, i still trend otherly; still...odd words from a man who would not entertain "different ideas" while formulating his 'quagmire accomplished' approach to the middle east imo

[FreedomAngel82]

1. I personally

don't think that Bush really believes. Isn't it kind of interesting timing of him talking about this? It's like every time things go wrong for him he caters to the fundie base so they'd say "he's not that bad! He believes like us!" and they'll defend him. :shrug: I personally am interested in debating and looking but what can you prove with Creationism? All it is is that God said "let this happen" and it did. How can you prove it? In my high school we had a Bible History class and I took that and enjoyed it. Maybe it can be taught in something like that. But on this Christian board I'm on some have said that it shouldn't be on test's and things like that.

[bridgit]

4. i am in agreement...

the bush admin is tripping over themselves re-defining all these concepts & notions they've put forth to get just this far & many are simply not buying it 'long term', their ideas are offensive to a great many & they know it; they just don't care, they need new labels in which to package them and so...'intelligent design' is imo seen as a notion that will not be arguable. "who could argue?" i hear them saying behind closed doors, "with 'intelligence' & 'design', let alone 'intelligent design'?"

they demean the entire discourse with their advertisements as such

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Oh.... thank gawd... I thought he was talking about hisself....

[bridgit]

29. him do have a way of tooting his own horn, ya'think...

:hi:

[Liberal Veteran]

3. But it is still not science and has no place in a science class.

Scientific theory requires the ability to test and makes predictions that could prove or disprove the theory.

I have yet to hear any proponent of intelligent design cover that hurdle.

Sadly many people don't understand the difference between "guess" and "theory" when it comes to science.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Right

The person on this board I go on even said it shouldn't be taught in a science class. I was really surprised actually.

[bridgit]

9. agreed...

even from within 'the kindly watchmaker principle' that very watchmaker is seen as intelligent enough to recognize that each moving part, each passive pivot, is important to the overall design.

as such 'intelligent design' is a veil behind which imo stares back right-wing, evangelical fundamentalism. and that is simply not large enough to encompass, again imo, what we need to be addressing. if we are greater than the sum of our parts, then it may as well be likely that this 'as-such-intelligent-design' will not span the breach.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

5. Too bad "intelligent design" wasn't used for Iraq.

"Total moron design" for the aftermath is more like it.

[bridgit]

10. whoop, there that is ~

:hi:

[Bucky]

6. More evidence for Intelligent Design theory

Mere evolutionary accidents could never accomplish this. It
would take a divine being of infinite power and capacity to
design a creature as cosmically stupid as George Bush.

So there you have it.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. LOL

I think the intelligent design in Bush's case is his mother and father.

[bridgit]

11. what she said...

:rofl:

[0rganism]

12. "people ought to be exposed to different ideas"

Let's take that and run with it, shall we?

For starters, it sounds like bush is ready to re-instate the "Fairness Doctrine." After all, people ought to be exposed to different ideas.

How about letting gays into the boy scouts? Come on, people ought to be exposed to different ideas.

Let's call it the "Bush Exposure Doctrine." Every time you hear some theocratic wingnut whining about all the secular humanists in their schools, just remind them of the Bush Exposure Doctrine, and hand them a copy of Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker."

[bridgit]

14. oh i absuloutely know...

don't you just love that part :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Yeah, I guess "different ideas" don't include a lesbian family living on a

farm being on a PBS show.

[0rganism]

33. or "Heather has two mommies" in the school library

It's not rocket science to figure out when the theocrats' "ecclecticism" will suddenly kick in.

[wli]

13. it would take a maleficent omnipotent deity to create Bushler

There's "intelligent design" for you.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. The words intelligent & Bush do not belong in the same sentance

[bridgit]

18. hm, like 'jumbo shrimp'...

or 'military intelligence' :thumbsup:

[DanCa]

16. Okay here's my problems with this class

I have alot of questions regarding this issue.
Does it teach legimate creationism or is it a prolife induction course? It should not be on the same plane as a science class it should be in a comparative religion course. And of course it should be an elective no one has the right to tell another person a right to pray or not to. That's just the tip of the ice berg among long litany of objections. I wish we had a link to this course curriculum so I can accurately judge this. Oh by the way I want to say that I am against saying under god in the pledge of alliegence because it forces someone else into your religion and that's is obscene.

[bridgit]

17. it is as well imo a "pro-life induction course"

having been put before us "life & death; therefore chose life" in a simple way & which many of us can agree with out of hand, that is not their tack here, this is a slipperier form of proselytizing that they cannot just come out front & admit.

[DanCa]

26. If thats the case absolutely not

It's the trojan horse scenario all over again.

[bridgit]

28. seen a video of a debate between...

an evolutionist and a 'intelligent designer' after which the evolutionist crossed the stage & stuck out his hand so as to lend a notion of civil discourse...the 'intelligent designer' wouldn't even shake his hand = there is no "civil discourse" so far as they are concerned and that imo = evangelical fundamentalism veiled in the spots of another cat altogether...if you catch my drift

i like your take; a "trojan horse" indeed :thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Um, what is "legitimate creationism"?

If it's creationism, it's not science. If it's something else, like religion, then I'm not sure how you decide whether it is "legitimate" or not... (My creation mythos is a REAL explanation for how things got here- but yours isn't!)

[DanCa]

23. Poor choice of words on my part

I meant to say is it pure creationism without political spin or party agenda. My use of the words legimitate was in error. I appologize. Are we cool?

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Fo' sho'. No worries.

I'm not even sure if there is such a thing as pure creationism sans agenda, but I know what you mean.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Yeah. And he's said "The jury is still out" on Evolution & Global Warming

In short, his understanding of science is precisely nil.

[bridgit]

21. without doubt, these are square pegs in rounds holes guys...

they ain't got'em no time fer no cyense stuff less it pads their portfolio anyhow'z

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Once again, by leaving out flying spaghetti monsterism, they show bias

Logic dictates that there are clearly two possibilities; either the flying spaghetti monster created everything, or he didn't. I don't see what the problem is with instructing schoolkids on the fact that BOTH of these two equally plausible alternatives are legitimate possible explanations for reality!

http://venganza.org

[bridgit]

24. seemingly random chaos scares the b-jesus...

out'ah this group, but i see those assemblages of varied life process' in methane dumps & sunless environs & figure that it is; that is intelligent design if ever there was one; god need not look like kenny rogers on a good day patting the heads of curious children to be thus. this universe this; it is rife with variety if nothing else & i find great solace in that...somehow ~

http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/AlienSafari_launch_page.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. I don't care what anyone else believes

just get your god damn religion out of my science.

What the heck did people know 1000 - 5000 years ago? These are the folks who thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. If Bush or anyone else wants to believe in fairytales fine but this should have little to do with science.

[bridgit]

34. straight up, homles...

you got the mojo :hi:

[DaveJ]

31. Just another step backward

I already knew Shrub was anything but concerned about education. If he gets what he wants, it would not only a stall but a total step backward in our educational system. Why? Simply because there is no academic value in teaching that fiction is an alternate to understanding science.

[DaveJ]

32. How the heck would we be tested on ID?

If ID is a another school of thought, what kind of thinking is done in regard to ID, other than memorization of some wackjob's made up story about the creation of the universe?

[bridgit]

35. i do not know...

but if it administered through: bob jones university, then i fold :thumbsdown: