Bush's Remarks: Criticized In Media...

[Prof]

Well, having done a fairly extensive google survey of the news stories covering Bush's support of Intelligent Design, I'm heartened by what I found.
In general, most of the coverage I've come across seems to be skeptical of Bush on this issue. In the "he said-she said" style reportage, it seems to me the balance is in favour of the ID critics. The vast majority of editorials and opinion pieces are quite critical of Bush's statements and ID in particular.

It's nice to see this, because the ID guys are so good at bamboozling, exploiting most people's generally sparse understanding of science and the TOE in general, I thought I'd see more people falling for it. But in piece after piece I see writers recognizing the importance of evolution theory and decrying the trojan-horse of ID. Admittedly, some of the anti-ID pieces state the case for what constitutes science a little rashly. But there isn't necessarily space for the nuances we discuss here.

One of the most heartening responses has come from the The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), which comprises around 55,000 members covering science education. Here is their response to Bush's remarks about teaching ID in the science classroom:

FROM HERE (http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792)

"The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design - effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12 science classrooms.

"We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

On Monday, Knight Ridder news service reported that the President favors the teaching of intelligent design?*"so people can understand what the debate is about."

"It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom," said NSTA President Mike Padilla. "Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world."

NSTA strongly supports the premise that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 education frameworks and curricula. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other scientific and educational organizations."

Thank goodness for a still-free society, in which those teaching science don't have to follow the ignorant lead of their President. If only the President had stayed awake in his science classes, or at least in the briefings from his science advisor, he wouldn't have made himself a fool in front of the world.

Prof.

[RBH]

For those interested in the blog reactions, Panda's Thumb has a collection of around 150 (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/the_reaction_to.html).

RBH

[jonesg]

Well, having done a fairly extensive google survey of the news stories covering Bush's support of Intelligent Design, I'm heartened by what I found.
In general, most of the coverage I've come across seems to be skeptical of Bush on this issue. In the "he said-she said" style reportage, it seems to me the balance is in favour of the ID critics. The vast majority of editorials and opinion pieces are quite critical of Bush's statements and ID in particular.

It's nice to see this, because the ID guys are so good at bamboozling, exploiting most people's generally sparse understanding of science and the TOE in general, I thought I'd see more people falling for it. But in piece after piece I see writers recognizing the importance of evolution theory and decrying the trojan-horse of ID. Admittedly, some of the anti-ID pieces state the case for what constitutes science a little rashly. But there isn't necessarily space for the nuances we discuss here.

One of the most heartening responses has come from the The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), which comprises around 55,000 members covering science education. Here is their response to Bush's remarks about teaching ID in the science classroom:

FROM HERE (http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792)

"The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design - effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12 science classrooms.

"We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

On Monday, Knight Ridder news service reported that the President favors the teaching of intelligent design?*"so people can understand what the debate is about."

"It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom," said NSTA President Mike Padilla. "Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world."

NSTA strongly supports the premise that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 education frameworks and curricula. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other scientific and educational organizations."

Thank goodness for a still-free society, in which those teaching science don't have to follow the ignorant lead of their President. If only the President had stayed awake in his science classes, or at least in the briefings from his science advisor, he wouldn't have made himself a fool in front of the world.

Prof.

Watched a TV show on Sunday about this, Bush never said intelligent design, he was responding to the liberal press asking him questions, another fishing expedition from the liberals.

He also said local school boards ought to decide, not him.

[Hookpunch]

Watched a TV show on Sunday about this, Bush never said intelligent design, he was responding to the liberal press asking him questions, another fishing expedition from the liberals.

He also said local school boards ought to decide, not him.

Fishing or not, when asked if intelligent design is an alternative to evolution-the answer is no - as his own science adviser Marburger said, not that disengenous answer he gave.

Here is the quote from the Knight Ridder report.


"Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over ''creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

The president said yesterday that he favors the same approach for intelligent design ''so people can understand what the debate is about.""

[Refused]

Watched a TV show on Sunday about this, Bush never said intelligent design, he was responding to the liberal press asking him questions, another fishing expedition from the liberals.

He also said local school boards ought to decide, not him.

The liberal press? Do you mean press that is tolerant and open to new ideas? Or maybe press that is not bigoted? I'm not sure I follow. It was a simple question. What made that question "liberal?"

- Refused

[Peez]

Refused:
The liberal press? Do you mean press that is tolerant and open to new ideas? Or maybe press that is not bigoted? I'm not sure I follow. It was a simple question. What made that question "liberal?"The fact that the answer made Bush look bad.
;)
Peez

[Refused]

The fact that the answer made Bush look bad.
;)
Peez


OOOHHHH yes. My bad. I live in SC, I should have known that.

- Refused

[NottyImp]

Am I right in thinking that "liberal" is almost as bad an insult as "evolutionist" in many parts of America?

[Refused]

Am I right in thinking that "liberal" is almost as bad an insult as "evolutionist" in many parts of America?

Yes, definitely. Seems people want to change the word into something that means: to Hate freedom, to question the administration, to make america secular (huh? isn't it?), the list goes on....

I'm from a very conservative section of the US... Liberal = evil. So, of course, I use the word often in a positive light to spread a little knowledge. :angel:

- Refused

[NottyImp]

Ah, over here it generally translates as: well meaning, but a little short on detail in your policies. :)

[judanne]

Wouldn't it be nice, perhaps just once, if GWB held a press conference and nobody showed up to report his blathering? I can dream can't I? :)

[Free Thinkr]

Am I right in thinking that "liberal" is almost as bad an insult as "evolutionist" in many parts of America?
Worse.

[Donnmathan]

Wouldn't it be nice, perhaps just once, if GWB held a press conference and nobody showed up to report his blathering? I can dream can't I? :)

It'd be far nicer if the fool had a press conference then developed chronic laringitis! Imagine...

[m9mr]

[i]"The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design - effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12 science classrooms.

Im not sure why they claim anybody is opening the door for nonscientific ideas only for accepting ID.

[Sven]

Im not sure why they claim anybody is opening the door for nonscientific ideas only for accepting ID.
"slippery slope"

[Jet Black]

Im not sure why they claim anybody is opening the door for nonscientific ideas only for accepting ID.

well the door has to be opened to let ID in. so even if no more ideas pop through, at least one nonscientific idea is now floating around in the curriculum where it shouldn't be.

personally I think ID is useful though. one of the problems with science education is that often it does not make the basic tenets of the scientific method clear, things like falsification and so on. ID is useful since it demonstrates something that is not science but claims to be, since it is simply not falsifiable, and full of fallacies like appeal to ignorance, question begging and so on.

[Hookpunch]

well the door has to be opened to let ID in. so even if no more ideas pop through, at least one nonscientific idea is now floating around in the curriculum where it shouldn't be.

personally I think ID is useful though. one of the problems with science education is that often it does not make the basic tenets of the scientific method clear, things like falsification and so on. ID is useful since it demonstrates something that is not science but claims to be, since it is simply not falsifiable, and full of fallacies like appeal to ignorance, question begging and so on.

Unfortunately I.D. is presented a legitimate - presenting I.D. seems somewhat akin to me as presenting that pi is equal to 3 or the speed of light is not a constant in a vaccum - there will be some students that accept that as fact -I doubt students will be able to diffrentiate between what they are usually taught which is legit and I.D. which is not - you can bet they will not be taught how I.D. does not meet scientific standards.

I have this fantasy that one educator finally gets fed up with all the attempts to set I.D. in schools and says all right - first on the list to present their version of I.D. is the Scientologists who will show how Xenu did it, after them is the Nation of Islam who will show that Yacub is the intelligent designer.

You can bet all those I.D. proponents like Bush will not be saying both sides should be presented so students can understand what the debate is about.

[premjan]

Do ID theorists actually talk about what "intelligence" could possibly be doing the designing? Since we don't know what intelligence is, other than that it is probably "emergent" it may be a mostly unfalsifiable theory.

[Hookpunch]

Do ID theorists actually talk about what "intelligence" could possibly be doing the designing? Since we don't know what intelligence is, other than that it is probably "emergent" it may be a mostly unfalsifiable theory.

I believe they don't say who the intelligence is - mostly to avoid any conflict with the argument of the separation of church vs. state.

I have to wonder about any field of study that cannot answer what would obviously be its ultimate goal - to find the intelligent designer. Another reason why I.D. is not an academic subject and a non-starter as a field of study.