Bush on evolution: "the verdict is still out"

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by David B *
Did you have a point? Or was this the most intelligent thing you could think of?

Yes. We’re a union of states. Not everything has to be mandated on the federal level. Being upset that a Republican these days wants to leave an issue for the states to decide is like being mad at the Pope for being Catholic. The implication you seem to be making is that leaving the individual states alone to decide how they want to educate their populace is an inherently bad idea.

And why does he want to do that? Because on a national level, he knows he loses on this issue. But on a state level, they may win on it in certain spots.

And this, honestly, annoyed me. You are characterizing anti-federalism as puely an excuse for an end-run around the Bill of Rights – and claiming, without rational basis, that some goal of some mysterious “they” (which includes Bush) are trying to do exactly that on this issue.

However, anti-federalism has a long tradition in this country and I found your knee-jerk characterization that it is really about undermining the Bill of Rights unamerican.

But, I thought I summed all that up into two sentences pretty well. I didn’t mean to come across as a jerk – there’s a brainwashed patriotic 4th grader in all of us, right?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by hardcore *
I contend that Bush supports allowing local school boards to decide whether to teach creationism in a science class.

When has he every said anything of the sort?

I presented a quote and referenced the quote noted from Cantrip that support this view.

No you haven’t

If you can show that Bush’s words were taken out of context, or that his spokesperson mistook his position, please do so.

OK, once again.

*Originally posted by Cantrip *
Schmuck.

From that site (emphasis mine):

On teaching evolution in schools, Bush believes both evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects. “He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught,” a spokeswoman said.
Source: Bruce Morton, CNN Aug 27, 1999

So this is Cantrip, quoting Issues2000.org, quoting a reporter on CNN, quoting what an anonymous spokesperson supposedly said, who may or may not have been correctly characterizing Bush’s position.

Does the word “hearsay” mean anything to you after a while?
But that aside, there is nothing here that even remotely says creationism should be taught in science class.

*Originally posted by hardcore *
Bush said:

I’d make it a goal to make sure that local folks got to make the decision as to whether or not they said creationism has been a part of our history and whether or not people ought to be exposed to different theories as to how the world was formed.

… there shouldn’t be any doubt that Bush is actually in favor of allowing local school boards to advocate creationism.

What part don’t you get? Do you think it would be wrong for children to learn that creationism is a part of our history as a nation? I learned all about the Roman gods in literature class. I learned about various ancient cultural believes in history class. I learned about the Scopes trial in civics class. OK, I don’t ever use any of that today, but I can’t understand what your position is on this if it isn’t the exact same one Bush has. You seem to be the one with the strawman.

[Scylla]

DavidB:

You said:

**Maybe not to you. Obviously, others disagree. And, frankly, I don’t understand why it’s not troubling to you – except that you already decided that Bush is your man and you don’t want to change your mind or see his downsides

**

Shame on you! Bad DavidB, Bad! You know very well that I do change my mind when I am shown to be demonstrably wrong.

Dubya ain’t my man (his dad was.) He certainly has his share and then some of failings, but I think he is far far better choice then Al Gore.

Creationism is an issue. An intractable lack of sensitivity to that fact will accomplish nothing, especially when we are dealing with such touchy subjects as personal religious beliefs and school curriculum.

You accuse me of using an extreme example with American Atheists and Rob Sherman, but that is what you are doing by interpreting Bush’s comments along extrem creation science lines which he has not associated himself with.

Most people with religious beleifs are not extremists. They don’t want schools teaching exclusionary theory, and there is no way that evolution has to be exclusionary.

As an example, there was a 2nd grade teacher around here two years ago who took it upon herself to tell the students that there was no Santa Claus.

It’s true isn’t it?

The school shouldn’t be seen to perpetuate this religious myth, should it?

Bullshit. The teacher was dead wrong. It’s none of her business to make such a statement. It’s a family matter, and none of her concern.

Evolution is tricky because it is in direct literal and obvious opposition to the first chapter of The Bible. It would be asinine to assume that you could teach this without having theological questions come up. How this should be dealt with is of prime concern both to people with faith, and those without. SOCAC is an issue on both sides.

A refusal to deal with this sensitively is official endorsement of atheism, and a violation of SOCAC. It’s a two way street.

[Cantrip]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**

*Originally posted by hardcore *
Perhaps you should reread the 10-31-2000 06:42 PM post from Cantrip where she quoted a Bush spokeswoman and my own post immediately thereafter quoting Bush himself. These words should make it clear that Bush is definitely in favor of teaching creationism in school

a) I don’t care what some anonymously quoted spokesperson said.

For example, “Hardcore doesn’t understand the way media works,” an anonymous spokesperson for hardcore stated. “But I’m supporting him in this debate, since I’m an idiot too.”

Well that proves it hardcore. Don’t blame me – your own spokesperson said it.

b) The second quote is where Bush says creationist theories should be taught as part of an American history class. Why do you have a problem with that? **

C’mon, jmullaney, a minimum of effort would have yielded this clear evidence that GWB wants to teach creationism in science class: (I can’t help but think of the George Washington Bridge when I see “GWB”, and I can’t help thinking that the George Washington Bridge would make a better President.)

In a USNews Online interview, Bush said:

I believe in the alignment of authority and responsibility away from the federal government when it comes to issues of governance and schools. Secondly, my own personal opinion is that I believe that it’s important for children to understand there’s different schools of thought when it comes to the formation of the world. I have no problem explaining that there are different theories about how the world was formed. I mean, after all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism. And I think it’s important for people to know what people believe in–but whatever the case, here’s what I believe. I believe God did create the world. And I think we’re finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.

You would argue that the different theories aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
I would argue that. I would argue that. And I think over time we will find out the truth. And I have no problem explaining to children there are some who believe this, there are some who believe that, and the truth of the matter is we really don’t know the final answer yet. Next controversial subject.

A Reuters wire story (italics mine):

Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush said Wednesday that he thinks schools should teach “different forms of how the world was formed,” with evolution taught alongside creationism. The Texas governor, visiting Delaware for a round of fund-raising and campaigning, said he supports “morality-based” education in public schools. “I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed,” said Bush, adding that he thinks it is for local school districts to decide curriculum.

Check out this Austin site for confirmation of Bush’s policy to:

Allow states and local school boards to decide whether or not to teach evolution and creationism

No spokeswoman here: these are direct from the horse’s (ass’) mouth. And the horse’s ass is clearly advocating teaching creationism next to evolution (i.e., in science class). You can’t teach “different theories about how the world was formed” in any sort of pedagogically consistent way if one theory is given in science class and another in history, religion or critical thinking class. The only way to teach different theories is to teach them side by side. QED.

Finally, you said to David B:

The implication you seem to be making is that leaving the individual states alone to decide how they want to educate their populace is an inherently bad idea.

It is a bad idea if states are free to teach their citizens, who are also citizens of the Union, junk science, and to destroy SOCAS while they’re at it. Should Kansas (for example) be allowed to teach that the Sun and all planets revolve around the earth? Or that the earth is flat? If state legislatures cannot behave responsibly, then it is the role of the federal government to insist that they do so.

Oh, and btw, the opposite of the “verdict is in” would be “the verdict is not yet in”, “the verdict is pending” or “the jury is out”.

[hardcore]

jmullaney:

You obviously have some reading comprehension problems, so I will try to go slow. I found the quote from Bush at Slate, and the context is given there. It says:

His own preference, Bush said around the same time, was that “children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started.” This echoed a similar statement Ronald Reagan made on the stump in 1980.

Bush was responding to the Kansas Board of Education’s decree last year that each of the state’s school districts teach creationism alongside evolution.

Hardly seems to me that he is speaking of American History. I challenge you to produce any quote from Bush indicating his position is as you imagine it. Instead, you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend his spokesperson distorted his stance.

I am willing to consider that Bush’s position on creationism is different than what I think it is. But I am going to need some evidence other than your misguided ramblings to change my view.

[jmullaney]

Sorry, Cantrip – you just aren’t going to convince me on this one. I was, technically, taught creationism in school – in fact, almost all ancient myths. I think schools should be sensitive to people’s religious beliefs. If you don’t think some fundie student in some science clasroom isn’t bringing up creationism right now, you are sorely mistaken. But, nothing you have said convinces me that Bush thinks creationism should be taught as a psuedo-scientific truth – in fact your last few quotes from Bish – aside from a reporters spin which you italiced which still was not what Bush said – support my position even more. You might not understand what “from the horse’s mouth” means.

Bye, thread!

[Scylla]

hardcore:

Have you any response to my misguided ramblings?

I con’t think Bush is the Fundamentalist Creation Scientist you think he is. I think what he is saying is that an exclusionary curriculum is wrong.

Do you advocate that atheism should be taught?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Where did this particular code word come from.

Is the theory of relativity exclusionary because it does not discuss how it might be interpreted in light of Genesis? Is plane geometry exclusionary because it does not discuss how pi can be interpreted in light of Biblical passages regarding circumference and diameter? Is astronomy exclusionary because it does not discuss how stellar distances, ages, and patterns of movement can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective.

Evolution says nothing about religion.

Some religions, however, say much about evolution.

[Satan]

*Originally posted by Scylla *

**Do you advocate that atheism should be taught? **

Do you advocate strawmen?

Yes, I see you do…

---

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, three days, 18 hours, 2 minutes and 16 seconds.
8310 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,038.76.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 20 hours, 30 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

[Scylla]

Spiritus:

None of those examples is in direct, literal, and obvious contradiction to Genesis. A discussion of evolution is bound to beg theological questions. If you back up a little and read the thread, you’ll see I’ve discussed this (if you have read the thread, but still disagree, let me know.)

[Doubleclick]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**Evolution says nothing about religion.

Some religions, however, say much about evolution. **

I agree. As I had sed in a previous post:
“If one feels the need to use science to justify their religion, then maybe their faith is not as strong as they thought.”

When it comes to teaching Creationism in schools, there aer a few things I would consider. (I don’t know what it is like in the US but this be from Canadian point of view.)

Creationism should be taught in Catholic school…why not…it is their faith after all. (I went to a Catholic school and we had ‘Religion Class’. They never pushed “Creation Theory” on us though…but they are more that welcom to.

Public schools are a different story. (Remember…this is MHO.) In these schools, there are a veriety of people with a multitude of beliefs. Who is to say that the Judao/Christian version of creation is better than…lets say…budists…or anyone elses faith?

This is where I believe things can get sticky. now I do not know much about US politics, but if Bush is saying to teach the Judao/Christian version in public schools…I just don’t think that’s right or fair to those that don’t believe it.

My HO.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by David B *
can those of you (such as JustAnotherGuy) who are actually arguing creation/evolution rather than Bush’s position on the issue, please move to a different thread?

Sorry about that, chief. (I was doing it too.)

(My, how this thread has grown!)

[hardcore]

Scylla, I hope I haven’t given you the impression that I considered your ideas “misguided ramblings”. That was entirely directed at jmullaney’s significant talent for twisting quotes.

I don’t think Bush is a “Fundamentalist Creation Scientist”, but I do think he supports teaching creationism alongside evolution in a science class. I firmly believe the record corroborates this view, nonwithstanding jmullaney’s expert insight.

I do not advocate the teaching of atheism in a science class, but support it in a comparative religion or philosophy class.

However, I challenge your view that the teaching of evolution promotes atheism in any way. If this were true, then the same could be said of the other areas of science I mentioned (astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, etc.) None of these resort to the invocation of a deity, nor do they need an alternative “religious” explanation taught alongside them.

A direct, literal interpretation of the Bible is contradicted by other areas of science (flat-earth, geocentrism, age of the earth, age of the universe, etc.) Why do you feel that biology should be singularly subjected to this type of pseudo-science?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by hardcore *
**However, I challenge your view that the teaching of evolution promotes atheism in any way. **

I guess it would depend on how it’s done. Certainly there is the potential to do it that way, and I think that’s what a person of faith would be offended by, just as people were offended by that 2nd grade teacher I mentioned.

Done right, it’s not a problem.

Satan:

Thanks for the ascerbic little potshot. Did you actually have something to say, or just playing hit-and-run?

[Satan]

*Originally posted by Scylla *

**Satan:

Thanks for the ascerbic little potshot. Did you actually have something to say, or just playing hit-and-run? **

I believe I said it. I guess some people need extra attention…

Saying “Do you advocate teaching atheism” is a strawman argument.

Prove to me that evolution = atheism. Do it. Go ahead. Please show me that something the Pope - you know, spiritual leader of the majority of Christians - said does not conflict with Catholicism is promoting atheism.

See, now we’re debating someththing else! That’s why it’s called a fallacy, because suddenly you hange gears unethically and are debating soemthing else ENTIRELY!

Which is what your strawman argument did.

Any questions?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, three weeks, three days, 19 hours, 43 minutes and 26 seconds.
8312 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,039.11.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 20 hours, 40 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

[Kimstu]

Scylla: *Certainly there is the potential to do it that way, and I think that’s what a person of faith would be offended by, just as people were offended by that 2nd grade teacher I mentioned. *

Well, Scylla, you’re the one who’s always complaining about “people walking around looking for something to be offended by” and being “oversensitive” on SOCAS issues. When atheists object to the Ten Commandments being posted in schools or to forcing schoolchildren to listen to Christian hymns, you’re right up there in the front row complaining about how everyone whines too much and they should stop being so easily offended. Now all of a sudden we have to watch out for offending “persons of faith” and make sure that we handle the situation “sensitively”?

We have a very clear position here that proper science is exclusively materialist—not atheist, but materialist, meaning that it deals only in rational material explanations without appeals to a supernatural power, but it does not take a stand on whether there is a supernatural power or how such a power might supernaturally alter the material world that science is describing. It’s proper and scientific to apply those materialist guidelines to biology and geology as well as to astronomy and mathematics and physics. This position is accurate, consistent, and completely devoid of any intention to insult or offend anyone’s religious beliefs. Now why aren’t you taking your usual line that the “whiners” who are so eager to be “offended” by this position should just suck it up and stop being so “hypersensitive”?

Personally, I’m for treating all controversial situations with sensitivity, where we stand by rational and consistent principles without being defiant, aggressive, or whiny. But I think your double standard is showing.

[tracer]

Palm Cove wrote:

Or would you make up some other fairy tale theory to teach alongside physics, or teach alchemy with chemistry, astrology with astronomy etc.

“And over here on the next slide, you can see the photos of Valles Marineris sent back to earth by the Mariner 9 spacecraft in 1965. They clearly show that the planet Mars is, indeed, the bringer of war, and you should watch out whenever Mars is in the house of your sun-sign.”

[Dignan]

[slight hijack to my own thread]

Satan (the poster), I worship you! That was brilliant dude.

Nice to see that I could start a thread that is popular.

[hijack over]

I thought I’d just reitterate that I think Bush is now, oficially, a complete fool.

[Scylla]

Satan:

The Catholic Church as I’m sure you know, has no problem with evolution.

Evolution however does run counter to those with more fundamentalist beliefs.

Their religion tells them that God created the world in 7 days, and that he did this 7,000 years or so ago. You of all people should no that some take being told this didn’t happen as a direct and personal attack on their religious beliefs.

To them, telling them this is telling them that their religion is wrong, that God did not create the world, or the universe, and they may interpret this as a denial of God. I said this earlier:

[quote]
**

                     Most people with religious beleifs are not extremists. They don't want schools teaching exclusionary theory, and there is no way that
                     evolution has to be exclusionary.

                     As an example, there was a 2nd grade teacher around here two years ago who took it upon herself to tell the students that there was no
                     Santa Claus.

                     It's true isn't it?

                     The school shouldn't be seen to perpetuate this religious myth, should it?

                     Bullshit. The teacher was dead wrong. It's none of her business to make such a statement. It's a family matter, and none of her concern.
                     Evolution is tricky because it is in direct literal and obvious opposition to the first chapter of The Bible. It would be asinine to assume
                     that you could teach this without having theological questions come up. How this should be dealt with is of prime concern both to people
                     with faith, and those without. SOCAC is an issue on both sides.

                     A refusal to deal with this sensitively is official endorsement of atheism, and a violation of SOCAC. It's a two way street.

[quote]
**

Yesterday you accused me of trivializing people’s beleifs and rights. Though I didn’t do it yesterday, I’ve done it in the past. I apologized for it then, and I’m ready to apologize for it again, now if you like. If you refuse to deal with a person’s religous rights with respect and sensitivity, to use your own word, you are “trivializing” that religious belief. You are putting the rights of those that don’t believe in God over those who do. That is Government endorsement of atheism. Is that clear enough?

These laws are supposed to protect the rights of everybody, not just those you happen to agree with.

Evolution is about as much a fact as you can get. As such it should be taught in school. However, I think that is logical and reasonable and right that it be done so with sensitivity and respect to people’s religious beleifs. That is what I think is behind people’s desires to see alternate theories discussed in school. They view evolution as atheistic. It doesn’t matter if it is technically incorrect. That is how they feel, and it is their children, and their children’s education we are talking about.

How the theological questions that can be expected to arise from evolutionary theory in the classroom are to be addressed is a valid concern for the religious.

You are wrong in assuming that I was making a straw-man argument.

A straw-man is a deliberately false and dishonest mockery of an argument so that it can be deliberately shot down. I was extremely careful to qualify my statement by saying that a failure to treat these peoples religious beliefs sensitively when teaching evolution was an endorsement of atheism.

Don’t accuse me of dishonest debating techniques when you haven’t even bothered to read the context of my argument.

[David_B]

jmullaney said:

Yes. We’re a union of states. Not everything has to be mandated on the federal level.

You’re right. But separation of church and state happens to be one of those things that does – and that’s what we’re talking about here.

Being upset that a Republican these days wants to leave an issue for the states to decide is like being mad at the Pope for being Catholic. The implication you seem to be making is that leaving the individual states alone to decide how they want to educate their populace is an inherently bad idea.

No, the implication is that he is in favor of teaching creationism in public schools, and is using “local control” as an excuse. I know that there are many legitimate “local control” issues. This is not one of them.

However, anti-federalism has a long tradition in this country and I found your knee-jerk characterization that it is really about undermining the Bill of Rights unamerican.

The only knee that’s jerking here appears to be yours – and it seems to have done so hard enough to hit you in the chin and rattle your head a bit. I never said that all local control issues are about this. I am talking strictly about the issue at hand here.