someone will provide evidence of new genetic information?
What are you babbling about now, Asmodean?
Even though the always able MEBuckner came through to show andros wrong possibly, the fact is: Science doesn’t take votes on the facts. It doesn’t matter what people “believe,” it matters what the evidence shows. And a mountain of evidence says exactly what is taught in science class.
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 14 hours, 25 minutes and 31 seconds.
8504 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,063.00.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 40 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
When did he say that again?
There ya go, jmullaney. Act just like a creationist. Put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and pretend the evidence for Bush’s position doesn’t exist. That should make it go away.
Instead, why don’t you take my challenge and post a quote from the Bush campaign supporting your fanciful idea that Bush doesn’t advocate teaching creationism alongside evolution?
Sorry hardcore – it is very difficult to prove a negative on this one. I can’t say Bush wasn’t pandering a little with what he said, but I still see no evidence he has ever said creationism should be taught in science class, and it is perpostrerous for y’all to keep stating otherwise no matter how many times you link to old posts which have already been shot down.
cantrip:
You hope (or even pray < eg > ) for the Supreme Court to be antimajoritarian. Rhenquist seems to get his judicial opinions by polling dittoheads at coffee each morning and Scalia writing (what was probably) a dissenting opinion on one of the “Creation Science” cases a few years ago said that science couldn’t really know whether their “theory” of evolution was truly correct. (It’s hard to tell, sometimes, whether Scalia is writing a dissent or and independent concurring opinion. His prose is as opaque as his logic is convoluted.)
[hijack]
Palm Cove, see Answers in Genesis - Australia. See also No Answers in Genesis, especially Creationism in Australia.
[/hijack]
Ok, then prove the positive. Show where Bush supports having science classes free of creationism.
And for evidence that he believes creationism should be taught in science class, here are Bush’s EXACT WORDS:
You have tried to twist this quote into support for teaching creationism in an American History class. This is simply absurd. There has never been an issue about subject material in American History classes. He was responding to the Kansas School Board decision earlier this year, which removed evolution from the state testing standards. And theories about the formation of the earth are discussed in science class, not history.
I am open-minded about this issue. I would acknowledge any conflicting evidence, if you could present it. I freely admit this is not a “hot” issue with Bush, as I have been all over his campaign’s website and cannot find any statements on this point. But to pretend his position is completely different from what all the available evidence suggests makes you an honorary creationist.
– George W. Bush
My bold. What part of that don’t you get, again, hardcore? That clearly says creationism shouldn’t cross into the realm of science.
jmullaney, as you will find if you actually read this thread, I stated that the quote you referenced is ambiguous and can be construed either way. Simply read the sentence right before your bolding, which indicates that God created the earth. This finding only comes if you use the Bible to do science. Therefore, I went in search of other quotes from Bush to try and determine his actual position. The material Cantrip and I posted should clarify his stance to everyone except the willfully deluded.
True, GW Bush believes that God created the earth. I don’t think anyone will argue that point with you. This also has nothing to do with evolution since evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of earth.
False, GW is getting at a potential correlation between science and his belief in Creationism. He is not using the Bible to do science, he is making a general and open statement that evolution, as a science, might fit into the Biblical, historical and religious, belief of Creationism.
I am sure you can find others to support your interpretation of GW’s words. Can you not accept that others will support the different interpretation?
Ya know, jmullaney, your ability to ignore reality is incredible. Several people (including myself) have posted quotes from Bush or Bush spokespeople indicating clearly that he wants creationism taught alongside evolution. Yet you refuse to accept it. Frankly, you’re acting just like a creationist.
As for your latest quote:
It “clearly” says no such thing. He doesn’t use the Bible necessarily as a way to predict the findings of science. He isn’t saying anything close to what you claimed. In fact, if I were to say to you, “I don’t necessarily stop at the store on the way home from work,” it implies that I do, sometimes, stop at the store on the way home from work. Just not necessarily so. As for the “predict” part, he seems to be saying he won’t predict what may happen in the future. Fine. Great for him. But we don’t need to predict future scientific discoveries to recognize that evolution is supported just fine already.
All in all, your quote is worthless and your ability to ignore reality is supreme.
I’ve emailed George W. Bush and all the reporters to see if he really said this stuff.
I’m pretty sure it’s just the old liberal media making this stuff up.
DOn’t forget, if he did say it, it’s OK because he was just scared of the Evil Commies.
He’s a product of his generation, Whaddya expect?
JustAnotherGuy:
You need to tell that to Bush, not me. I am well aware of the various fields of science. It was Bush who crosslinked the two with “…on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth.”
Frankly, I have little concern about his personal belief in Creationism, though it does make me wonder. It is of far greater importance what his position is on the teaching of creationism in science classes. I feel the preponderance of the evidence presented in this thread indicates he is in favor of it.
Sure, knock yourself out. Believe in Santa Claus while your at it. I’ll stick with the evidence.
jmullaney, no matter how you slice it, Bush is in favor of teaching creationism in science class. Here’s another cite (see page 15):
I posted this before, so you can go back to my earlier post. This is from the LA Times via Reuters (bolding mine):
Tell me, what about the bolded part don’t you understand?
From the American Heritage Dictionary (again bolding mine):
That means in science class, which is where evolution is taught.
tomndebb, you’re right, I certainly hope that the Supremes fulfill their antimajoritarian role here. Even the most rabid creationist should not want what happened in Kansas in the aftermath of its school board decision to happen in the rest of the country (see the first link in this post for the discussion of that aftermath).
If I were to say, for example,
I think that it is debatable whether blue is a good color for a car. I don’t necessarily use the car to determine my like for the color blue.
Anyway, food for thought and yes, I’m just being difficult.
So, OK – there are some reporters who think George Bush is in favor of teaching creationism alongside evolution. There are reporters for the World Weekly News who think Bush has secretly met with aliens.
I understand that this reporter agrees with you. I understand you understand how to use a dictionary to explain that this reporter agrees with you.
But, fercryinoutloud – since George Bush has met with aliens, that is the least of our problems.
From the American Heritage Dictionary (bolding mine):
Once we are all slaves in their dilithium mines, I guess this whole evolution thing won’t be such a big deal then. I read it in the paper it must be true!