I don’t think I have to post any sites about George W Bush’s views on creationism. (It will come as no surprise that he believes in it, thinks it is valid and should be taught in American schools as an alternative theory to evolution). Personally, I think it is dangerous for a US President to have this rather reckless attitude toward education.
What prompted me to start this thread was another posting “Is the Bush administration anti-science?” Well, with views such as these, you can bet Dubya Bush is never going to win a Nobel Prize in any of the science categories.
So? Bush is scientifically ignorant. His administration will cynically exploit, distort, or ignore scientific evidence as convenient to serve their preconceived agenda. Neither of these facts makes the Bush Administration “anti-science” in any committed or systematic way. Bush may be pushing for an anti-gay marriage amendment, but where’s his creation-science-education amendment? To put this in perspective – if, say, Judge Roy “Ten Commandments” Moore or somebody like him were president, now, that would be an anti-science administration – and serious research scientists could expect very little in the way of public funding, especially if they worked in controversial areas like genetics research.
Well, if you want such a claim to be more than merely an assertion on you part, yes you do. This came up in another thread and my repeated requests for proof were not answered very well. If you have access to information on this subject please share it.
As I recall the only evidence was one article from the 2000 election which included quotes from all of the campaigns of the time to the effect that they had no objection to local boards deciding to teach creationism.
A position that local schoolboards should have the option to teach creationism is alarming enough all by itself. They should absolutely NOT, no way, no how have that option anymore than they should have the option to teach that Elvis was the first president or that 2+2=5.
Bush has also reportedly said that “the jury is still out” on evolution which is embarrassing but not cataclysmic if he keeps it to himself, but any kind of policy which would allow publicly funded schools to teach false theories and religious beliefs under the guise of science is both stupid and unconstitutional.
Geez, I figured if I started posting websites I’d get answers such as “oh yeah well that site is well-known to be pro-liberal, anti-Bush, etc” Damned if I do and damned if I don’t - well here goes:
A story from the 2000 election and Dubya’s position:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/27/president.2000/evolution.create/
Another site from the 2000 election stating that Dubya thinks creationism and evolution are both valid
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Education.htm
Scroll down to Fact 17 here:
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/PRES_BUSH.HTM
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/ecopsyc/homeokinetics/creationism.html
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismBush.html
Hey this seems to be a pro-Bush site it seems this guy wants to vote for Bush even if Dubya bellieves in a newly-born Earth, etc
http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/Doonesbury.htm
Scroll down about one quarter of the page for Dubya’s creationist views:
http://quinnell.us/politics/2000/bushreligion.html
That enough ???
Also, Diogenes, you brought up some good points.
Actually, I wasn’t being lazy in NOT posting sites. I just felt if I said something such as “Bush is pro-life”, would it really be necessary to post websites to back up that statement?
I’m not even a big Bush fan but why would do you say he has a wreckless attitude…because he believes in creation?
Actually in my biology classes creationism was mentioned, when we learned evolution. There were several different explanations for development, some scientific, some religious, that were gone over briefly, all were given counter arguments in the book to “mostly explain them away” and then evolution was explained, not as a law, but as, “the most commonly accepted and most proven scientific theory at present.”
For full blown creationism I don’t know why we should even bother to really teach it. It isn’t very complex, “God created the world. The end. Get your pencils out, it is time for the test.”
Question 1 (100 points)
How was the world created, according to creationist theory?
a) The Christian god created it.
b) The world doesn’t exist, we don’t exist, it is all a dream.
c) A long series of cosmic and geologic events lead to the creation of the planet and its features, a long process of evolution developed the life forms on the planet.
Welcome, Start.
Creationism vs mainstream geology, evolution etc has been pretty heavily debated on these boards and I don’t want to get into another of those stoushes. Just to help you out, the suggestion is that to advocate teaching school children about Creationism in a Science class, as the OP claims Bush has, would be neglectful to the point of recklessness because it’s scientifically incorrect.
It is not scientifically incorrect. It is scientifically unproven it’s very difficult to completely disprove anything scientifically.
Nonetheless, creationism belongs more in a social studies or theology class.
Enlightenment has obviously not reached GDubya.
Say it LOUD, Say it PROUD!
Kerry is our progression!
Dubya is our recession!
If creationism actually did happen, it’d violate so many of our known laws of science that we might as well toss out all the textbooks and start over again.
Thank you for posting those links. I think you should re read them. They all refer to the same CNN article which is your first link and is the evidence discussed in another thread I mentioned.
None of them really reffers to any evidence that Bush is in favor of teaching Creationism in schools. If you read the statement carefully, you sill not that he simply says that he is in favor of local control over such decisions. If you read the whole article, you will notice that this position is identical to Clinton’s, Gore’s, Forbe’s, Dole’s, McCain’s and all of the other candidates. The article tries to paint them with various anti evolution brushes. But it does so in the authors comments, not with the quotes provided.
In short, yes, you do need to bring evidence to the table if you wish to propose that President Bush believes Creationism is more correct than science. ALL of the evidence you have presented (and all that I have seen) seem to stem from a misinterpretation of this one quote from a campaign worker. I am most interested in any evidence you may have that I am wrong on this issue.
BTW, the link which talked about the UCS blog had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush’s evolutional beliefs other than in the title. There is nothing in that UCS paper about it AFAIK.
Also, Diogenes the Cynic does not have a good point. He is being myopic in his hatred of Bush. Teaching creationism in science class would be an excellent way to instruct budding minds in the principles of science. You could draw lessons about geology, biology, scientific philosophy (provable vs falsifiable etc). Teaching 2+2=5 could provide a similar context for lessons about number theory.
Teaching false theories in order to show that they are false is a time honored teaching tool.
In 1999, Al Gore also made noises supporting public schools teaching Creationism, then of course made extensive qualifications when the uproar ensued.
Politically, it depends on which groups are being caterred to & which groups are being dismissed by a candidate. Democratic constituents are more likely to be Godless Evolutionists, Republican constituents are more likely to be Redneck Creationists.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol5.htm for that Gore bit. btw
I agree with much of what you pointed out… but Bush beleives in creationism and would defend the possibility of it being taught not as a “false theory - teaching tool” as you put it… but as literal truth.
I agree that Bush has defended many religious topics like Abortion and Marriage… but not creationism… not openly at least. I read the Doonesbury critic and though he points out the irrelevance of the subject to daily life… his last comparison isn’t very apt though. What if Americans have to chose equally qualified presidents and one only defends creationism. Then would electing him consititute a step backward ? I venture that YES it would.
Creationism isn’t a scientific theory… its a religious one. If you teach it in school what else will you start teaching then ? That Eve took Adam into sinning ? Seems like a clear breach of the separation os Church and State to me.
As for why is this relevant to judging Bush ? Its pretty bad for “snob lefties” like the article says… but not much relevant to others maybe. Except if the separation of Church and State is menaced. People like Ashcroft are there only because Bush beleives in the same stuff he does… I consider that plenty dangerous. If creationism is taught in some states do you think that will help those students ? I doubt it…
Pervert, you know good and well that Bush doesn’t want to teach creationism as false science but as a legitimate “alternative” to evolution. He really thinks it’s an alternate theory.
Pervert
Those links I posted were obtained somewhat hastily - I posted those at 2:00 am and wanted some sleep. Oh I sure will do further research. Maybe I can find something he said at Bob Jones University.
Also you said that:
“In short, yes, you do need to bring evidence to the table if you wish to propose that President Bush believes Creationism is more correct than science”
No, I am saying that Bush thinks Creationism has equal weight and validity with Evolution.
And when I said his opinion is reckless just consider the present state of American education. Of all developed nations, American students usuaully score at or near the bottom in math and science when compared to students of other countries. (Darn - I bet you’ll want a site for that too.) Anyway, if students are doing poorly in those 2 areas now, bringing Creationism into the picture increases the chances that students will be even more incompetent. Sure, it is okay to talk about Creationism even in a scienece classroom. I think we all were taught that people once thought the Earth was flat and the Earth was the center of the Universe and the Sun goes around the Earth. However, we are also taught that this is wrong and the truth is the Earth travels around the Sun. (Want a site for that too?) We don’t treat the geocentric model and the heliocentric model with equal validity.
And once we allow other “theories” to be taught in the classrooms, heck what does the Koran have to say about it? the Torah?
Also, the First Book of Kings implies that “pi” is precisely equla to three. Shall we have alternative “pi” calculations in our math classes too?
I’m at work - I’ll post more later on.
Wolf meister I would like links with some clear indications of Bush being a creationist… these would be neat.
Also just a quick comment on your last post. US students were already behind in science studies for a long time, well since I was in high school easily (circa 1989). I don’t think you wanted to imply Bush is responsible… but it kind of sounded like that by mistake. I agree completely that teaching them creationism would put the nail in the coffin so to speak… forget americans in NASA.
There is no such thing as “creationist theory.” A theory does not mean any random hypothesis you can come up with and it doesn’t mean “unproven.” You said that Evolution is not taught as “law” but that shows a misunderstanding of how the terms “theory” and “law” are used in science. A theory is an explanation for a set of phenomena which is supported by evidence. If you can’t support it, it’s not a theory. No amount of proof can turn a theory into a law. The atom is a theory. Gravity is a theory. The evidence for evolution is as strong as it is for the atom.
The Genesis story of creation, on the other hand, has been unequivocally disproven. There is no scientific debate about it at all. To teach that it’s even possible would be to teach a falsehood- not just an unproven hypothesis, but a demonstrable falsehood.