My problem really isn’t what Bush personally believes or thinks should be taught, it’s that he wants to allow any option at all for school boards to teach religion as science. I don’t see a way that creationism could be taught without either stating that it’s not a scientific theory (in which case what’s the point?) or stating that it is a scientific theory (which would be teaching a falsehhood).
If you say it’s true you have establishment, if you say it’s false you have esatablishment, if you just say “people believe it.” it’s pointless.
And I still think you have the issue of non-Genesis creation myths of other religions to consider. If you teach one you have to teach them all, don’t you? And then there’s no time to teach the real science.
I had a 3 paragrph reply - sent it - and got the error page !!! ARRGGHHH!!!
And I paid 4.95 for this %^$)#&)& %&%%&#### foolishness ???
I’m okay now.
Rashak Mani
No, I did not mean that the American Students’ decline in Math & Scienece was a direct result of the George W Bush administration. It has been occurring for quite a while. And I agree with you that if creationism is given equal validity with evolution, then it will be the “final nail in the coffin” of American Education.
Okay I have a token posting so to speak: http://www.davosnewbies.com/2003/03/04
The quotes are not given a reference nor a context nor even a date so it’s another one of those specious sources. You don’t even have to reply to that posting.
Anyway, rather than finding Bush making favorable creationist remarks, I thought I’d approach it from the other side - what do the creationists think about Bush?
Well here is an article from the Answers In Genesis website which describes their being interviewed by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reporter.
They mention that the CBC reporter was trying to force them into showing some support for Bush. However, they remained steadfastly neutral. At first it appears that their desire to be a rock of impartiality is a commendable one. But upon reading the 5th paragraph, the truth appears:
"AiG carefully explained to the reporter that AiG has never had a political agenda. In any case, as a non-profit organization, AiG could not support an elected official like a U.S. president (especially during an election year), and would risk losing its tax-exempt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) designation if it did."
I guess that would explain why these organizations are silent about giving political support. It’s because they believe in the $eparation of Church and $tate.
LOL
Granted I still haven’t found a definitive “George W Bush loves creationism” webiste, quote, speech, position paper, etc.
But hey, don’t I deserve a “partial credit” for that “Answers In Genesis” posting - and their reason$ for being impartial ?
It matters far less to me, and I’d say to the world, that he sees creationism as on a par with evolution theory than that he seems himself as chosen by God to lead the world in the apocalyptic battle of Good and Evil. He doesn’t have to respond to anyone, or even consider that they may be right. Being chosen by God, he knows he’s right, he knows he must identify Satan’s minions, he knows he must send the Forces of Good to destroy them. The great battle he is engaged in now is to smite the enemies of Israel, starting with Iraq, to prepare the Holy Land for the End of Days. No one he has chosen to be his helpmate in this great crusade can be criticized, because the Chosen One in turn chose them. It provides him great simplicity and clarity of worldview that he doesn’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks, or what the facts may be - that’s part of the attractiveness of fundamentalist religion; that the hard questions have prepared answers.
It follows that the environment and economy and social justice and the rest of that lib’ruhl crap don’t really matter, because it will all be over for us on this earth soon anyway. Creationism in schools? Bah. A trivial matter, beneath the attention of the Chosen Instrument of God.
The problem is, that letting the school boards decide is pretty much the pat answer for ALL politicians, afaik. Bush isn’t unusual in that…he’s basically doing what they all do, namely foisting the decision off on a lower level and letting THEM decide. I might be wrong, and am willing to be proved so, but I seem to recall a similar stance from Gore and Clinton (as well as every other president I can think of where this would have come up), and would be willing to bet that Kerry has a similar stance as well.
If this isn’t the case and GW is the only President/Candidate to say ‘let the local boards decide’ then I’ll retract all this of course…its 10pm here and I’m falling asleep at the keyboard atm.
As to teaching Creation Science in school, I was pretty much knee jerk against it myself, but pervert got me thinking a bit on how it could be used to teach critical thinking as well as dispell a lot of myths. Of course, your point that in the real world it would never happen and for good reasons kind of killed that.
Well, the links you have found have not proven your point, but I’m willing to give you more than partial credit for looking them up. I appreciate all of them that you’ve found. I have tried to read them all and am educated every time. Let me offer my thanks for your efforts.
From the latest link by **wolf_meister[\b], I can say that both sides of this issue are concerned by the specter of teaching creationism.
So, we have evolutionists who think that allowing creation to be taught would result in religious instruction and creationists who think that mandating its teaching would result in mocking or poor teaching of their ideas.
BTW, go back and look at the first link that wolf_meister posted. It is a CNN article which contains statements from all of the presidential candidates of the 2000 election (before Bush won the Republican nomination) and president Clinton. They all agreed that local school boards should decide whether or not to teach creationism. In fact, the article was written as part of a continuing story resulting from Gore suggesting that local school boards should be able to teach it as science. He changed his mind when he learned that the supreme court had already ruled it religious teaching and relegated it to religious instruction.
You inspired me, wolf_meister to look in other areas for information germane to this thread. I found a couple sentences added to the “No Child Left Behind” education bill. Apperently Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) added the following as a non binding “Sense of the Senate” resolution. It was moved into an intorductory portion of the final joint bill. I suppose one could make the argument that this represents Bush’s views in some way.
I should note that the statement is and always was non binding. Also, that it seems to be closer to my opinion on the subject than not.
Why? There are people who consider themselves Christians who don’t believe Jesus was divine or God but was human and an example for people to follow. How would believing this make them nuts?
I read your link, but I see a discussion of paranormal activity and quackery, and in the parts you quoted. Not a discussion of evolution. I think there is a difference, since one is not necessarily dealing with indoctrination. I will also add from your link:
So setting aside the issue that the article is discussing a belief in paranormal activities, etc.; I do not see the author advocating pseudo-scientific comparisons, rather more and better science education. In the end, I believe a school can only do so much. I’ve linked to this article recently, but I think it applies here:
While I think the above applies outside a classroom, I see it as a questionable practice inside of one, for reasons I think are obvious. So I suppose we put more stress on critical thinking, more and better science education (not pseudo-science), and accept the idea not everyone is going to be swayed by that critical thinking or education.
