According to Gary trudeau’s 4/20 Doonesbury George W. Bush “doesn’t believe in evolution.”
Is this true?
What’s the Straight Dope on this?
Desmo: In other words, the Prez believes that a particular religious idea should be given equal weight with actual science. <sigh>
and that no one else’s religious views should be taught.
Haj
I am no fan of GWB. But I interpret his statements on the subject as being non-commital. He doesn’t want to offend any part of the electorate by making a definitive statement on something he has no fierce commitment to, one way or the other.
Proof that GWB is anti-evolution has to come from something other than a Doonesbury cartoon.
He’s not being non-committal though, he’s saying that creationism is as ‘educationally valid’ as evolution theory. Either he’s saying this to appease some Christian fundamentalists, or he truly believes creationism is valid. I’m not sure which is scarier.
No, he isn’t saying that “creationism is as ‘educationally valid’ as evolution theory”. What his spokesperson said was “evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects”.
When I was learning high-school chemistry, I was taught about the phlogiston theory. It isn’t currently accepted science. It was a valid thing to be taught, though, because it described some historical background.
Another of my high-school classes was about comparative religion.
Creationism in the context of comparative religion in the US probably needs to be taught in schools, if only to understand WTF some people are talking about.
I’m not sure I see the difference between ‘educationally valid’ and ‘valid educational subjects.’ If he were saying that they should both be taught, but one as science, one as religion, then I would agree, but if that if what he (through his spokeswoman) means, he should clarify. Otherwise the most unbiassed interpretation of the phrase ‘both ought to be taught’ is that they should be taught in the same subject.
I completely agree that comparative religion should be taught in schools, I’m amazed that it isn’t, but I don’t want to hijack this thread.
As far as I’m concerned someone that uses the phrase “doesn’t believe in evolution.” doesn’t understand science.(But that’s just me.)
SciFiSam, this whole thread is complete rubbish, either as a General Question or a Great Debate.
Neither the OP’s cartoon, nor my quotation, prove anything one way or the other.
If you want to, start it up again in MPSIMS.
Or else come back here with some evidence.
Um, I didn’t start the thread, Desmostylus. The OP didn’t contend to prove anything, it asked a question. I am also not attempting to prove anything. Your own quote is not proof, but it is evidence, unless you’re saying it was made up.
I agree that the way the subject has proceeded, it is now more suitable for GD or IMHO. But if you continue to take a hostile stance and say a thread is ‘complete rubbish,’ it might even end up in the pit, which would be a shame.
[url=http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/ecopsyc/homeokinetics/creationism.html]
"L.A. Times, Thursday, 11/4/99, p. A35. Bush Sees Place for Teaching on Creation. From Reuters "Wilmington, Del. – 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.”
Basically, this does not prove that GW Bush is a creationist. However, ‘children learning different forms of how the world was formed’ implies that they would both be taught on the same basis, in the same class, which is rather worrying from a 21st century President, IMHO.
I’m sorry that you feel that way.
I don’t count Doonesbury as an authoritative source, so I just wondered if somebody else had some more solid evidence one way or the other.
I think that the question has a factual answer, so I posted it here.
If there is no conclusive evidence then maybe it would fit in GD. I hoped that there would be a quick easy answer with a cite.
David_D,
I agree that it isn’t the best way to phrase the issue. It can be an awkward tp get across w/o using the word believe though.
Sci and Desmo,
thanX for the circumstantial evidence. Based on what you’ve supplied, I bet that there is a good cite out there somewhere that’s more conclusive.
The whole idea that George W. would have “thoughts” on this, or any other matters of weight, is hilarious.
I will remind folks that GQ is not the place to argue about politics. That includes comments on how scary or stupid political figures might be.
I think the General Question has been answered about as well as it can be. The proper interpretation of Bush’s statements is best left to another forum. I invite the interested to start a new thread there.
bibliophage
moderator GQ