Here:
In your own goddamn quote, he doubts evolution! What the fuck, man?
He means in the sense of “what/who caused evolution”, he says the two are perfectly compatible which hardly is a YEC viewpoint.
He says it in much the same way a Scientologist says that Scientology and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
GW Bush did not interfere with federal research grants to scholars studying evolution in a scientific manner. Nor did he insist there be some kind of balance between federal support for people who study ID and those who study evolution. As Bush is quoted as saying in this thread, he knew that such questions were outside his lane. I’m not expert in Scientology, but such a genuinely humble approach seems to me uncharacteristic of them, or at least is not what one thinks of concerning them.
Personally, I see ID as a blend of pseudo-science, philosophy of science, and philosophy of religion. But in terms of philosophical questions to discuss, there is a lot there. And the idea that young minds would be scared by teaching the controversy seem dubious to me. The main negative I can see, to teaching the controversy – which Bush once suggested – is that science teachers aren’t experienced in teaching controversies.
There is no controversy. There’s evolution, and there are people who insist on attributing it to the supernatural being of their choice with no rational basis for doing so.
This is mistaken. (Notice how I have read the board rules here ;))
It’s true that some of the controversy has to do with whether there really is a controversy.
It’s not a scientific controversy. But I see no enormous need to always respect disciplinary boundaries.
In that case, here’s what science teachers should do at the end of the unit on evolution: they should say “There is no controversy. There’s evolution, and there are people who insist on attributing it to the supernatural being of their choice with no rational basis for doing so.” I’m okay with going further and shooting ID down in detail. I’m not okay with pretending intelligent design represents a dissenting scientific view on the matter, because it isn’t one. The main negative in “teaching the controversy” is the implication that there is one.
Don’t forget to teach the flat Earth-round Earth controversy, too.
No, but he did interfere with federal research grants to scholars studying global warming.
After taking a second to read this, I realize I might have been pushing the boundaries of civil discourse with that comment.
What I should have said was “intelligent design is a religious philosophy, and not science. Despite this, mainstream republican politicians, including GWB, often (usually?) express opinions in favor of including intelligent design in science school curriculum when asked.”
Republicans ought to be challenged on this, not defended. Whatever your personal opinions are on the nature of existence, it’s unforgivable to attempt to force those opinions or beliefs into science curriculum.