Bush thinks intelligent design should be taught along side evolution in the classroom? That’s as preposterous as the article calling intelligent design a “theory.” Maybe he just want’s to see his name in headlines next to the word “Intelligent.” I suppose that would require that he actually read the paper.
Really though, what kind of introduction does intelligent design require? You spend 100% of the time teaching the chemistry, physics, and biology that have been involved in the rigorous pursuit and development of the theory of evolution for over a century, and at the end you mention that some people are afraid of some of the contradictions that the theory means to their belief system. Sure – Intelligent Design is a lovely idea and many great minds like Einstein and Hawking feel that the beauty of the universe is evidence for a god, but they don’t dilute their work with personal feelings. And Bush should quit diluting – well – everything. Especially science.
Here. Here. Our only problem is politicians aren’t scientists…nor should be.
I was reading an article about Bush’s statements on MSNBC and ran into this quote: “Noting Bush’s Ivy League education, Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said, “People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education.”
That’s a great quote – but he did go to business school. :P
His “exposure” to “science” was economics. But then – you’d think he’d be all about social darwinism. It’s the ultimate scape goat for trampling over people.
My biggest problem with that first article is how loosely the writer stipulates what the theory of intelligent design “implies”.
I don’t consider him qualified to make such judgements. What I like about most scientific views is that they point out what they can rule out, and they do not usually speculate until they can properly justify it.
Jason sent me this link. Tounge & Cheek? Yes. Hilarious? Definately.
http://www.venganza.org/index.htm