In the past, he's sidestepped the issue - obviously he isn't into evolution (it's science you know), but he has never outright said that
ID or the like should be part of the school curriculum....until now.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
So who is the judge of what schools of thought we teach? If a theory as factually and observationally bankrupt as ID gets in, what next?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/
Bush has now said that we should be teaching ID theory
-
StormShadow
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:10 pm
-
StormShadow
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:10 pm
I've been here for ten years now and I love this country and all the great friends I have made. But yeah.... one can only take so much.-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Hrrmmppphh, we might as well talk about Julia Childs in European History 101, or the advantages of the cross-stitch in Calc I.
By Zeus's butthole, I stab at thee.
The problems of evolutionary theory should be introduced (if not exhaustively discussed) in high school science classes. There is a massive literature on this topic...published in peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals. IT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH A 'GOD'S HAND' HYPOTHESIS. The only rationale for injecting ID shit into a science class is as a religious/cultural move to make religious conservatism/literalism more palatable for a 21st century audience of young impressionable minds.
If you want to introduce ID theory (as a hypothesis) into a religious studies or anthropology class, fine. But leave the science classes to this crazy thing called 'science', you knuckle dragging assjackers.
By Zeus's butthole, I stab at thee.
The problems of evolutionary theory should be introduced (if not exhaustively discussed) in high school science classes. There is a massive literature on this topic...published in peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals. IT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH A 'GOD'S HAND' HYPOTHESIS. The only rationale for injecting ID shit into a science class is as a religious/cultural move to make religious conservatism/literalism more palatable for a 21st century audience of young impressionable minds.
If you want to introduce ID theory (as a hypothesis) into a religious studies or anthropology class, fine. But leave the science classes to this crazy thing called 'science', you knuckle dragging assjackers.
Last edited by Hannibal on Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
and i'm allowed to criticize the uneducated opinion of your president
even the label "intelligent design" concedes ground to science by the conscious attempt to make what is really just the book of genesis sound like science. in much the same way as ghosts could be reclassified as 'intentional paraphysical phenomena', or delusions as 'user-specific reality'...
even the label "intelligent design" concedes ground to science by the conscious attempt to make what is really just the book of genesis sound like science. in much the same way as ghosts could be reclassified as 'intentional paraphysical phenomena', or delusions as 'user-specific reality'...
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
You're foaming at the mouth sir.Hannibal wrote:Hrrmmppphh, we might as well talk about Julia Childs in European History 101, or the advantages of the cross-stitch in Calc I.
By Zeus's butthole, I stab at thee.
The problems of evolutionary theory should be introduced (if not exhaustively discussed) in high school science classes. There is a massive literature on this topic...published in peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals. IT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH A 'GOD'S HAND' HYPOTHESIS. The only rationale for injecting ID shit into a science class is as a religious/cultural move to make religious conservatism/literalism more palatable for a 21st century audience of young impressionable minds.
If you want to introduce ID theory (as a hypothesis) into a religious studies or anthropology class, fine. But leave the science classes to this crazy thing called 'science', you knuckle dragging assjackers.
Unfortunately, these articles won't put your mind at ease.
Read on:
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071905.shtml
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072005.shtml
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072105.shtml
Sure, you're trying to give me a heart attack. I won't forget this.Massive Quasars wrote:
You're foaming at the mouth sir.
Unfortunately, these articles won't put your mind at ease.
Read on:
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071905.shtml
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072005.shtml
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072105.shtml
This whole 'flight from reason' thing just really burns my britches...it doesn't help that the man at the head of this idiot filled conga line is our president. #$*#@%&#($&#$!!
Last edited by Hannibal on Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This made me chuckle:
For some reason I had a vision of a quantum physics conference where one of the attending scientists starts singing a praise song about the wonderful world of quarks...
The so-called scientific conference spoken of in that article is more like a church service than anything else.
from http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071905.shtml.Christian musician (and dinosaur sculptor) Buddy Davis even sings a praise song in the evening that sums up the situation [about .
For some reason I had a vision of a quantum physics conference where one of the attending scientists starts singing a praise song about the wonderful world of quarks...
The so-called scientific conference spoken of in that article is more like a church service than anything else.