Bush thinks "Intelligent Design" should be taught

The president has suggested that a theory known as “intelligent design” should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

President Bush’s championing of intelligent design will be interpreted as further evidence of the growing influence of the religious right.

The US president told newspaper reporters in Texas that children should be taught about intelligent design so they could better understand the debate about the origins of the universe.

Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

Scientific arguments

Yet even those on the religious right, such as Republican Senator Rick Santorum, are cautious as to how it should be taught.

“I’m not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom,” he says.

“What we should be teaching are the problems and holes, and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution.”

Ah, what a legacy Dubya is leaving! :roll:

You’re letting the terrorists win!


A letter to the editor appearing in yesterday’s Independent:

Sir: George Bush wants intelligent design, a.k.a. creationism, to be taught in American classrooms, side by side with evolution, so as to give students “both sides of the debate”. Why stop there? Children could be taught medieval alchemy along with modern chemistry, flat-earthism together with cosmology and Aristotelian physics together with relativity.


Sir: It’s surely no coincidence that the majority of exponents of “intelligent design” are men. Any woman will tell you that the female reproductive system, with its monthly difficulties and risky, painful childbirth, has been anything but intelligently designed. Or maybe it just proves that God is male?

Thanks Brian. I wanted to highlight our Great Leader in his own thread.

I am surprised by this.

More surprising is that Rick Santorum disagreed with the President and said that it shouldn’t.


Well that’s pure posturing. He’s going to lose his seat next year if he doesn’t make at least some effort to appear not-insanely-right-wing.

Yeah, no kidding. Even I’m motivated enough to go out and vote against him, and I’m just a Californian in Pennsylvania for school.

Hey, what school?


UPenn (not Penn State!).

Anyway, down with creationism in a lab coat!

George Will of all people had a great column a few months ago about why intelligent design sucks. Basically, he said it shouldn’t be taught because it doesn’t conform to the scientific method (ie, there is no possible way to test this theory in order to prove or disprove it). So ID shouldn’t count, because it’s a fucking leap of faith.

Too bad the George Will-style of Republicanism is dying, only to be replaced by the insane loonies of the Jesus Brigade.

The George Will variant is entirely new, too. He’s the libertarian wing - the christian right is the other wing.

It used to be small businessman types & upper crust eastern businessmen.

How many Young Earth Creationists does it take to change a light bulb?

I’d give real money for a good punchline to that joke.

Intelligent design is not an alternative creation myth; it’s a badly-formed attempt to prove God’s existence.

None, for the light bulb is perfect in every way. Changing it at all would be against God’s plan.

Shoot, I could’ve Googled it…
how many

Young Earthers: 3, one to research scripture for light references, one to search for the appropriate ‘kind’ of bulb, one to explain to the clerk that any variations in bulbs are micro-adaptation, not a fundamental change in bulb technology.

Old Earther - 2, to search scripture until finding a verse that indicates the Lord God created all light, thus moving from doctrine to evidence, we find that the Lord put the light in the bulb, and the Lord is infallible, thus the darkness is a curse put on us by the Lord, in his might and love. Evolutionists should stop ignoring such evidence, and stop teaching electricity in the schools.

Intelligent Designers: 1, but with the understanding that God informed and inspired the creation and development of all bulbs, and created fillaments. So there.

Kent Hovind - Did you know that electricity doesn’t really exist? Ask an Engineer! First, ask him what makes the light glow, and he’ll say electricity. Then ask how much electricity goes into a light bulb, he’ll say something like, oh, an amp. Then ask how much electricity comes out of the light bulb? However much electricity they think they measure going into a bulb, the SAME AMOUNT comes out the other side! So the bulb was lit with FREE ENERGY!

Jack Chick: God made a perfect world, and there was no darkness in Paradise. Then the Bi*** got Man thrown out. Years later, the Catholics burned out your bulb to appease Satan. Here, read a comic book about it.

I’m in the midwest and am pretty socially conservative. I was raised by fundamentalist Christians who are young-earth creationists (and who are very intelligent), and I know a lot of very intelligent, conservative Christians of both the young-earth and old-earth variety. That said, I think George Will’s in the right on this. Schools have to teach what science has concluded, not what people want science to conclude. If creationists want a “young earth” history taught in schools, then they’d best do a better job of proving that science backs their claims at the expense of evolution. If they want a “God created the earth” history taught in schools…well, that’s not going to happen, and it shouldn’t, just like an “evolution disproves the theory of God” history shouldn’t be taught either. Facts are facts. The job of a science class is to present them and let people draw their own conclusions.

I can understand the conservative Christians’ dislike of evolution. For many, they’ve been told all their lives that the earth was created in seven days, and it’s hard to think otherwise. It’s also hard to accept a theory that can be used to argue that many “sins” (e.g., lust) are in fact ok and natural, as they’re a result of mankind’s animalistic heritage. Their hostility toward evolution is also fueled by the smirking of self-righteous anti-religious people who tout evolution as an alternative to God and defame conservatives at every chance they get. Bottom line though, if something’s not reproduceable, it shouldn’t be taught in a science class.

Heh, I wonder how many flames this will get just because I’m a conservative, even though most of what I said I agrees with everyone else? :) I figure at least a few condescending people will drop the “witty” remark that there’s no such thing as an “intelligent creationist”…but they’re wrong.

Crispus, you’re absolutely right: There is such a thing as an intelligent Young Earth Creationist, and just because they may happen to be mistaken (or not!) on this issue doesn’t make them stupid.

This is such a hot-button issue for me, Crispus, largely because I’m a Christian and I think Young Earth Creationism is pretty obviously false by the Bible’s standards (Genesis 1:16. Think about it. Seriously.). So doing just what you say – admitting that there are intelligent YEC’s – is particularly difficult for me, because what I think I see is a glaring logical hole in the idea, even if you take the Bible literally. Especially if you take it literally. It gets my goat, every single time.

And it gets everyone’s goat. As a result it has driven a wedge between Science and Christianity, which is horrible, because the former was born from the latter. They really don’t have any business arguing with each other.

The only way things will change is when each side treats the other with respect and dignity, and that unfortunately starts with gulp me.

But it still gets my goat!

i think that this is one of those things (like abortion) that the two sides will never, ever, ever be able to compromise on, because they come to the discussion with totally different starting parameters. questioning how the most basic building block evolved really is questioning the existence of god as most people understand him. at some point in the distant future, we will be able to reasonably explain every step and process that brought the world from primordial goo to albert einstein. as far as i can see, you are left with three options at that point:

  1. completely disregard science and continue to believe in god as presented in the bible
  2. adopt a really watered down ID, in which god exists but isn’t necessary and doesn’t do anything (and never did)
  3. atheism

of course, there is the alternate solution that the IDers are actually right. but, errr, i’m not betting on that…

I agree that the problem with abortion is similar in that people are coming from different perspectives and using the other sides’ obvious faults to make excuses for their own using a false binary proposition.

There’s quite a few more options than that. Maybe I haven’t been clear, so let me put it here where all can see:

[size=6]Young Earth Creationism is directly contradicted by the Bible.[/size]

Gen 1:16 is the key.

Once you realize that little point you begin to realize all kinds of things, such as:

  1. You can discuss the validity of Creationism with Christians using the literal Bible alone as a source.
  2. Which means you can end the debate simply by bringing Christians around to their own beliefs.

Nonsense, scientists are just wrong about the speed of light. The further away a star is from God, who lives in Earth’s sky, the faster its light goes because the light wants to be with him.