President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk

American Geophysical Union ^ | 2 August 2005 | American Geophysical Union

[Right Wing Professor]

WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."

In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."

"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."

"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.

AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.

[Dimensio]

The problem with excluding alternative (competing) explanations is that many of them are also scientific and equally valid

An example of an "alternative" explanation that is, in fact, scientific?

[birbear]

Is that what you want in public schools? Non-scientific religious stories laid alongside scientific theories in science classrooms?

This is why I don't post on these threads... it's tired cliche after tired cliche.

You post your thoughts about creationism/ID about not being scientific. I post the tired, worn out scientific evidence that both refutes evolution and embraces ID. You tell me the scientists that I'm quoting are not "real" scientists. I give you their CVs. You're still not convinced and run back to your "it's a religion" argument. Neither of us listen to each other, and we've wasted everybody's bandwidth.


So, to answer your question: I would hope the school I sent my kids to would teach the pros and cons of every theory, giving more time to the more prevalent theories. That way, when my kid goes to college, he/she can ask intelligent questions and learn more about the world around him/her.

If somebody fears that, that's their problem. I want my kids to be able to question "truth", in whatever form it is.

[Dimensio]

Never understood why your Fundamentalist Evolutionists get so angry when your little theory is challenged.

It's not the fact that you're trying to challenge evolution that is irritating. It is the fact that you are using the same false, repeatedly-refuted statements that we've addressed hundreds of times in the past.

Calling me stupid and other names because it won't stand on it's own.

Nice of you to focus on just that and completely ignore every other statement I made. That makes all of your previous statements suddenly valid, right?

Please explain our brain evolved from a chimp.

It didn't. Humans didn't evolve directly from chimps. Anyone who has studied evolution would know that.

Maybe you can explain how life started, oh yeah that dont count because it is too big a hole in your theory.

It's not a "hole". Evolution does not care how life came to exist. It's not a hole for a scientific theory not to address issues outside of its scope.

Maybe you can just explain why you can translate letters on this page into thoughts and ideas.

That's a job for a psychologist, not an evolutionary biologist.

You have only demonstrated that you don't understand evolution at all, yet you still arrogantly feel yourself fully qualified to tell those of us who have educated ourselves on the matter why the theory must be false.

[Dimensio]

I post the tired, worn out scientific evidence that both refutes evolution and embraces ID.

Odd, becuase I've been looking at your posts since 2001, and I can't find a single one where you did this. In fact, I can't find anything prior to this discussion where you speak on the theory of evolution at all.

Feel free to present "evidence that both refutes evolution and embraces ID". Not that I expect you to do this, you'll just make something up about us not accepting it and duck the issue entirely.

Feel free to make a liar out of me.

You tell me the scientists that I'm quoting are not "real" scientists.

I've never told you anything of the sort.

I give you their CVs.

When did you do this?

So, to answer your question: I would hope the school I sent my kids to would teach the pros and cons of every theory, giving more time to the more prevalent theories.

So 1) what are the "cons" of the theory of evolution and 2) what is the "theory" of ID, including what it predicts and falsification criteria?

And why did you dodge my question about teaching Native American creation stories?

[weaponeer]

Man, I can't believe you are jumping in on one of these ID threads!!!! :-)

I gotta admit, though, I find them quite entertaining.

[bray]

Classic fallback position, only scientists can understand or talk about evolution because WE are qualified. Any scientist that does not believe in evolution is not really a "scientist". Your faith in science and man is completely transparent. You would think science would question itself but never on this or any other PC science. Since there is no ONE missing link, give us a transitory animal that changed to another species. The last thing you want to admit is that you have FAITH that all of the holes will be filled someday. Here's a hint, it will never be found because God made man.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Oztrich Boy]

grandfather is one word

Analog Artist could have been referring to his grand father ("Ah, he were grand")

[CasearianDaoist]

What an absurd comment. The content of our classrooms is strictly regulated by government and has been for decades.

It is a preposterous argument. It might be meaningful to say that a conservative President should act as an advocate for turning this around, but as the president of a nation that does regulate educational content, he would be duty bound to comment on the matter.

To talk about dome sort of "symbolic moment" where he should somehow "withhold comment" is not only silly, given the current circumstances it would be irresponsible to do so.

[Maceman]

The content of our classrooms is strictly regulated by government and has been for decades.

What's absurd is that you don't find that troubling, and that you accept past government usurpation as a justification for continuing the outrage.

The federal government had virtually no role to play in curriculum before Jimmy Carter graced us with the Dept. of Education in 1979.

So you're saying that every unconstitutional power grab by the federal government is OK just because its been allowed to fester for decades?

We have George W Bush and Ted Kennedy teaming up in 2001 to fix public education by giving us “No Child Left Behind,” which was supposed to fix a system supposedly already fixed by a 1994 piece of federal legislation called “Goals 2000,” which was supposed to fix a system already fixed by “America 2000,” which was a 1991 response during the first Bush administration to a 1983 Reagan-era federal report on education called “A Nation at Risk, which was published a full four years after Jimmy Carter fixed the nation’s public school system by first establishing a cabinet-level Department of Education in 1979.

Explain to me exactly why it is that government should be dicatating and delivering curriculum content. The fact that it has been doing so for decades is NOT a reason, BTW.

You sure you're a conservative?

[Dimensio]

Classic fallback position, only scientists can understand or talk about evolution because WE are qualified.

Blatant dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.

I did not say that you can't understand evolution because you're not a scientist. I said that you are not credible on the subject of evolution because you currently do not understand it. I never said you had to be a scientist to understand, I merely pointed out -- correctly -- that you personally do not have an understanding of evolution. This is evident in your total misrepresentation of it. In typical dishonest creationist fashion, you couldn't argue that you do understand evolution -- because you do not -- so you instead lied about what I said.

[Fledermaus]

Since when does the left care about actual science? They are too busy pedalling junk science to advance their socialism agenda.

What's wrong with discussion and debate? Heck, I've got wilder ideas than both ID and evolution. Am I supposed to be forced into these two camps or exercise my rights as a free individual and express my views and ideas?

People get really stupid when this issue comes up which makes me think it isn't about science at all. Just another battle in the culture war if you ask me.

[birbear]

Odd, becuase I've been looking at your posts since 2001, and I can't find a single one where you did this. In fact, I can't find anything prior to this discussion where you speak on the theory of evolution at all.

Sigh.

There are other forums out there other than Free Republic. I suppose you'd like me to link you to the Craig's List postings I've posted over the years, various "BBSes" I've posted on since 1983, and even go far back as finding the tapes and drives that the "General Electric Network for Information Exchange" (GEnie) backed up my conservations to. (circa 1986-1991).

Obviously you're the type who will throw tons of questions at me, I'll answer all but one, and you'll accuse me of dodging you.

Re: Native American ideas to creationism. I'm not familiar with those theories. I believe I said information on all theories should be given, with more time given to the more prevalent ones. I don't see the harm in giving students more information. If I was setting up a curriculum, I'd give them a month on the origins of the universe... 2 weeks on the alleged big bang theory, 1 week on creationism/ID, and a week on every thing else I could find. Oh, and I could do the whole week on creationism/ID without once referring to God/Supreme Being/Higher power. I just don't see the harm in that.

Obviously it spooks you, and I find that very tragic.

[Dimensio]

If I was setting up a curriculum, I'd give them a month on the origins of the universe... 2 weeks on the alleged big bang theory, 1 week on creationism/ID, and a week on every thing else I could find. Oh, and I could do the whole week on creationism/ID without once referring to God/Supreme Being/Higher power. I just don't see the harm in that.

Apart from wasting a great deal of time by teaching non-science just to be "fair" to people who want their religious stories represented and drawing the ire of a number of religious fundamentalists who don't want their children exposed to religious beliefs other than their own.

[bray]

Many of us don't see the difference between religious stories and science god stories. Where is that transitional animal?? Oh yeah, it was a bird to begin with. Course your wonderful evolution brought us Racism, Nazism and Communism or about 130 million murders, what a great legacy.

Pray for W and Our Ground Pounders

[bobdsmith]

You want to see how many people the theory of flight has killed then

[bray]

Apples and oranges buddy. Evolution is the basis of Nazism, Communism and explained the superiority of the White race.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[bobdsmith]

uh. no.

[bray]

uh, yes; Hitler was a big believer of evolution and was trying to evolve a god race.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Dimensio]

Many of us don't see the difference between religious stories and science god stories.

This statement makes no sense.

Where is that transitional animal??

Links have been provided. It's not our fault that you're too dishonest to acknowledge the information that we've given you.

Course your wonderful evolution brought us Racism, Nazism and Communism or about 130 million murders, what a great legacy.

Evolution is a biological theory. Any attempt to attribute evolution to a social system, good or bad, is nothing more than sheer idiocy. Evolution simply offers an explanation for biodiversity. It does not encourage genocide, nor does it suggest inherently unstable economic systems. Only a fool tries to blame the theory of evolution for Hitler's legacy.

Are you really so dumb as to think that you can "prove" that evolution is false by dishonestly trying to blame it for communism and nazism? Are you honestly so stupid as to believe that racism didn't exist until the theory of evolution came about, or that it somehow was a major catalyst for institutionalized racism, or have you run out of "real" arguments and are now resorting to a totally dishonest smear campaign based upon lies and the "appeal to consequences" logical fallacy?