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.

[Right Wing Professor]

Panspermia does not make the mistake the Darwinians make of assuming (with evidence) that all life on Earth arises from a single source, or that it only arose once

Common descent is not merely an assumption. There's good genomic evidence for it. Pre-genomic 'life', on the other hand, might well have had multiple sources.

[tfecw]

"Let's teach philosophy and theology that ask those questions, and let the scientists butt off!"


Good to see where the priorities lie on this thread. Once kids can read, write, spell (I'm too old to learn that one ;) ) do math (2+2=5), learn about our founding fathers and other important world history, and yes even science then we can start to nitpick. Until then I think I'm going to bow out on this argument and concentrate on making sure my tax dollars aren't paying for schools to teach the neighbors kids how to put a condom on a cucumber, teaching them about "diversity" (ie racism), guns are bad, conservatives are evil, illegal aliens are our friends, terrorists are really just freedom fighters and other typical liberal spew.

[Dimensio]

No, he's telling you that there's no real scientific contention about evolution. Are you deliberately being so thick?

[Maceman]

BTW, most students in this country attend state operated schools. What part of the curriculum in those schools is independent of counsel by government agents? Do you advocate eliminating the public school system?

Speaking as the parent of a public school student, I can tell you that I strongly support the Separation of School and State.

I also am a product of public school education from the 1950s-early 60s. I can tell you that schools were better then than they are now, and one big reason for that was that educational curriculum was primarily set at the state and local level.

If in our Progressive-era society, it may be considered essential for the Feds to provide funding for schools (which I do not believe), it does not automatically follow that Washington should dictate any portion of the curriculum.

What possible justification could there be for federal involvement in curricula? And why is it bad for the feds to be involved in our newspapers, but OK for them to run our schools?

[muawiyah]

Well, can we?

At the moment there are studies that show astrology has no relationship whatsoever to the outcomes it predicts. Can we teach that?

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt for later read.

[tfecw]

" I just wonder what the liberals consider to be their "god"?"

The government

[AMHN]

We don't allow the government to dictate the content of our newspapers, so why do we allow it to dictate the content in our classrooms?

I wouldn't think of it so much as what the government wants to do to intrude further as much as what the government needs to do to remove it's already overly intrusive reach. They pulled faith and belief out of schools...remember...and in its place they put they're faith and belief...science.

As one that has written extensively in both the field of quantum mechanics and theology, I believe that we need both. What good is it if we can build 100,000 hydrogen bombs and yet not be able to solve even the simplest of moral or ethical issues? Science has given us the tools and means to cut babies from wombs at a rate of 1.2 million per year, but has it solved the issues of the moral depravity of a society that can lose sight of the value of life?

Nobody can dictate morality is the mindset of a race still grappling with social alchemy instead of social science when it comes to social issues.

Anyway, the issues of faith in design, and evolution need not be so far apart. Time is as much a part of intelligent design as is any other part of creation. Who can honestly say that God didn't reach out of eternity, create Adam and Eve exactly as the bible says, and at the same time create time forward and backwards (like a stone thrown into a lake, the ripples flowing in all directions). It would make the dinosaurs just as real as you and I today; and it would make creation and evolution equally as real.

Yet somehow, instead of granting God the creative ability to under truly complex processes like patting His head and rubbing His stomach at the same time (for those that miss the sarcasm this was a spiritual inference), we have to see them as distinct and completely different.

What I fear is that this is being suggested for all the wrong reasons. Instead of trying to understand God, we want God to be created in our image and only to have been able to either create Adam and Eve, allowed evolution, exist, or not exist, but certainly not some combination of any of the above, or even worse, far more wonderful than any of us can possbily imagine.

For those that really love theology...can God both exist and not exist? The answer is both yes and no. But how can one wrestle with questions such as these when they can't even learn how to spell God in their formative years without some teacher being fired for teaching about some other god than science?

[muawiyah]

There's absolutely no evidence of any kind to demonstrate that Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, & Viruses have common origin.

There's a lot of speculation on the matter, but no evidence ~

[Maceman]

I think Jimmy Carter created it in the 1970's. I don't understand why we can't get rid of the Education Department.

As I have written elsewhere:

All of this new spending and systemic change is necessary, we are told each year, because our schools are in crisis. Thus, 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.

[PatrickHenry]

... there's no real scientific contention about evolution.

That's certainly true:
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.
Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. President of the National Academy of Sciences.
Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution. Excellent statement.
Project Steve. Nat'l Center for Science Education: the overwhelming number of genuine scientists supporting evolution.
The National Association of Biology Teachers' Statement on Teaching Evolution. Over 9,000 members.

[muawiyah]

You have no sense of humor I can see.

The evidence was there all the time, of course!

Try reading the post to which I was referring. It's part of a stream of consciousness type analysis that I thought needed to be brought to a halt.

BTW, most historians would agree that few scientists have the flexibility of thinking necessary to begin to understand history.

[OldFriend]

You are perfectly free to consider your ancestors were apes.

Frankly, I prefer to think that the Lord had a very big hand in our creation.

[Mister Da]

I guess I don't have a problem mentioning to students that some people do not believe in evolution, but rather believe in intelligent design (I.D.).

Beyond mere mention though, what else would you teach about I.D.? There are as many "stories" about creation as there are religions.

The I.D. proponents had better be careful what they wish for, as the "stories" being taught may not be the "stories" they want to be taught.

Did you know that in islam, there are about 5 different versions of creation, which lasted from 4-8 days, depending on which version you believe?

Perhaps they could teach a different version each day - islam, buddism, hinduism, shintoism, apache, cree, aztec, scientology, etc., etc., etc.

Suspecting that christians are the main proponents of I.D., I suggest to them that the christian version of creation will get little coverage by the PC teachers we have today in our schools.

There is a simple solution - TAKE YOUR KIDS TO CHURCH!

[jboot]

Echo chambers echo or they wouldn't be called that.

[Puppage]

The fact that we teach them one sort of rubbish already is not an argument for teaching them another sort of rubbish

I agree with you there!

[Sidebar Moderator]

Knock it off.

[trebb]

There's no need to encroach on the rights of parents to teach their children whatever religious beliefs they desire by forcing children to hear one particular religious belief being taught as science in the classroom. Especially when, as the article correctly indicates, the particular religious belief has no basis in science at all anyway.

ID doesn't necessarily attribute everything to God, it states that life is too complex and well designed to have been formed just by a bunch of random accidents.

The "risk" to children in hearing that evolution isn't the only theory out there is about the same risk there would be to teaching home-ec students that there is more than one recipe for chocolate chip cookies, or showing art students that there is painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. Since when does a second point of view put students at risk? It seems that some folks fear that their own pet theories are at risk if another point of view is offered.

I find it amazing that we are in a world-wide religious war and folks are terrified of anything that smacks of religion to be allowed in the public forum. I guess that some folks think that education is best served by forced ignorance of religious values and fight harder to keep God out of the airwaves than they do the perversions that are being pushed on everyone in the name of "tolerance".

Describe the harm that can occur by offering ID as a counterweight to Evolution; will it make future scientists stupid? Will it make chemical engineers less proficient? Will it keep medical researchers from discovering new drugs or techniques? It would seem that the greatest danger is that some kids might grow up with a slightly better sense of right and wrong and a better appreciation for life in general. Imagine an actual reverence for life instead of purely clinical views that make partial-birth abortions seem logical and OK. That's not a stretch, there is a definite tie to the lack of respect pure science gives life compared to those who would at least be open to the possibility of a Creator.

Intellectual honesty would have to say that there is more danger of harm being done in the current climate that would be evident by allowing ID as a theory in the classroom.

God Bless