American Federation of Teachers: Statement on Bush & Intelligent Design

American Federation of Teachers via WebWire ^ | 05 August 2005 | Antonia Cortese

[PatrickHenry]

The following is a statement by Antonia Cortese, executive vice president, American Federation of Teachers, on President Bush’s Comments that ’Intelligent Design’ should be taught in the nation’s science classrooms:

---

President Bush’s misinformed comments on "intelligent design" signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the "alternative theory" that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.

By backing concepts that lack scientific merit, President Bush is undermining his own pledge to "leave no child behind." If students are to reach higher standards, and if they are to compete effectively with their international peers, they must be exposed to high-quality curricula that are research based and that reflect the best available knowledge in any given field. In the science classroom, that necessitates the study of evolution, one of the most important, powerful, and well-substantiated concepts in science.

Intelligent design has been repudiated by every respected scientific organization in the nation, including the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association. Even President Bush’s top science adviser, John H. Marburger III, has acknowledged that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and that "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." To preserve the integrity of science education, President Bush should heed this advice.

---

The AFT represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; nurses and healthcare workers; and federal, state and local government employees.

[b_sharp]

"I have never seen an IDer present the testable, falsifiable hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design."

They can't even get to CSI without subjective decisions.

[microgood]

What does that have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

For many evos on FR, that is the theory of macroevolution. You must be one of the ones that only believe evolution goes back to our mysterious common ancestor we have with the apes. But many others believe evolutionary theory takes us all the way back to a single celled organism.

[lawdude]

"What do we expect from someone who can't even pronounce "nuclear" correctly?"

My nuculer Physics prof couldn't either. He also said alunimum. So your totally stupid point would be?

[ClaireSolt]

And to get the final word on what is and is not "science", ask a labor union exec. :)

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Man, you guys have no faith at all in science. Science can stand on it's own two feet just fine. Nobodys advocating the abolishment of evolution theory.
The jury is still out on the whole subject. And as bad as you hate to admit it, there's another side to the debate. Children should have the choice to learn about it and that's what you're afraid of.

[Quick1]

For many evos on FR, that is the theory of macroevolution.

You must have meant creationists. Because most of the evos on this site know that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, or Abiogenesis. It's usually the crevos here that have to distort what the Theory of Evolution really says.

Also, it was nice of you to avoid the question. I don't care what "others" believe. Tell me what your statement has to do with the Theory of Evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

I have never seen an IDer present the testable, falsifiable hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design.

The entire "theory" of ID is as follows:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Source: Discovery Institute.

That's not a theory. It's a claim. ID has no research, no scientific peer-reviewed literature, no discoveries, nothing at all except public relations, lobbying, and litigation.

[b_sharp]

"For many evos on FR, that is the theory of macroevolution. "

What is the theory of macro-evolution?

[Dimensio]

At the Great White Throne judgment all atheists and evolutionists will realize they were wrong and be forthwith consigned to the lake of fire.

Ah, the old creationist standby. When you can't win on facts, threaten the opposition with eternal damnnation.

[JennMack]

meh who cares about this debate. I can't think of a single thing evolution has taught me personally that has been useful at all, unless I want to start another eugenics movement to knock those filthy apelike negros out of the gene pool, since they have not evolved to my level of perfection yet.

Stupid bush and his evil anti-science views

/sarcasm

[cinives]

And you can prove evolution ? Darwin himself noted major flaws in the theory, and nothing since has explained those flaws.

No, ID is not a scientific theory, but then evolution is only a theory, not a fact, and should be taught as such.

[Dimensio]

Those dummies would know design if it bit 'em on their fat butts.

I'm sure that you can explain it to us then.

[Dimensio]

I can't think of a single thing evolution has taught me personally that has been useful at all,

Do you work in a field where biology is relevant?

unless I want to start another eugenics movement to knock those filthy apelike negros out of the gene pool, since they have not evolved to my level of perfection yet.

Anyone who comes to this conclusion is not using the theory of evolution to do so. Evolution says nothing about things evolving toward "perfection".

[Jim_Curtis]

akin to suggesting that students be taught the "alternative theory" that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.

The sun does revolve around the earth. I watch it happen from my fixed position on earth every day.

[Dimensio]

The jury is still out on the whole subject.

The jury never comes "in" on any subject in science. All of science is subject to change without notice.

And as bad as you hate to admit it, there's another side to the debate.

Not in the field of science. In science, there is no question at all regarding the theory of evolution. There may be some day as new evidence comes to light but thus far the only people who oppose the theory of evolution have an agenda outside of the realm of science.

[ml1954]

I have never seen an IDer present the testable, falsifiable hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design.

I think the fossil record is loaded with failed products of so called "intelligent design". It should be called "trial and error design", or TED for short.

[JennMack]

"Anyone who comes to this conclusion is not using the theory of evolution to do so. Evolution says nothing about things evolving toward "perfection"."

well you kinda missed the point, substitute perfection with anything else, or take it away for all i care, and there's the gist of what i meant.

i dont think it matters if i work in a biology field or not, 90% of these debate posts are about how bush is going to brainwash our kids with anti-science, so it's about public schools and such. I still can't think of anything useful i learned in biology class pertaining to the evolutionary theory. Cell structure and things like that were always more important to me.

[bobdsmith]

At the Great White Throne judgment all atheists and evolutionists will realize they were wrong and be forthwith consigned to the lake of fire.

Won't you be suprised when you find out the lake of fire is actually a 5 star hotel

[microgood]

Because most of the evos on this site know that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, or Abiogenesis.

I did not say it has anything to do with the origin of life either. Notice I started with a living, single celled organism. Notables such as RightWingProfessor and Icheumonen(sp?) also believe we can be traced back to single celled animals.

Also, it was nice of you to avoid the question.

I did not avoid your question. You misread my answer.

[b_sharp]

"Ah, the old creationist standby. When you can't win on facts, threaten the opposition with eternal damnnation."

It's working on me. I'm shakin' in my boots. Look. See?