Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Bush endorses Intelligent Design creationism

It's only a small fillip on the vast rococo monument to incompetence, anti-science, and lies that the Republican party has erected over our country, but I take it personally.

George W. Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design creationism's plan to corrupt education.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.

It comes from an incredibly badly written article that then goes on and on to parrot the Discovery Institute's talking points. It really isn't just Bush, who is only the Moron-In-Chief, but an abysmally stupid press corps that is responsible for the propagation of this horribly poor idea.

Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Here's what the debate is about.

Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.

This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts. Religious conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any material or logical support for their position.

This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science.

And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable tests of their beliefs.

That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.


Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of election cycles. The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not pander to their ideology—and science opposes the Republican agenda.


Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon here? I'll keep a list of the weblogs that speak out against George W. Bush's boneheaded move—just send me a link trackback to this post (the response has been a little bit overwhelming—there are 157 links down there, from liberals and conservatives, all complaining about Bush's stupid statements).


The Panda's Thumb
Doing Things with Words
Stranger Fruit
Thoughts from Kansas
AmericaBlog
From the Rachel
The World-Wide Rant
Yowling from the Fencepost
My Corner of the Universe
Unscrewing the Inscrutable
the tife and limes
Applied Theology
Dharma Bums
jasonbock.net
Chris C. Mooney
The dubious biologist
Cosmic Variance
The rude pundit
Science and Sarcasm
Leiter Reports
Newton's Binomium
tongue but no door
Leaves on the line
Afarensis
The Polite Liberal
Song of Myself
Betty the Crow
Kele's Atheistic and Evolutionary Journey
Dynamics of Cats
10,000 Monkeys and a Camera
Ooblog
Philosophy of Biology
Pandagon
A Man with a Ph.D.
Ramblings from the Desert
Covington
Obsidian Wings
Stephanie's Sweet Blog
Backseat driving
Musings
The blue bus is calling us…
…of Cabbages and Kings
The Huffington Post
The Drunken Lagomorph
De rerum natura
Stephen Laniel’s Unspecified Bunker
false cognate
Stoopid Stuff
Cider Press Hill
Hank Fox
The Light of Reason
Amygdala
TAPPED
Andrew Sullivan
Corrente
Father Dan
lolife
Power Liberal
Politburo Diktat
Feministing
The Van Halen Radiation Belts
Linkmeister
Project Morningstar
Decorabilia
Nomadic Thoughts
Mike the Mad Biologist
A Voyage to Arcturus
Neurotopia
Sadly, No!
Philosophy, Practice, and Politics
Frothing at the Mouth
About Atheism
Wolverine Tom
archy
Brown Bag Blog
Jones Alley Magazine
Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal
Marginal Utility
Sandt's Observations
Balloon Juice
Crooks and Liars
Quantum Pontiff
and meanwhile, gregor mendel labored in obscurity
Whiskey Bar
The Continuing Adventures of Starman
She Flies With Her Own Wings
Broken Nails
The Sleepy Sage
Corsair the Rational Pirate
Nathan Newman
Upon Further Review…
Left I on the News
Neurotopia
Proceed at your own risk
reality based community.net
Instapundit
Shakespeare's Sister
No More Mr. Nice Guy!
Imbecilities
Mixing Memory
Language Games and Miscellaneous Arbitrary Marks
Telic Thoughts
Wonkette
Gay Orbit
Don Surber
Right Wing Nut House
Changing Places
Ah Clem
The Devil's Robot
Abnormal Interests
The Liberal Avenger
Living the Scientific Life
The Carpetbagger Report
Decrepit Old Fool
The Examining Room of Dr Charles
The Loom
Alun
Minnesota Politics
Fafblog
Aeromondo
Three-Toed Sloth
Cinematic Rain
Evolving Thoughts
Pooflingers Anonymous
Strange Doctrines
Tiberius and Gaius Speaking...
Poor Richard's Anorak
Universal Acid
Peace Tree Farm
Desert Rat Democrat
Byzantium's Shores
Sappho's Breathing
God is for suckers!
Lance Mannion
The Boxter Babe Blog
The Quality Control Alliance
Blog, Jvstin Style
Opinions you should have
Cosmic Log
Uncertain Principles
Daily Kos
Ruminating Dude
History of Science
The Uncredible Hallq
ekzept
Singularity
FloridaBlues
Church of the Front Porch
Dump Michele Bachmann
Lloydletta
10,000 Birds
I'll explain it when you are older
Sceadugenga
Immanuel Rant
Blog of the moderate left
The Cardboard Box Mansion
Science and Politics
The Binary Circumstance
The Corpus Callosum
skippy the bush kangaroo
Societas
Bad Astronomy Blog
Biocurious
Respectful Insolence
Solipsistic Scribbling
Dubbings and Diversions
Roger L. Simon
Catallarchy
Right Thoughts
Bitch Ph.D.
Buridan's Ass
Big Brass Blog
Steve Gilliard's News Blog
Threading the Needle
Ancarett's Abode
Amicus Rationis
Axiom
Infidels of Every Denomination
Creek Running North
Axis of Evel Knievel
The Raw Story
Eschaton
Philomathean

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2665/MhQOPSgP/

Comments:
#33921: — 08/05  at  03:49 PM
Stupidity is to belive, to have the "FAITH" that evolution answers the question of how we got here.

All one must do to see that design matters, is to look at the systems of distribution common to all of life, ie: roots of a tree, branches of a tree, branching in your lung, branching patterns in the landscape like where a river gathers, or disseminates it's water,... Or, take a look at the spiral patterns of our entire universe, the dispersion pattern of a galaxy, the spiral pattern of a Nautilus Shell, Davinci proved the math behind this designed spiral. God placed the markers there for all to see, you just have to 'look' without prejudice.

Sincerely,
Paul Kiler
Art as Servant



#33928: Kagehi — 08/05  at  05:03 PM
Which is totally meaningless, since by definition 'evolution' is about how the laws of the universe 'govern' the changes in species over time. It never makes any claim that such rules don't exist. ID insists that they rules are irrelevant. That life cannot have evolved **due to those rules**, but that everything must have been created whole, with no evolution at all. Or in other words, that the God made the world in 6 days version 'must' be true. There is not conflict between the idea of a God making a universe that happened to contain rules, which make it mathimatically necessary for branching patterns of rivers, galazy formations or anything else to happen. That isn't what ID is insisting. It insists that rivers can't form, erosion never happens, galaxies do not turn into spirals over time and that animals never change in any significant fashion from the moment some mysterious force 'created them'. Do you get the point Paul? Your arguing that certain specific laws dictate how the world work, which evolutionary scientists have been learning about and studying for years, to defend a non-scientific attack on the very idea that such rules exist at all, and that God instead simply waved a hand and made billions of species appear out of no place at all.

In other words, your using what a real scientist would consider a 'defense' of evolution in an attempt to dicredit it and defend something that denies the very things you insist are so important to understanding life. lol I am truely impressed by your ignorance.

Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent - Robert A. Heinlein



's avatar #33963: — 08/06  at  12:10 AM
Paul Kiler makes an argument for intelligent design by pointing out identical patterns (spirals, branches) observed in Nature. He is an artist, and apparently never run into the discovery that Nature is based on Laws, which are mathematical. These Laws are universal and can be deduced abstractly. In the patterns where Paul sees the hand of a designer (an engineer?), I see inanimate objects behaving according to natural mathematical rules. I am sure no one is out there arranging grains of sand and other particles to form the a delta or a meander. Sadly for a believer, the sand arranges itself.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#33979: — 08/06  at  07:20 AM
I don't see how any intelligent discussion about intelligent design could occur without including the theory of Alien Design.
There's so much more evidence that Alien Design along with evolution was responsible for human development – it's even referenced in the bible.
What were those "Chariots of Fire" that flew Angels into the sky?
Spacecraft, shuttle craft, jet planes? Where was the Mothership?

You'd think the Intelligent Design people would get on the bandwagon already and include this theory in their argument.
The Alien Design Theory really has me excited and I want to hear more about it.



#34014: — 08/06  at  12:18 PM
“Intelligent Design” is a New Age term –– so is it they want to put new age teachings into science classes? How did the crazy people co-opt the terminology? These people are dishonest and they lie to get what they want. Their ‘god’ is one that lies.
If the “designer” is ‘not of this earth’ or if their ‘god’ is a software programmer in another galaxy, then it’s either an “Alien” or “Foreign” Designer. Make them say that.

Whenever they try to use the term ‘Intelligent design” don’t let them, make them use the right terminology so everyone knows what they’re talking about.
“Alien Design” or “Foreign Design” is what they really mean and it should be what they say. Don’t let them get away with subverting and stealing the language. Thieves and liars, the lot of ‘em.



Trackback: George W. Bush: (Un)Intelligent Design? Tracked on: Kevin's blatherings (66.151.149.25) at 2005 08 06 22:58:05
So I was watching the news, or something like that, and I see that our one and only president (ugh), George W. Bush, made some comments endorsing "intelligent design" as something that should be taught in our schools. As appalled



#34092: — 08/06  at  11:08 PM
You peeps are wrong! ID is real.

http://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/08/teach_intellige.html#comment-8409363

http://mynym.blogspot.com/



#34187: coturnix — 08/07  at  02:13 PM
Have you seen the X-rate version of the protest agains this Bush statment:
http://byneddiejingo.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-bullshit.html



Trackback: Nature Stories Tracked on: Thomasburg Walks (209.226.251.166) at 2005 08 07 15:17:23
Cruising around the blogosphere over the last couple of weeks looking for science and nature blogs (I found lots--see the blogroll for a selection of interesting sites!) I was struck by the energy being expended, mostly on American blogs, on the issue of Intelligent Design (ID) vs. Darwinian Evolution....



Trackback: Yes, I'm appalled by "intelligent design" too Tracked on: View From Above (63.247.129.166) at 2005 08 08 02:25:04
...just as lots of other folks on the net are. While I have a long post brewing on this and related subjects, as a stopgap I refer you to Richard Dawkins's Ignorance Is No Crime: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to...



#34252: — 08/08  at  03:38 AM
Intelligent Design (ID) is the idea that a single supernatural being, the perfect, omnipotent and omniscient originator... God, built the entire universe, including the sun, solar system and our earth and populated it with extremely complex organisms including Homo sapiens (us), in one week’s time, actually six days. The seventh day God took a well deserved break. Whew! This happened sometime during the last six or seven thousand years. A supernatural amount of work, and a major miracle in anyone’s book!

George W. Bush wants miracles to be taught as “scientific theory” to our public school biology students. Why stop here? The geology classes can teach “The Flat Earth Theory” or, even better, “The Geocentric Universe Theory” along with modern astrophysics. The medical schools can teach “The Blood Letting Theory”, releasing disease-causing evil spirits within the body, side-by-side with “The Germ Theory of Disease”. Why even bother with these new, nerdy, wordy, complex, hard-to-understand, “scientific theories”? Get rid of science classes altogether! What better way to put the United States into the Dark Ages of the future. What better way to dumb down the students of our country.

A theory in science must be verifiable / falsifiable. Intelligent design is neither. To be accepted by scientists it must be supported by large amount verifiable, repeatable, natural (not supernatural) data. Debate ID in Social Science classes, but until it proves itself as a verifiable scientific theory, keep it out of the biology classes.



#34285: — 08/08  at  12:12 PM
Buckminster Fuller, designer of the Geodesic Dome and the Dymaxion Car, wrote that "Darwin's theory of evolution is an illusion that debilitates elementary education." He offers convincing evidence to support this conclusion in SYNERGETICS: EXPLORATIONS IN THE GEOMETRY OF THINKING(1975,1979).Folks, Fuller's design models and applications are being taught in progressive schools around the world. When human societies progress to a more revelant world view there will always be vigorous opposition to change.



's avatar #34287: PZ Myers — 08/08  at  12:24 PM
Buckminster Fuller was a smart guy, but being a good architect and designing geodesic domes does not qualify him to speak on evolution. He also said
Humanity is in great crisis. We're in great crisis because evolution is intent on integrating all the human beings who for thousands of years were deployed remotely from one another in finding their own ways of surviving.

Now, she's integrating all of humanity. Earth is going to integrate all kinds of different credos and all the different colored skins. Evolution is intent on doing that. This brings about a great crisis due to the enormous amount of conditioned reflex in humanity—the relative ignorance that's still dominant in human affairs.

Evolution is also intent on making all of humanity economically successful. There are so many, many centuries, or thousands of years of humanity operating on the basis that there's not enough to go around; it has to be you or me. We've had all the great political institutions, and soforth, organized that way, so society does not understand. Those who are in power tend to amass even more power rather than yielding to evolution's apparent intent to make all humanity an economic success.
That's a kind of nonsensical babble, but it does seem to be endorsing evolution. I have to conclude that Fuller is not a credible source on the subject.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



's avatar #34292: Hank Fox — 08/08  at  01:09 PM
#34285: Wright wrote: "Buckminster Fuller, designer of the Geodesic Dome and the Dymaxion Car, wrote that "Darwin's theory of evolution is an illusion ..."

Funny how you don't see many Dymaxion cars on the roads these days. Um, actually, I don't remember ANY.

Of the two accolades in Wright's post, Fuller scored big with one, but the other was a big miss.

So if we're using the argument from authority to determine the truth of science, we better just go with the geodesic dome.

By the way, who's Buckminster Fuller compared to the President of the United States, George W. Bush?

Heck, if Bush says Creationisticism is the straight dope, that's the only authority we need.

It's probably traitorous to keep harping on godless evolutionistics when the threat of Islamical territorialists loom on our shores, hawking the loogie of fear like a tall shadow across all of America.

Bush is, after all, the Leader of the Free World, and a self-admitted "War President."

And also, lest we forget, a cutting-edge technological innovator who originated the term "Internets."

Bucky Fuller couldn't even get the Dymaxion Car right.



#34424: — 08/08  at  11:42 PM
To be truly open in this discussion one must realize that on both sides of the issue are very intelligent people- and not treat either side as 'idiots'- doing so only shows the lack of openness on the side of the writer.
That said there is much that 'science' does not understand- so should we not teach 'science'? Of course not. Do those that believe in a 'creator God' also believe the earth is flat, forbid the use of medicines or other odd things- NO!
There are a number of things that we don't understand in using evolution as the explanation of our being here- one being 'eternity'. Was there once nothing then something? What was there before 'big bang'? How did anything come to 'life' in a totally sterile environment? As complex as DNA is how did it 'just happen'?
Yes, the Bible is not human science but it has never been proven false. In fact as time goes on more of its truths come forward. How can science explain the parting of the Red Sea, the empty tomb, the healings of those lame for years- these were witnessed by many, many people. If we doubt all of these how do we decide what to believe and what not to believe in history? I seek honest answers- not 'wise guy' comments. Let's see if there are any!



's avatar #34440: Virge — 08/09  at  01:18 AM
Paul asserted: "these were witnessed by many, many people."

Yes, Paul, but they were written down by how many? And when it came to deciding which of those written reports would be included in the canon of scripture, why was any selection procedure necessary? Could there have been some unreliability of reporting? Why were some documents regarded as the "Inspired Word" while others were rejected? Why were some documents rejected at one council (under the Holy Spirit's direction) and then included at another (also under the Holy Spirit's direction)? Study the history of the canon and you'll find out exactly how "inspired" it is.

Why do all the scientific estimates of the age of the earth disagree with the assertions of a small group of fundamentalists whose data manipulations have been debunked time and time again? Which group is deluded: the ones who measure and test and draw conclusions from what they observe, or the ones who start with the answers and look for evidence to support it? Which approach is "truly open"?

In history, you're forced to accept explanations that have the least conflict with all of the observations, and you're forced to accept that there are unreliable eye-witness accounts. When you assume one explanation to be true, then seek only accounts that support it, and then contrive elaborate harmonizations to match up the "apparent discrepancies" within those accounts, you engage in self-delusion, not historical scholarship.

There will always be biblical literalists who can cherry-pick from the available evidence to build a case that sounds convincing to those who haven't looked at all the rest of the evidence. You can always go back to them to be reassured of the existance of a miraculous explanation. If you do so, you can maintain the satisfaction of believing that the rest of the world has been "deceived by Satan."

Sorry if it seems like I'm not providing any answers, only more questions. I can see by the statements you've already made that you've accepted the fundamantalist explanations, so it would be useless for me to provide answers. You need to ask yourself the right questions first before anybody's answers will be helpful.



's avatar #34502: Hank Fox — 08/09  at  11:35 AM
Couldn't resist commenting on Paul's post, but because I've been shorting my own blog, I've posted it there: http://www.hankfox.com "I was reading ..."



's avatar #34505: Hank Fox — 08/09  at  11:37 AM
Um, couldn't resist commenting on the post of Paul Rentz, #34424, that is.



#34546: DarkoV — 08/09  at  02:54 PM
Seriously,
What's all the fuss about this? This is exactly what would be expected of him. If he had somehow mis-spoke and come out on totally supporting Evolution over Intelligent Design creationism, I'd have been both worried and confused as I count on Bush's asinine position stances in keeping my world in balance.



#34588: Beaming Visionary — 08/09  at  07:40 PM
Paul Rentz, I have it on good authority that Jesus Christ was actually both the inventor of Ecstasy and the founder of NASCAR, although each was known by a different name 2000 years ago. This was a number of years after he faked his own death not by crucifixion but by misadventure (auto-erotic asphyxiation), which freed him to spend the rest of his days chasing around male prostitutes. Should you wish to dispute any of this, I will remind you that my IQ has been reliably tested at over 150.



Trackback: Bush On Intelligent Design Tracked on: Kinshasa On The Potomac (72.9.234.70) at 2005 08 10 11:05:44
Anyway, what we have with ID, then, is, at best, a philosophical argument that sees complexity in nature that the proponents can't attribute to naturally occurring systems and, at worst, Creationism in sheep's clothing, using the language of science ...



#34821: — 08/10  at  07:59 PM
Why stop with evolution? Maybe we should replace Newtonian physics with a similarly thinly veiled "God did it" theory.

I just hope God doesn't take a holiday. Otherwise we may find ourselves free from gravitional law and sent drifting into space.



#34845: — 08/10  at  10:03 PM
Beaming Visionary- your IQ may very well be 150 or over, but you've got to put it to better use. Your history IQ is not measurable. I find most interesting that the main attempt to refute ANYTHING is to make the writer so disgusted with your replies that he/she will never attempt another post. There has been little in any post to try to a serious attempt at helping me understand your position on evolution. So let me try one more time!
Since none of us can understand eternal concepts none of us can understand how our 'beginnings' occurred, whether creation or evolution. So we're all 'faith based' here.
Another difficulty I have is understanding how there can be six billion (or more) humans on this planet and we're all the same species- no links to apes, no 'super' humans. If there is an evolutionary process why don't we look more like the bar scene in Star Wars- at least a few hundred different variations?
A few real answers would be appreciated- less angry flame throwers that can't stand being questioned. I won't give up until I get at least one honest debater!



#34856: Beaming Visionary — 08/10  at  10:53 PM
Actually, Paul, you were being set up for an easy smackdown. By not granting me license to categorially stipulate my (absurd) premises, you leave me no other choice but to point out your, ah, "lack of openness." However, subtleties may not be your forte, so let me be explicit: Some ideas don't merit entertainment. Some of them are just plain stupid.

You are clearly a relativist, as any defender of creation mythology must be. I'll show you (or at least anyone bothering to follow this) why this doesn't work.

"...none of us can understand eternal concepts none of us can understand how our 'beginnings' occurred, whether creation or evolution. So we're all 'faith based' here."

Now this is awful. First of all, there's nothing "timeless" about the tenets of evolution. Some of the time scales involved aren't easy for humans to wrap their mind around in the most intuitive sense, but to conflate "beginnings" with evolution is to broadcast the absence of the sort of background required to speak sensibly on such matters. And not that this ever penetrates creationist armor, but I'll add that there is an overwhleming amount of evidence pointing toward the only plausible mechanism for how we came to occupy our present niche -- no "faith" required.

"Another difficulty I have is understanding how there can be six billion (or more) humans on this planet and we're all the same species- no links to apes, no 'super' humans."

I don't really know how to go about routing this mess. Are you saying it's unlikely that six billion organisms belonging by definition to the same species do in fact belong to the same species? Again, the time scale factor is relevant here; in ten million years the dominant "hamn" species may indeed resemble the "superhumans" you reference. But what of it?

"If there is an evolutionary process why don't we look more like the bar scene in Star Wars- at least a few hundred different variations?"

Uh, probably because sci-fi movies come from human minds and bodies and not the other way around?

"A few real answers would be appreciated- less angry flame throwers that can't stand being questioned. I won't give up until I get at least one honest debater!"

But of course you'll find a way to define every "debater" as dishonest in order to satify your preconceived bursts of idiocy. Oh well.



's avatar #34866: Virge — 08/10  at  11:18 PM
Paul,
Try Talk Origins for a wealth of information that should answer any of the questions you've been asking. If there are specific items there that you don't understand or feel are wrong, please feel free to raise them. We'll do our best.

In my previous reply, I raised a few questions for you based on the assertions you made in your first post. Do you have some answers?



Page 7 of 9 pages « First  <  5 6 7 8 9 >

Next entry: Live octopus tentacle!

Previous entry: Conservative Blog Taxonomy

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college