PZ Myers. 2005 Aug 02. Bush endorses Intelligent Design creationism. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/bush_endorses_intelligent_design_creationism/>. Accessed 2008 Aug 30.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on 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).

1. Too bad neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post saw fit to report this. I heard about it on NPR's Morning Edition, looked for it in the papers, and couldn't find it.
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  06:44 AM
2. Remember--the ignorant vote.
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  07:03 AM
3. Mark hits the nail on the head, regarding why Bush supports teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes. Bush will go along with anything which is politically advantageous for himself, and the actual truth of the matter is of little or no importance to him. The truth about WMDs in Iraq were secondary to the the political advantages of being a war president also.
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  07:08 AM
4. I'm impressed. I though that Bush couldn't appear more stupid, yet somehow he still manages to do so.
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  07:13 AM
5. Americablog is covering it now, John is good for stuff like this.
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  07:14 AM
6. On the other hand, he also believes in Rafael Palmeiro. So we know something about the validity of his beliefs...
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  07:48 AM
7. Here's what gets me: If a science teacher suddenly stopped teaching science and started teaching their students about poetry in their classroom, they'd probably lose their job and there would be no debate about the situation because the students are supposed to be learning about science in science class. So how can some science teachers get away with, to the point of being encouraged to teach something besides science in the science classroom?
   
   /end rhetorical question with obvious answer
   #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  07:49 AM

8. I'm impressed. I though that Bush couldn't appear more stupid, yet somehow he still manages to do so.

   
   
   I disagree. A lot of otherwise smart people are creationists; Bush's stupidity is obvious because of other reasons.
   #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  08/02  at  07:54 AM
9. Big Brother says:
   WAR IS PEACE
   FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
   IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
   
   Double plus good that ignorance ;)
   #: Posted by Ron Zeno  on  08/02  at  08:42 AM
10. Is that bandwagon going to be making any stops in Canada? I might want to hop aboard.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  09:08 AM
11. Just six months ago, white house science adviser John H. Marburger said that intelligent design creationism "is not a scientific theory" and isn't even a "scientific topic."
    
    Now Bush wants to teach this religious propaganda alongside science. I wonder if his science advisor will have to recant his previous statement that "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology. … Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history."
    
    Should the NIH now fund intelligent design creationism too?
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  09:38 AM
12. Marburger ought to resign on principle rather than serve a President who enables scientific bullshit. But sadly, these days principle is something today's Republican party members could care less about.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  09:48 AM
13. The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.(chicagotribune.com)
    
    Who knows what "developed through evolution" is supposed to mean, but assuming that life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, then the implication would be that, uh, life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  09:49 AM
14. My blog entry on this issue from earlier today probably doesn't count since Bush came a poor second to the much more important matter of StarTrek, ie where was it that the fictional Scotty will allegedly be born so that a memorial to his death before birth can be installed there.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  09:52 AM
15. Huffington Post has picked up the story through the SF Chronicle.
    
    My question about why didn't the greater press pick up the story is answered: the open question session was done for 5 hand-picked Texas reporters. So until they released their report on KnightRidder, AP, no one was going to have the story.
    #: Posted by madbard  on  08/02  at  10:07 AM
16. Here's some interesting spin at Betty The Crow:
    
    http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1051
    
    "Bush encourages return to pantheism"
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  10:11 AM
17. We're no better off on this side of the pond, I'm afraid. Bush's poodle, a.k.a. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is quite happy for creationism to be taught in British schools too.
    
    The Daily Telegraph (conservative, but not insane right-wing) newspaper had an article on it a while back, Blair adviser sent to settle school creationism row.
    #: Posted by Bob Dowling  on  08/02  at  10:15 AM
18. In fact, this is hardly news, because back during the 2000 campaign, Bush said much the same thing. (And for the record, while Gore was hardly heroic when confronted with this issue - he refused to condemn the Kansas Board of Ed - he advocated teaching creationism and IDiocy only where it is not unconstitutional, in religion classes.) See http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/27/president.2000/evolution.create/index.html
    #: Posted by tristero  on  08/02  at  10:18 AM
19. Chris Mooney observes that Bush just isn't contradicting his science advisor on this issue—he's contradicting himself from less than a year ago:
    
    

    And Marburger isn't the only person that Bush is (apparently) contradicting with his latest statement. He's also contradicting his 2004 presidential campaign. During the campaign, Science magazine asked (PDF) Bush and Kerry their policies on the teaching of ID. The Bush campaign then replied, "The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not the federal government�s role to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Of course, scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum." Now, however, it sure sounds like Bush (the federal government) is indeed telling states and localities how to teach. An interesting application of conservative principles, to say the least.
    

    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  10:34 AM

20. On the other hand, he also believes in Rafael Palmeiro. So we know something about the validity of his beliefs...

    
    
    No shit. Is there any counterfactual position this administration won't adopt? Because I've got an economic theory based on spinning straw into gold (I call it Rumplestiltskinism). Maybe I can get some think tank money out of them.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  11:04 AM
21. I sometimes think I'm beyond anger on this administation, but then things like this happen — regularly — and remind me that I'm not.
    
    Here's a thought, though: every one of those people who sits in the audience at White House press conference is part of this problem. The "small group of reporters" mentioned in this article are part of the problem. The lot of them are giving Bush a free pass, day after day after day, while he cranks out stupidity and lies like Henry Ford cranked out Model T's.
    
    It's past time to start talking directly to the press and reporters ... and showing the anger.
    
    I'm not talking about writing a letter to the editor. I work for a newspaper, and I know letters to the editor are considered only for their entertainment value. A letter to the editor has no effect, because they don't take them seriously.
    
    I'm talking about calling the reporters and editors and publishers and broadcasters directly, meeting them, getting in their faces, taking them to task for what they're doing, and for what they're not.
    
    I don't think we can underestimate just how much Bush did in this one statement to destroy the content of American education. This will echo. It will grow.
    #: Posted by Hank Fox  on  08/02  at  11:05 AM
22. David W. hit the nail on the head. No self-respecting scientist should continue to be willing to serve this know-nothing Adminstration. This is only the latest of many outrages that should long since have driven that point home.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  11:42 AM
23. Plenty of 'Raging RINOs' are weighing in on this.
    
    Chk my site in an hour or so.
    #: Posted by The Commissar  on  08/02  at  11:55 AM
24. So, did anyone here 'not' see this coming? Well, I suppose yes. If I had thought about it, I might have, as would others. I was too busy marveling at the juggling and unicycle riding fool to notice him about to pull out the ID sunflower to squirt battery acid on common sense.
    #: Posted by Kagehi  on  08/02  at  12:05 PM
25. well, if school's are forced to teach ID then it's only fair they teach about this:
    
    http://www.venganza.org/
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:06 PM
26. Your summary of "what the debate is about" is incomplete. In your haste, you cut short the paragraph that begins, "This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts." Since ID is no longer openly trying to get religious accounts taught in public schools, you should mention the strategy of trying to impeach the validity of materialism itself. Which is in some ways more troubling that simply using the Bible as a biology textbook.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:21 PM
27. Doesn't the fact Bush is President go against the "logic" of "Intelligent Design"? This is the culmination of the work of a creator? Why does this President have a science adviser? Why doesn't this President listen to his advisers?
    Aren't people that promote ID just people that haven't read enough? Here, stupid ID person; if you have a question regarding how something seems too complex for evolution, simply "Google" the question. Of course that may be more work than simply saying "god did it".
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:33 PM

28. Bah, what did you expect Bush to say? We know he’s not the smartest guy, and he certainly isn’t science oriented. I don’t think I’ll live to see the day where he says “Religion should be kept out of our schools, and evolution should be the only origins subject tought in biology”.
    
    He didn’t have to come out and say he was for creation, we could of assumed years ago.

    
    
    That was my reply when it first came on the pandas thumb
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:35 PM
29. As Red State Rabble mentioned, this was too much for Krauthammer!
    On another note...can we get those links so we could post them on our blogs?
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:37 PM
30. With a bit of hyperbole, the President´s declaration reminds me of the Lysenko Affair. Then, as now, the political leadership intervened in biological sciences and imposed the correct doctrine. Under the Soviets, the Party decreed how plants and animals transmit their features to the next generation; in American democracy, the politization of biology assumes the format of "giving equal time" to the ideology of Creationism held correct by the dominant elite. It would be tragic if this political intervention in the classroom causes demoralization and flight of good teachers from biology and the erosion of the quality of American biological science.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:41 PM
31. I have to admit that I am actually surprised, particularly after what his science advisor said a few months ago. The man is utterly bizarre.
    
    -Schmitt.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  12:52 PM
32. Alon, the smart people who are creationists shouldn't confuse their creationism with science.
    #: Posted by Arun  on  08/02  at  12:54 PM
33. Ah, well, why not?
    
    This latest attack on the media is of course absurd, as I explain below:
    
    http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=428
    
    This topic was further discussed below:
    
    http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=254
    
    You people need to get some new material. Even the title of this blog entry is wrong. Bush did not endodrse intelligent design creationism. He specifically declined to opine on it. Also, the motives or religious proclivities of the people pushing ID are irrelevant, and in fact to attack ID on this basis is obviously ad hom. Whether you like it or not, there is no neccessary connection between Christian God creationism and ID.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/02  at  01:13 PM
34. To quote the revered reporter, "Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution". He has said that ID should be taught in the schools.
    
    On what planet is that not an endorsement? The President of the US declares that a certain subject should be taught in our schools, and you don't think that's any kind of endorsement?
    
    I have not attacked ID because it is religious here. I have said that it does not belong in science classrooms because it lacks "material or logical support"; the religious motivation is an explanation for why its proponents are peddling it.
    
    Whether you like it or not, almost all of the support for ID comes from Christian creationists, who see it as a line of attack on modern science. Pretending otherwise is just plain stupid, and plays into their hands.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  08/02  at  01:26 PM
35. "You people need to get some new material. Even the title of this blog entry is wrong. Bush did not endodrse intelligent design creationism. He specifically declined to opine on it."
    
    Which STILL shows how pig ignorant he is. (And how ignorant you are, since you totally miss the implications).
    
    Stop spinning; matters of science can't be handled by political fiat...and make no mistake about it, this was a political proclamation on matters of science.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  01:27 PM
36. I've been reading your blog for a long time. But this is the first time you've gotten me mad. Well, not you. But what you wrote about. This is the kind of crap that just slows down my teaching year, trying to scrape off the mental barnacles that igmos attack to my students' minds.
    
    So add me to the pro-Evolution pile on. Here's my link and title:
    "Revenge for Those Bush is a Chimp Jokes"
    http://brownbagblog.com/WordPress/?p=101
    
    For what it's worth, 95% of the kids I teach can see thru the bullshit and don't take this Creationism stuff seriously. They have the good sense to see that real religion has no conflict with science or honest learning.
    
    --Bucky
    a Brown Bag Blog
    http://www.brownbagblog.com/WordPress/
    #: Posted by Bucky  on  08/02  at  01:45 PM
37. I don't see how a Presidential Science Advisor can continue to pretend he is still of any value to the American people while this administration is in office. Time after time, the Science Advisor has seen his expertise publicly contradicted by his boss.
    The Science Advisor should resign. Not just because he is obviously a waste of tax-payers money but as a protest to this administration and its abuse of science.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  01:45 PM
38. >This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science.
    
    Ouch! I think PZ has finally lost his composure ;)
    
    Beware his righteous wrath ...
    #: Posted by Federico Contreras  on  08/02  at  01:58 PM

39. 
    Whether you like it or not, there is no neccessary connection between Christian God creationism and ID.
    

    
    Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, design implies a designer. The Raelians think it was done by space aliens, but the vast majority of Intelligent Design Creationists in this country are fundamentalist Christian.
    
    Oh, and then there's that pesky wedge document, laying out the specific religion-promoting aims of the Discovery Institute crowd of IDC.
    http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
    Too bad for you, they blew their cover.
    
    In closing, I'd like to suggest to you that systematic lying to promote a religion that allegedly outlaws lying doesn't just make for bad science, it makes for bad theology as well.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  02:04 PM
40. The Washington Post did have a story about it deep in the A section today. I just read it over lunch.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  02:07 PM
41. So sad:( Hate to see you guys going through all this crap (I'm myself relatively safe here in Finland). I'm not anti-Bush but this is pissing me off - big time. Bush has a responsibility to act as the president of the whole public - not just of his own Christian extremist base.
    #: Posted by Mikko Sandt  on  08/02  at  02:14 PM
42. Now I understand the great discovery:
    
    THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IS RAFAEL PALMEIRO!
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  02:25 PM
43. In closing, I'd like to suggest to you that systematic lying to promote a religion that allegedly outlaws lying doesn't just make for bad science, it makes for bad theology as well.
    
    They will "harvest our souls" just about any way that they can, lying is only a small part of it. Make no mistake, intolerance lies at the root of any religion that claims that it is the only truth, as Christianity does, and as many Christians accept.
    #: Posted by Arun  on  08/02  at  02:30 PM
44. PZ, you said:
    
    

    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.

    
    
    Which I have refuted below:
    
    http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=428
    
    Unless you can rebut the refutation, you are making no sense on this subject insofar as your attack on the media is concerned.
    
    And Roger, you're a pig ignorant moron yourself. But thanks for your thoughtful comments. It's doing your cause a lot of good. Of course you could always try to make your case where I hang out, the Galilean Library, but then "arguments" like, "you're ignorant" would be deleted and you would likely be banned, and then where would you be, without the security blanket of your uninformed vitriol?
    
    Just in case the star chamber has any doubts, I am not an ID advocate and I think the theory of evolution is not only is correct, but brilliantly elegant.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/02  at  03:19 PM
45. Hm. Go someplace where it's promised I'll be censored? Riiiiggght.
    
    I'll stand where I am and stand by my comments. The comments are ignorant of what the state of the science is and what the evidence is.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  03:51 PM
46. Not to pop anyone's balloon, but take another look at the stories. Bush never endorses the teaching of creationism. Not one of the relevant stories has a quote from Bush to that effect. The discussion of ID is all outside the quote marks. Instead you have Bush saying anodyne things like "education is about teaching all sides of the issue."
    
    It smells like a set-up. If Bush had stood on the table and said, "Intelligent Design is 100 percent crap," he could have avoided this hit piece. He didn't do that, probably because he doesn't want to piss off "the base." Instead, he tried to dodge the issue, but the fix was already in.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:01 PM
47. You guys really need to go check out the picture at the bottom of this post at the Whiskey Bar.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:18 PM
48. davidm, I read the thread you linked to. The ten-ton irony of the five or so of you there saying "oh goodness gracious, how *rude* that Myers fellow is being!" on a site named after *Galileo*, with reference to a contemporary battle between science and religion-taught-as-science, is just *crushing* me.
    
    Imagine if the religious right decided that this Galileo fellow had gotten all the good press for long enough,a nd it was time to set things *right* under God again. Imagine, if you will, that they began circulating the idea that Galileo never existed. Or that the *real* Galileo was a devout Biblical literalist, and the writings we have to the contrary are forgeries. Imagine the president agreed that students SHOULD to be taught these claims in courses on philosophy of science, or in special 'electives' on Galileo: the Man and the Myth.
    
    Would you be so sanguine? Might not there be some indignation if the press parroted the 'challengers' the way
    this reported did the Discovery institute, with these lines
    
    //
    
    "Scientists concede that evolution doesn't answer every question about the creation of life, but most consider intelligent design an attempt to inject religion into science courses.
    
    [FYI, the conflation of origin of life with *evolution* is a common DI/creationist trope. Actual scientists know that it does not require that the origin of life be understood in whole or part, to establish the factuality of evolution -- the stuff that happened *after* -- from the evidence available to us.]
    
    ...
    
    But advocates of intelligent design also claim support from scientists. The Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle that's the leading proponent for intelligent design, said it has compiled a list of more than 400 scientists, including 70 biologists, who are skeptical about evolution.
    
    "The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life," John West, associate director of the organization's Center for Science and Culture, said in a prepared statement.
    
    [Last I heard it was 40 biologists, but I haven't counted lately. And if you read the actual paragraph that the signees were agreeing to :
    We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
    it's clear the wording has been crafted *very* carefully -- since most biologists have *long* agreed that natural selection and mutation ALONE aren't the only natural forces to have resulted in 'the complexity of life'. *Darwinian* evolution, in the sense of 'rigid adherence to all Charles Darwin's models of evolutionary mechanics", hasn't been the rule in science since at least the middle of the last century if not earlier. So it's quite possible -- though only for the politically naive, or the politically agenda-driven -- to sign this statement and yet be in agreement with foundational claims of evolutionary theory. Indeed, when the NCSE sampled the views of some of the biologists who signed the 'graf, they found that they accepted the factuality of evolution and the evolutionary descent of man and chimp from the same ancestor -- something you'd never know from the DI's claims. See
    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp
    
    *These* salient points were left out by the lazy reporter or his editor]
    
    
    //
    
    
    
    
    And shall we also give equal time in science classes to the inevitable 'challenges' and 'alternative theories' to standard physics and chemistry, that must arise from a biblical/ID POV? Shalll we lengthen the school year to accomodate these doubtless time-consuming additions to the curriculum?
    
    The fact is, the intelligent design movement is merely the latest manifestation of a well-documented and increasingly well-organized push to put *religion* into science classes. Those of us who've followed along know it has been going on for *decades*. ID is 'in the air' not because there's a clamoring in the scientific community for consideration, but because a well-funded religious/political 'action committee' *keeps it in the air*. There is no 'biology' to intelligent design; if it is to be taught *about* as anothing other than a mention, it should be done in classes on current affairs, or in history of science courses, along with Paley. Similarly, the theory of 'phlogiston' merits no more than a sentence in most chemistry courses I know.
    
    Bottom line, it was either *ignorant* or *disingenuous* in the extreme for you to imply that Bush's stance is merely a case of wishing equal time for various valid scientific viewpoints , as you did in that thread you linked to.
    
    
    Shame on you, sir!
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:20 PM
49. prarie rose, cut the rebop. Bush delivered lines to his base directly out of the creationist/ID talking points. They understood him; so do those who've been following this assault on science through the years. It's not about scientific ideas in contention. It's about this strategy:
    
    Materialism is the enemy of those who love Christ. So we must first *create* a 'scientific' controversy to position religion at the door to science classes. We must keep making noise about this 'controversy' even if it has no real basis in the scientific community. Then we must insist that the 'controversy' *must* be taught in science classes, so people will understand what the noise is about.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:47 PM
50. Maybe at the next Press conference, some reporter will ask Bush to please articulate the scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Bush could do those Discovery Institute folks a great favor by telling them what the Theory says.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:47 PM
51. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/lets_have_no_mo.html#pings
    
    The indefatiguable conservative whippersnapper "Mister" Timothy Sandefur has linked to an article by Charles Krauthammer on Intelligent Design.
    
    After picking my jaw up off the ground, I am pleased to report that it is one of the best editorials on the subject I have ever read.
    
    PZ, I highly recommend you teaming up with Chucky for a brief nationwide tour.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:50 PM
52. The indefatiguable conservative whippersnapper "Mister" Timothy Sandefur has linked to an article by Charles Krauthammer on Intelligent Design.
    
    After picking my jaw up off the ground, I am pleased to report that it is one of the best editorials on the subject I have ever read.
    
    PZ, I highly recommend you teaming up with Chucky for a brief nationwide tour.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  05:52 PM
53. It's not a Republican-exclusive problem-
    
    

    According to this CBS news poll, 65% of the country supports teaching creationism and evolution together in schools. That total includes 56% of Kerry voters. In fact, 37% of the country supports teaching creationism instead of evolution. Thus, if the United States were to have a national referendum about Intelligent Design in schools, the position that the President expressed today might win in a landslide.
    

    #: Posted by Tman  on  08/02  at  06:28 PM
54. When does this ride end? I feel sick....
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  08:02 PM
55. The discovery institute is VERY pleased with this...
    
    
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2764&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
    
    Good job bush, all you had to do is decline a comment.
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  08:08 PM
56. Time again for the farting evangelist. I could only get Quicktime to work.
    
    http://www.funspoofs.com/View_movie_farting.html
    #: Posted by Victoria Love  on  08/02  at  08:52 PM
57. No chance of the science advisor resigning, he's a Republican hack too. Although not as bad as the "scientist" in charge of NASA who's really a Star Wars contractor, CIA money launderer and Company man. But if anyone is offended, I apologize for my shrill commentary here.
    
    Count me on your pro-science education bandwagon: Singularity.
    
    Let's keep mythology ( an interesting topic in its proper place ) in the History and Fine Arts departments, please!
    #: Posted by kelley b.  on  08/02  at  08:56 PM
58. But we know Bush was always for this...they Designed the Intelligence on Iraq after all.
    
    Of course, statements about "teaching the controversy", "presenting both sides of the issue" and letting the kids with no background "decide" are the cornerstones of the Intelligent Design Creationism strategy since there more overt mentions of God got them kicked out of courts.
    
    By repeating these statements, Bush did exactly the same thing as when he invoked Dred Scott during the debate last year - a signal to his base that they can count on him. He is using the evangelical language that many of us are not aware of - we think it is English and do not see the subtext between the lines.
    #: Posted by coturnix  on  08/02  at  09:24 PM
59. I don't know if this was covered or not. A friend of mine on a messageboard I go to is claiming that Bush means "intelligent design" in the sense that either (I'm not sure which) that a designer designed the universe in the beginning or that a designer started life off. He's saying this is based off previous statements made by Bush.
    
    I'm pretty sure he meant "intelligent design" in the Discovery Institute way. It's what the term means nowadays so either my friend's wrong or Bush is using the wrong term.
    #: Posted by Kele  on  08/02  at  09:42 PM
60. davidm: First, the title of the blog entry is false.
    
    I'm kind of surprised you would split hairs like this, Mr. davidm. (Namely: Bush "endorses" versus Bush "endorses teaching." So what?)
    
    Let me remind you:
    
    "This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science."
    
    Over on your galilean-library.org article, you ask: "Why should biologists shy from this debate?"
    
    Well, what in the heck has that to do with getting faith-based bullshit taught as science? I think you might be trolling, Mr. davidm. Cheers!
    #: Posted by  on  08/02  at  09:52 PM
61. Please check out this post, PZ--scroll down for a photoshop job on Michaelangelo's Creation that *almost* looks like an octopus.
    #: Posted by bitchphd  on  08/03  at  12:35 AM
62. In response to Mark W.'s comment (33500):
    
    That ship has sailed. If Marburger were going to resign over the abuse of science by this administration he would have left years ago. If he left now it would just be a joke.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  02:10 AM
63. The story was in today's 'Australian' newspaper (no web link available) pretty much verbatim from what I can see of the quotes. No surprise that 'The Australian' is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  03:30 AM
64. I hear everyone talk about thousands of pieces of evidence but what is the evidence? Don't just talk about amorphous evidence, bring it. Someones speculation on a fossil, its location and how it supports evolution is not scientific evidence. It is speculation. Looking at DNA and finding similar construction between species doesn't prove evolution it just shows similarities. If I look at the construction of cake and bread they both use flour. This doesn't prove that cake is evolved bread. It just proves I could use that building block (flour) in more than one item of food. Subsequently copying a DNA structure we see and morphing it into other DNA and getting the same result as the original doesn't prove evolution, in fact I would think it would prove intelligent design. Also, please don't confuse natural selection with evolution, they are completely different. Natural selection doesn't introduce any new information to the whole, it only ensures that those organisms with the most beneficial traits will survive. This is true and I think easily defendable. Evolution assumes new information is developed through mutations and this information is positive to the species and will thus filter out to the rest of the species in a natural selection kind of way. I think our extensive review of mutations in the human species shows that it is 99.99999999999999% of the time detrimental to the organism in question and usually assures a quicker death for the mutated organism. Thus mutations are in general negative and thus would not bring about a more complex superior organism but would kill off the weaker mutated ones. In addition all of this is predicated that a "simple" cell came about out of "goo". There is no such thing as a "simple" cell as the structure of even the simplest self-replicating organisms is extremely complicated on a microbiological level. Talk about the facts don't call names, it just shows how your faith controls your facts.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  06:08 AM
65. Roger: The majority of the time mutations are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the organism, because they either occur in regions of DNA that don't code for proteins; do not result in a change in the amino acid sequence of a protein; or result in a change in the amino acid sequence of a protein that does not compromise or improve that protein's function.
    #: Posted by Orac  on  08/03  at  06:12 AM
66. I can't believe that guy. (Bush) And I really can't believe there are actually American citizens (let alone a lot of them) who support the friggin' idiot. It hurts me to even think it, but I'm afraid that much of America deserves whatever badness it brings to itself. The last 5 years have by far been the most utterly depressing as I watch my formerly great country go (both literally and figuratively) down the toilet.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  06:18 AM
67. Marburger's still saying the same thing, but Bush isn't listening.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  06:43 AM
68. ROGER:
    You are obviously way out of your element and unafraid of showing us how your self-righteousness makes you both ignorant and arrogant. Bravo. Almost everything you spouted in your rant #33579 is either wrong or purposely crafted to sow confusion. Where do you get this stuff? If you really had a mind of your own you would pick up a real science textbook and see for yourself the lies you've been fed. You're obviously interested in science so why not do it right?
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  07:10 AM
69. Trackback isn't working for me; my URL is my post on the subject. It seems to me that activism is extremely important on this, as polls indicate that an alarming number of Americans don't buy the theory of evolution, depsite, you know, the piles of evidence explaining how life came to be as we now know it.
    #: Posted by fshk  on  08/03  at  09:11 AM
70. Orac,
    If most of the mutations neither hurt or help the organism it would be even more difficult to have a positive mutation. Now I know a lot of you gentlemen (and ladies) on this board have some significant knowledge in your various areas of expertise as I do in mine, biology is not really one of them for me. But lets just take a step back from all of the hype and hypothesis. Look at the complexity of your body. Look at the complexity of all of the organisms out there. Are you really saying that all of this happened by random chance from planetary goo? I mean look at your eye (well I guess you can't look at your eye without a mirror) but consider your eye. Consider how it works and the complexity involved in converting the light it receives into the images you see.
    How many of you have a camera (still or movie) that has the capabilities of depth, color and focus that your eye does? What about your brain? It is faster than computers we make today and holds enormous quantities of data. This happened by random chance? That doesn't seem logical. Things generally don't go from chaos to order. Look at the variety of life on this planet. All of these came from random mutations gone good?
    Now I understand your hesitancy in portraying intelligent design in school but I don't understand your hesitancy in portraying evolution as one of many theories about how life started.
    It doesn't seem logical given the fact that you didn't observe evolution. We are assuming that the information we collect either proves or disproves it. We all come to that table with our biases fully intact. Saying people who don't agree with the theory of evolution are stupid is similar to previous statements to the effect of people who think the world is round are stupid. Just because you believe it to be one way or the other doesn't make it true.
    Anyone could pull out tons of data, apply their way of thinking to it and come up with their belief in how life started. I personally don't believe all of this marvelous world is random chance. It doesn't seem logical to me. Others would say how can you believe in God? You can't see Him, how do you know He is real. Well I believe He is real. Just like you believe in evolution.
    HPLC_Sean noted my ignorance and wanted me to pick up a "real" Science textbook and learn something. Does he realize that the observations of the Scientists who wrote that book are biased. Everyone is biased based on their personal experiences and beliefs. You obviously try to limit this as much as possible in scientific endeavors but it still happens. So when I read that textbook I am obtaining that Scientists interpretation of the data. That doesn't make him right, even if he/she is the world expert.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  09:35 AM
71. I've got a blog that dedicates 1 day/week to evolution. Find the evolution entries archived here
    #: Posted by Jill  on  08/03  at  10:27 AM
72. Roger from #33579 and #33591
    
    Yes, it is obvious that you do not have expertise in biology. Therefore I would recommend that you
    
    1) read a decent textbook or two on the topic
    
    and/or
    
    2) Check out Talk.Origins, where all this has been hashed out before and carefully filed away. http://www.talkorigins.org
    
    BTW, ranting about the bias of a textbook you haven't even read is pretty bizarre. Think about it.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  10:27 AM
73. Roger:
    The crux of the debate is simply that ID is not a science. Science is defined as an empirical study. Scientific theorums have only two states true or false and no grey areas. Therefore, in order for a theorum to be scientific it must be falsifiable. ID cannot be falsified so it is not a valid scientific theorum. In order to refute ID, one would have to prove that God does not exist and there is not one iota of empirical proof to support or refute said existance. ID proponents talk about leveling the playingfield, but there is no common ground between ID and science. One is personal and spiritual and the other universal and intellectual. ID should never be included in a modern science classroom. Creation myths should be reserved for history, philosophy or sociology classes.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  10:34 AM
74. MSNBC article on it
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  10:45 AM
75. MSNBC article on it
    
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8806938/
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  10:45 AM
76. Well said.
    
    You can add me to that list:
    http://sleepysage.blogspot.com/2005/08/fault-dear-brutus-is-not-in-our-stars.html
    #: Posted by Kevin  on  08/03  at  11:12 AM
77. Baseyian,
    Not to get defensive but a New York cabbie can say "Yes, it is obvious that you do not have expertise in biology", it doesn't mean he has any more knowledge on the subject than you do.
    Second, while I didn't think I was ranting, the "rant" wasn't on one particular textbook. It was on the concept of learning in general. A student knows nothing more than the teacher (at least initially after the class). If a teacher knows evolution is true because there can't be a God, then their students know only evolution is true because there can't be a God. This doesn't make any of them right.
    I find it curious that self-proclaimed experts on biology just flop on their backs and declare evolution must be true. Show me where it was proven true. Who observed evolution, point that person out to me and then I will listen. By this I don't mean someone who has found fossils and observed modern organisms and concluded evolution occurred. I mean someone who has witnessed a significant improvement in a species.
    By its very nature evolution can't be observed, it takes too long. You would have to combine the work of several people over many years and draw a conclusion from the data. That doesn't prove evolution. In an era when it takes a monumental amount of data to prove or disprove global warming to accept that evolution is fact based on circumstantial evidence (at best) seems odd. To find myself being confronted angrily when bringing up the possibility that it might be wrong just proves my point, your bias won't allow you to exam the data impartially. Thus I have to assume your conclusion is sketchy at best, at worst a semi-concious deliberate act to twist the evidence to your perspective. Either way it is more than enough reason for me to not accept your conclusion.
    When a used car salesman starts getting pushy and aggressive in his tactics he is trying to pull one over on you. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that. Besides you didn't answer my question. Can you really look at your body and how it functions and say you believe that it evolved randomly from lifeless goo?
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  11:29 AM
78. Roger: "This happened by random chance?"
    
    Once again, evolution isn't just random chance. There's a reason why biologists give their theories names like "natural selection" and "sexual selection" instead of "natural randomness."
    
    Roger: "It doesn't seem logical given the fact that you didn't observe evolution."
    
    But we have observed evolution, including speciation.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  11:31 AM
79. Roger, since you claim to have an area of expertise involving significant knowledge, did you acquire that by posting tritely on a website or did you spend some years seriously studying the subject and evaluating your success at it against some objective measure? If the latter, then why do you imagine you are suddenly going to shortcut that whole process with respect to science or even just the evolution sub-section of all science by posting here? Are you being ridiculously unrealistic or more than a little dishonest in your closed demands for pat answers? I expect we could answer a great many of the things you could possibly ask should you ever be more specific about your knowledge gaps but that it would also be a complete waste of our time to do so. I suggest that you think about your motivations and expectations a little more critically.
    #: Posted by  on  08/03  at  11:38 AM
80. Biologists do not "just flop on their backs and declare evolution must be true". Read a biology text sometime.
    
    That's just standard creationist lying. Knock it off. Your ignorance of biology does not mean biologists are as ignorant as you are.