Comments on: Four scientific societies oppose Bush’s intelligent design stance http://polyscience.org/2005/08/societies-oppose-bushs-intelligent-design-stance/ Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:53:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Ashley http://polyscience.org/2005/08/societies-oppose-bushs-intelligent-design-stance/#comment-239 Ashley Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:12:17 +0000 http://polyscience.org/?p=60#comment-239 I don't think we covered evolution in any of the 5 high schools I went to. In fact, one of my science teachers told the class he did not believe in it and he wasn't going to teach it. Gotta love the Bible Belt. I don’t think we covered evolution in any of the 5 high schools I went to. In fact, one of my science teachers told the class he did not believe in it and he wasn’t going to teach it. Gotta love the Bible Belt.

]]> By: polyscience.org » A journey through sexual orientation research http://polyscience.org/2005/08/societies-oppose-bushs-intelligent-design-stance/#comment-111 polyscience.org » A journey through sexual orientation research Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:51:37 +0000 http://polyscience.org/?p=60#comment-111 [...] I can relate to Neil Swidey when he says “Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it.” Such is to be expected when one is working in a field which has political and religious groups opposing it. It was, however, nice to see a conservative anti-gay advocate step up to the plate and make some concessions, which is very rare when it comes to science conflicting with religion. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something “deeply rooted” in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he’d spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that “many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation.” His message: “If it’s inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don’t have one, we won’t have any credibility.” [...] [...] I can relate to Neil Swidey when he says “Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it.” Such is to be expected when one is working in a field which has political and religious groups opposing it. It was, however, nice to see a conservative anti-gay advocate step up to the plate and make some concessions, which is very rare when it comes to science conflicting with religion. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something “deeply rooted” in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he’d spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that “many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation.” His message: “If it’s inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don’t have one, we won’t have any credibility.” [...]

]]> By: Rian http://polyscience.org/2005/08/societies-oppose-bushs-intelligent-design-stance/#comment-106 Rian Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:18:57 +0000 http://polyscience.org/?p=60#comment-106 Yes I noticed the same thing, actually. But most schools do not have a religious studies class, or anything like it. Which means that ID would be taught alongside evolution... in the science classroom. The idea that it could even be taught outside the science classroom is not something which occurs to many people. Given this, you have to remember that creationists have an agenda: to get rid of the theory of evolution. Supplanting evolution in the science classroom, or at least, somehow lessening its effect by teaching ID alongside it, is their main goal. Creationists are not happy to let evolution co-exist alongside creation. The reverse does not necessarily hold true: you and I have no problem allowing ID its place... so long as it's not in the science classroom. I think this last fact is what makes teaching ID in science classrooms, in public schools, dangerous. Yes I noticed the same thing, actually. But most schools do not have a religious studies class, or anything like it. Which means that ID would be taught alongside evolution… in the science classroom. The idea that it could even be taught outside the science classroom is not something which occurs to many people.

Given this, you have to remember that creationists have an agenda: to get rid of the theory of evolution. Supplanting evolution in the science classroom, or at least, somehow lessening its effect by teaching ID alongside it, is their main goal.

Creationists are not happy to let evolution co-exist alongside creation. The reverse does not necessarily hold true: you and I have no problem allowing ID its place… so long as it’s not in the science classroom. I think this last fact is what makes teaching ID in science classrooms, in public schools, dangerous.

]]> By: Dom Howells http://polyscience.org/2005/08/societies-oppose-bushs-intelligent-design-stance/#comment-104 Dom Howells Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:54:44 +0000 http://polyscience.org/?p=60#comment-104 Where I went to school in the United Kingdom, both evolution and creationism (as it is still called over here) were taught in the classroom. Evolution was part of biology class and creationism (along with other creation stories) was part of religious studies class. This co-existence but disciplinary separation seems quite satisfactory to me, and is not at all incompatible with what Bush has said on the issue. I quote from the full transcript, courtesy of the Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200899_5.html Q: Both sides should be properly taught? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about. Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution? THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes. Bush's reaction to the second question is very important. When asked whether ID should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution, he says "I'm not suggesting --", but rather that people out to be exposed to both sides, and understand the debate which as we all know is more religious than scientific. So I can find nothing in the Bush interview that conflicts with the kind of education that I received that treats the issues in their proper academic domains. The quote from the American Chemical Society seems to assume the worst of Bush's statement and in the sentence hi-lighted by Rian, the phrase "scientific counterpoint" seems somewhat unfounded in the text of Bush's remarks. Where I went to school in the United Kingdom, both evolution and creationism (as it is still called over here) were taught in the classroom. Evolution was part of biology class and creationism (along with other creation stories) was part of religious studies class. This co-existence but disciplinary separation seems quite satisfactory to me, and is not at all incompatible with what Bush has said on the issue. I quote from the full transcript, courtesy of the Washington post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200899_5.html

Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Bush’s reaction to the second question is very important. When asked whether ID should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution, he says “I’m not suggesting –”, but rather that people out to be exposed to both sides, and understand the debate which as we all know is more religious than scientific. So I can find nothing in the Bush interview that conflicts with the kind of education that I received that treats the issues in their proper academic domains. The quote from the American Chemical Society seems to assume the worst of Bush’s statement and in the sentence hi-lighted by Rian, the phrase “scientific counterpoint” seems somewhat unfounded in the text of Bush’s remarks.

]]> By: Andrew http://polyscience.org/2005/08/societies-oppose-bushs-intelligent-design-stance/#comment-96 Andrew Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:52:24 +0000 http://polyscience.org/?p=60#comment-96 My bioclass in High school deffinitly breezed over the subject. My bioclass in High school deffinitly breezed over the subject.

]]>