“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
That’s an interesting quote that seems to sidestep the question – he’s not advocating teaching creation, but “exposing people to different schools of thought.”
Later, in the same article:
Quote:
Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
Because why on earth would you want to know that about someone who has the power to potentially overturn that decision?
Originally Posted by Richard Dicksonhttp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...w200833D87.DTL That’s an interesting quote that seems to sidestep the question – he’s not advocating teaching creation, but “exposing people to different schools of thought.”
I wonder if he thinks medical training should include treating epilepsy through exorcism as well as through administering Neurontin or Topamax. These are different schools of thought, after all. Me, I think the relative merits of each school of thought should be considered when deciding whether or not they should be taught.
If they want to teach Creationism – ooh, sorry, “intelligent design” – in a philosophy or theology class, fine. But keep it the hell out of a science class.
Reverse it, what if they were pushing to include evolution in a religious class? Would they be so open to exposing people to other schools of thought?
See, it’s not only our freedom that the terrorists hate, it’s our education. This is all just another part of Bush’s clever plan to undermine that hatred! First, demolish our freedoms, then our educations!
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson If they want to teach Creationism – ooh, sorry, “intelligent design” – in a philosophy or theology class, fine. But keep it the hell out of a science class. Reverse it, what if they were pushing to include evolution in a religious class? Would they be so open to exposing people to other schools of thought?
Exactly. Teach the prevalent scientific explanation in science class.
I think one issue creationists have is that there are no religion or philosophy classes in public schools, so they are trying to force some religion in there somewhere.
Originally Posted by BobClark Public schools have a hard enough time getting the facts straight. I shudder to think how they would handle philosophy.
Too true. Being a philosophy major, I’m all for introducing philosophy into public classrooms. I think a lot of Americans would benefit from the kind of abstract, critical thinking which philosophy prepares you for. The problem is, there simply aren’t enough qualified individuals out there to teach anything, let alone philosophy.
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson If they want to teach Creationism – ooh, sorry, “intelligent design” – in a philosophy or theology class, fine. But keep it the hell out of a science class. Reverse it, what if they were pushing to include evolution in a religious class? Would they be so open to exposing people to other schools of thought?
This is something I heard on Talk Radio one day, and feel free to dismiss this, afterall it isn’t something I’ve really studied up on:
The reason why Creationism is taught is because of the Constitution of the United States referring to the Creator, and to abide by the Constitution, schools have to teach it that way. Also, they said that the majority of the population of the United States believes in Creationism, and therefore majority rules.
Like I said, I didn’t come up with this, I heard it on Talk Radio.
If Intelligent Design had real credibility within the mainstream scientific community to begin with, there wouldn’t be a need for ID-proponents to appeal to politicans, school boards, and the general public to get it taught.
As a Christian, I have been and will remain vehemently opposed to this. You can’t “teach” a faith. Parents are welcome to expose their children to a faith. Then, either they believe or they don’t. Once someone makes the decision for themselves to believe, they’re welcome to seek out additional instruction/guidance on their own. But it has no place in science or the classroom.
Originally Posted by Gio AnglesThe Constitution What a surprise…even though it’s a really weak argument to begin with, there’s no mention of the word “Creator”. Typical talk radio misinformation.
It’s worth taking a moment to mention that the absence of any reference to God in the constitution is not just an oversight. It was a subject of furious debate, and many people criticized that as the great failing of the constitution. It was a deliberate choice.
Another thing that annoys me about these guys is that you always hear them going on about the dangers of “moral relativism,” but there’s also something that could be called “intellectual relativism.” NPR did a piece about creationism recently, and one of the parents they interviewed said something like “How do I know evolution is false? Because the creator lives in my heart.” Look, I realize that just because someone has a degree and calls themselves a scientist doesn’t mean you should never question anything they say, but people need to understand that what you feel in your heart is not equal to 100 years of scientific research.
Originally Posted by Gio AnglesThe Constitution What a surprise…even though it’s a really weak argument to begin with, there’s no mention of the word “Creator”. Typical talk radio misinformation.
He probably meant the Declaration of Independence.
“…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and all that.
Originally Posted by StabmasterArson He probably meant the Declaration of Independence. “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and all that.
I don’t see how using the word “Creator” is proof that the Founding Fathers wanted Intelligent Design taught in school.“Creator” doesn’t always mean the Christian idea of God.
Originally Posted by bigbrother I don’t see how using the word “Creator” is proof that the Founding Fathers wanted Intelligent Design taught in school.“Creator” doesn’t always mean the Christian idea of God.
Neither do I. Although ID does not necessarily have to mean the Christian idea of God either.
I was just saying that Gio Angelo was probably mistaken when he said that the talk radio guy said “Creator” was in the Constitution, and that he probably said it was in the Declaration of Independence. Gio was correct, however, when he said it’s a really weak argument to begin with.
Most of the founding fathers weren’t Christians anyway, those that were religious were mostly Deists.
Originally Posted by Z-Man Another thing that annoys me about these guys is that you always hear them going on about the dangers of “moral relativism,” but there’s also something that could be called “intellectual relativism.” NPR did a piece about creationism recently, and one of the parents they interviewed said something like “How do I know evolution is false? Because the creator lives in my heart.” Look, I realize that just because someone has a degree and calls themselves a scientist doesn’t mean you should never question anything they say, but people need to understand that what you feel in your heart is not equal to 100 years of scientific research.