<p>Bush wants discussions involving intelligent design in our schools. Should we also include the concept of the earth riding on the back of a turtle?
<a href=“http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20050801-2006-bush-intelligentdesign.html[/url]”>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20050801-2006-bush-intelligentdesign.html</a></p>
<p>You don’t even need a formal course in Logic to recognize what a miserably phrased proposition this is: [from the article]
That’s a very poor definition of “intelligent design,” which is not synonymous with “creationism.” Intelligent design is instead a modern rendering of the age-old philosophical concept of a “prime mover”–the belief that something had to send the whole process of our universe into motion, including evolution. Intelligent design and evolution aren’t at all mutally exclusive.</p>
<p>
You’re quite right. But let’s not teach intelligent design in our science courses. American kids are already falling far enough behind the rest of the educated world without that.</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree. See Strick’s comment #7 in the parallel thread Intelligent Design. I have the same reaction. But when your bright little 3 grade student says: “But Miss Jones, what started the Big Bang?” you shouldn’t feel constrained from waxing philosophical, even if if means mentioning that (gasp) some people think there must be a greater force than human beings out there.</p>
<p>Yes they may not be mutually exclusive, but it is a transparent attempt to interject the concept of “prime mover” - a code word for GOD.</p>
<p>Disagree. Call it “The Force” and then let them watch Star Wars. It’s another way of saying we may never know. </p>
<p>I should add, being from a Philadelphia medical family, some of the greatest physicians on earth have sat at my dining room table and gotten very philosophical and even religious about their unique experiences in studying and attempting to heal the the human body. Consumate scientists, many–most, that I know–believe in “intelligent design” of some sort.</p>
<p>Beg pardon, even the article itself only says:
[quote]
President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
[quote]
</p>
<p>The article then quotes Bush, in response to a question, saying
</p>
<p>Even saying ID specifically should be discussed is stretch from the quote alone. A straight forward reading of what he actually said shows he never proposed it be taught in school, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Good point, Strick.</p>
<p><a href=“U.S. Falling Behind in Science - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=276464&page=1</a>
from the same news conference
*WASHINGTON - President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and “intelligent design” Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.</p>
<p>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.*</p>
<p>EK, thanks for posting what should be a textbook case for every J-School on how to NOT insert your personal opinion into a news story. “Bush waded into”…“Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives”…?
No. Bush responded to a question, with a careful answer, and an ABC writer turned it into the kind of propaganda that fuels so much of the histrionic silliness that appears on CC forums.</p>
<p>perhaps you would like to read the headline from Fox news?</p>
<p>Bush: Schools Should Teach ‘Intelligent Design’ Alongside Evolution</p>
<p>or from the Chicago Tribune?
- ACROSS THE NATION
Bush backs teaching of intelligent design along with evolution*</p>
<p>from the Indianapolis Star
nation In Brief
Bush: ‘Intelligent design’ should be taught, too</p>
<p>They’re all quoting the same knight ridder story and the headlines are virtually indentical
From teh News Observer
Teach rival views on life, Bush says
‘Intelligent design’ backed for schools
…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.”</p>
<p>
Any of the news sources you cite deserve to be taken to task for creating such headlines from the above quote.</p>
<p>Question for all: Do you think students should be taught what “creationism” is? (Not intelligent design–creationism.)</p>
<p>emeraldkity4, I’m afraid I see a lot of spin but no meat in those articles. They do seem to be interpreting what was said, not reporting it.</p>
<p>Most people go into journalism because they can’t handle math. Not the sharpest bunch.</p>
<p>is it any wonder we are graduating students who can’t do math?
The teachers who teach them can’t teach it.
How do we decide what is taught in the schools?
Should we take suggestions from those outside of edcuation like the President or Bill gates?</p>
<p>Did you see this interesting article, emeraldkity4? The results were fairly reported in other sources, too.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4198655[/url]”>Now for the good news;
<p>
The point being lost here is that the pres wasn’t offering suggestions. It wasn’t part of an education initiative. A reporter asked him a question. He answered. Sheesh.</p>
<p>that is very interesting- I would love to see results for the older students as well- in our district our 4th graders are doing very well, but 7th and 10th graders at the same school are doing very poorly-
I don’t think the students or the teachers are disporportinally different- but something is happening ( or not happening)
This hs been pretty much the case for the group of tests that they have used for the past 6 years-</p>
<p>There was an excellent series of articles about “Intelligent Design” and creationism in the July 9th issue of New Scientist – there’s a link here:
<a href=“http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn7647[/url]”>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn7647</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately, the bulk of the content may only be available to subscribers.</p>
<p>religeous conservatives are very clever. In order to make it more appealing to the masses they changed the wording - the intent is the same.</p>