<p>Mr. B: When will you and yours stop bashing Bush. Do you really wake up in the morning and believe that everything around you derived from the chance meeting of some chemicals in space? By definition, if one is not an atheist one must believe in some form of “intelligent design”.</p>
<p>Would you rather have Hillary’s views of the “vast Right-wing conspiracy” taught in politics classes? Or Bill’s views of the trustworthiness of the North Koreans and Iranians taught in international relations classes? Aren’t they fictions?</p>
<p>There is enough factual science material to teach without going into voodoo. I think this type of material might be included as a current topic for a current events class. Would you want all earth science students to learn that Hurricanes don’t bother the big Island of Hawaii because Pele lives there and is on friendly terms with the goddess who brings the Hurricanes? or that the size and shape of the mountains buffer strong winds based on laws of physics?</p>
<p>In whiplashing between these concurrent threads, I thought I’d make something clear: My primary objection has been to the reporting of the story, as summed up in the thread title: “Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.” The newspaper reporters were as disengenuous/inaccurate in reporting his statements as I would be if I claimed he was referring to architecture and engineering. It was spin, pure and simple.</p>
<p>For the record, I think we would do well to begin teaching philosophy at more depth in high school, where such debates could be had in an appropriate setting, indirectly integrated with concurrent studies of traditional hard sciences. And the other courses of study, as well.</p>
<p>ob1 - I asked a question and criticized a potential policy, it is you who brings it to a name calling level. You do this because you can’t logically support his policies either.</p>
<p>Driver - I wasn’t at the press conference but I don’t believe this was just a conversational slip. This president doesn’t offer that many press interviews… I suspect it is an attempt to rally the conservatives which he will need for his stem cell veto. Let us look at tomorrows headlines to see if this was a rally for both sides.</p>
<p>Barrons, I suppose you are joking because Gates also needs a cook in the kitchen and a mechanic for his car.</p>
<p>I don’t think teachers should be propagandists, so I prefer they base their science on current science. </p>
<p>There is no question that any who has used microsoft for any length of time would pray for intelligent design in the near future.</p>
<h2>Mr. B, I was with you right up until the gratuitous Microsoft bashing.</h2>
<p>When I started teaching high school science (I’m certified in bio, chem, and physics), I would run into people who would say “are you going to teach evolution?” My answer then and now is: “How can you <em>not</em> teach evolution?” </p>
<p>Evolution is a core organizing theory of biology; in chemistry and physics, it is impossible not to teach that our universe and our earth are billions of years old. When teaching any science (not just biology), it is impossible not to offend those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I’m always amused by the students who tell me the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old–but don’t get upset when I tell them the temperature of the earth’s core or the distance to the stars.</p>
<p>Digression: (Nonetheless, I think one branch of science should not be taught as science, but as philosophy or perhaps religion: cosmology. Cosmological theory, IMHO, borders on religion. Certainly there seems to be as little evidence for cosmological theories of the origin of the universe as there is for any other theory of the origin of the universe. </p>
<p>Once that initial Bang is over (whatever its cause or origins), science begins–because that’s where our evidence begins.)</p>
<p>Those of you who believe that humans cannot have resulted from random mutations should consider reading Gell-Mann’s The Quark and the Jaguar.</p>
<p>It is just amazing to me that going to church isn’t good enough. We have to teach Christian ideas in school. I fail to see the difference between the Christian right and religious Muslims.</p>
Well, I assume that with respect to this narrow topic, you might be correct since I assume that “religious Muslims” also believe in a creator God or some sort of “intelligent designer”. However, the notion that Muslims and Christians (and Jews and …) may have similar views on a divine role in beginnings of the universe, makes your previous statement totally false - these are NOT “Christian” ideas.</p>
<p>However, I think what you really meant to imply was that you see no difference between the Christian right and “radical” Muslims - the ones that saw people’s heads off. Statements like this show at a minimum extreme ignorance but are likely more in the realm of anti-Christian intolerance/bigotry.</p>
<p>And yes, we should also include the concept of the earth riding on the back of a turtle. Why stop at just evolution and ID/creationism? A mythology class for high school students would be fascinating and mind-expanding (“One man’s religion is another person’s mythology.”)</p>
<p>dstark, then I’m at a loss as to why you added the sentence about Christian right = religious Muslims. What is it suppoesed to convey in this topic? Why not say Christian right = religious Jews? It would be just as relevant in this context. But, in either case it would refute your sentence immediately before it.</p>