<p>"THE PRESIDENT: I think – as I said, harking back to my days as my governor . . . Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.</p>
<p>"Q Both sides should be properly taught?</p>
<p>"THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people – so people can understand what the debate is about.</p>
<p>"Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>ID sans Irreducible Complexity isnt another side. It is something people believe in addition to evolution. Regardless, plain ID should also stay out of schools because it is a personal religious belief.</p>
Again: Where does this statement of yours come from, DMK?</p>
<p>And how does your premise develop from the president’s measured response to an obvious gotcha question, for which the premise, and the headline, were already written?
<p>“But Bush proposes teaching that God intervened after the creation of the universe to speed up natural evolution and change the laws of probability.” </p>
<p>Yet again: Where did the president say this, DMK?</p>
<p>Oh please, driver. We all know that Bush is pandering to the Christian creationists in the exchange given above (there are Christians who aren’t creationists and I’m trying to exclude them). I would say that this article from 1999 (<a href=“http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol5.htm[/url]”>A Catholic asks questions; an atheist responds - American Atheists) neatly describes Bush’s thinking: "Another is the statement of Texas Governor George Bush, who last week in New Orleans declared, “I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started.” Bush campaign spokesperson Minday Tucker followed up, saying “He (Bush) believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught. He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but he believes both ought to be taught.” "</p>
<p>We all know that Bush is pandering to the Christian creationists in the exchange given above.</p>
<p>If true, this would prove that there is corroboration substantial enough to indicate a divine prerogative possessed by all. Of course, to many, it will be somewhat disappointing to realize that the divine voice is in the possession of not only the One but the many and that, on any given Sunday, one such takes away from their celestial duty and time to post on College Confidential.</p>
<p>Do you think Bush said this because he is in favor of a free debate for educational purposes? Why does he only appear in front of crowds that have been screened to remove any opposing thoughts to his policy? As I have stated above, I think this is a political bone tossed to the dog that won him Ohio.</p>
<p>“The main mistake you guys are making is treating ID like it’s an “alternate viewpoint” in a “controversy.” I keep hearing about the “flaws” in evolution and how we should “teach both sides.” THERE ARE NOT TWO SIDES, NOR ARE THERE FLAWS. EVOLUTION ACCOUNTS FOR ALL EXISTING EVIDENCE AND IS WELL SUPPORTED. While we’re at it, let’s just teach that disease is caused by God instead of microbes, or that the seasons exist because God is manic-depressive, or that thunder is God bowling.”</p>
<p>i think that post itself IS evidence why we need to teach ID. </p>
<p>anway, i will be unsubscribing from this thread! thank you to all those who have spoke with RELEVANT support (keep in mind cap lock does not provide support), listened to others (so they didn’t have to repeat stuff over and over), and treated this thread as something more than a personal platform for low comedy. </p>
<p>thank you to those like Mr.B! if i could help provide *anything else, i would be honored to be pm’ed! and to those who have treated this as a ‘conversation’, who tried to offer their insights, i anticipate discussing with you again in the future~</p>
<p>Understanding that the President himself is not given to scientific speculation and discourse, it may in fact be that he simply, in a commonsensical fashion, believes that when things are not so cleverly established in apodictic certainty to be engraved in impermeable tablets and passed on from generation to generation that it might be of some value to consider the obvious and clear adjustment to the illogical and purposeless alternative of the ill-defined bedlam of whatever, it just kinda happened.</p>
<p>[overheard:
Theresa Heinz Kerry to spouse on the occasion of his concession speech
everything happens for a reason.]</p>
<p>I think that in the context of this discussion the following is worth your efforts:</p>
<p>“But Bush proposes teaching that God intervened after the creation of the universe to speed up natural evolution and change the laws of probability.” </p>
<p>Yet again: Where did the president say this, DMK?</p>
<p>that got me thinking about the things that argue against ID or else that the 'powers" that be have a twisted sense of humor
making women go through menopause at the same time that their kids are going through puberty
the comparative ages when sex drive peaks in men and women.
The ability to concieve and bear children has nothing to do with the ability to raise and nurture them
Men who stereotypically are designed for rougher work- have all their fancy delicate parts on the outside.
The size of the breast has nothing to do with the ability to nurse.
If men and women both get nipples- how come women have to sit down to go pee?</p>
<p>Perhaps there was an evolutionary advantage to patriarchial societies that later disappeared with the advent of the Neolithic Revolution . . . or an intelligent designer is simply sexist.</p>
![http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/images/NipplesGRAB.jpg[/url]](http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/images/NipplesGRAB.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
