Only in America??

To add a bit more:

Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
   

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it.
ad_icon

Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.

His remarks heartened conservatives who have been asking school boards and legislatures to teach students that there are gaps in evolutionary theory and explain that life's complexity is evidence of a guiding hand.

"With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."

Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. They see the case increasingly as a political battle that threatens to weaken science teaching in a nation whose students already are lagging.

"It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading liberal lawmaker. Noting Bush's Ivy League education, Frank said, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.

Bush should not even be allowed to use the word "intelligent" let alone espouse a theory containing it.  This stuff gets overblown in the US press but it is surprising the number of Creationists that exist here.  They can shield their arguments from attack with the Bible like self-proclaimed patriots wrap themselves in the flag.

Personally, I believe some sort of Intelligent Design should be taught but in a philosophy class, not science.

I am NOT surprised.  We have several American teachers here from Missouri State.  I have been told emphatically that the earth is only 6000 years old.  That it was made with all the old stuff  here, but the old stuff is only 6000 years old too.

So terribly terribly wrong and inconsistent with the true facts.  The truth is that the universe is created each morning when I awake, and dissolves each evening when I fall asleep.  Naturally, each morning re-creation is close enough to where I left things in the evening and even has imaginary overnight happenings.  This keeps the masses from panicking at the thought of their daily demise.

Which naturally leads to my favourite theory: Parallel Universes.  And I have proved it true.  The only way there are comparatively few accidents here, given the craziness of the driving, is we all live in parallel universes.  The road markings are the anchors for these universes (they clearly have no other function!).  When they are faint, that's when the universes collide and we do end up with accidents.

We should teach this one in schools.

This got me thinking back to when I started studying Biology in about 1957. I recall my teacher saying that we should believe in the creative theory and understand that things evolved from there as part of the overall plan. Worked for me.

Intelligent Design?? Oh, come on...whoever thought up that idea must have been really sheltered. I mean, look at a duck-billed platypus, a giraffe, humans. Why on earth do men have nipples? why does a male sea-horse get pregnant?

Evolution has no proof?? what??? the chap is actually advocating that a story involving flaming swords, talking serpents and ribs being made into people is more factual....that's just mind-boggling..

So she told you that the earth was 6000 years old, and we all evolved in that 6000 years?  How did she explain carbon dating?  

So she told you that the earth was 6000 years old, and we all evolved in that 6000 years?  How did she explain carbon dating?  

I'm not a creationist or even a Christian, but I don't think that ALL Christians who believe in the creation story believe in the literal interpretation of the earth being 6000 years old.

I have always seen the creation story as a myth - along with other creation myths - even when my parents were sending me to church on a Sunday so they could have some peace and quiet!  As a child it was pretty clear to me that it was allegorical and not actually plausible.

I am quite sure that ALL Christians don't believe in this myth.  I think there is a fair bit where different Christian groups are totally divided - and maybe not too much they ALL agree with.

But the problem here is that when these beliefs are then taught as a supposedly credible scientific theory, when the previous President of a country that prides itself on its leadership of the (western) world agrees with this and encourages the teaching of it, when even one Senator from that country states that the MAJORITY of Americans believe this, that it is not a backwater view,  then we have problems.

Again, where is creationism actually being taught -- today, not in 1957 -- in public schools as scientific fact? Despite what Bush said and what bills a certain senator from the Bible Belt may have tried to pass (and that senator saying that a majority believe in creationism doesn't make it so, he certainly didn't site any sources), the supreme court and lower district courts have ruled against it. It is unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools. Given that, which state is defying the supreme court and has it in their curriculum?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm

   

Public schools: It is in the U.S. public schools that the battle between evolution and creation science has raged. It has taken many forms:
   

After the Scopes Trial (Tennessee, 1925) the theory of evolution gained much public support. 2 However, this did not translate into evolution being taught widely in the public schools of America.
 

State creationism laws were passed during the 1980's in Arkansas and Louisiana, to force the teaching of creationism in place of evolution. In a 1987 case, Edwards v. Aquillard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these laws were unconstitutional because they violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Creation science was seen to be a expression of religious belief. It was judged to be not a true science because it could never be falsified -- i.e., it was firmly held as a religious belief by its adherents that no amount of contradictory physical evidence could change.
 

With the launching of the Russian satellite Sputnik in the late 1950's, many became convinced that the country that the U.S. was falling behind in science. The National Science Foundation funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which was influential in returning evolution to high school biology textbooks. In the 1960's, evolution began to be widely taught.
 

During the mid 1990's, creation science groups started to persuade school boards to give equal time to creation science.
 

In recent years, the emphasis has been on encouraging teachers and students to be skeptical of the theory of evolution. Various legislatures have introduced bills to encourage teaching that the theory of evolution contains internal contradictions. These are typically called "academic freedom" bills. By the end of 2008, they had been introduced in about seven states and failed in all but Louisiana.

And we also had the University of California sued:

University Sued for Saying Earth Not Created in 6 Days

The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for statements on their Understanding Evolution Web site that some religious beliefs contradict science–like the idea that the Earth and living things were finished up in six days. The plaintiffs argue that a government-funded state university cannot claim that “some religious denominations are better than others,” though I certainly can’t find anyplace where Berkeley does so.

This is also an exceptionally interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?_r=1&fta=y

funny thread, Oz folk argueing wit American folk bout what Americans believe 

many also believe humans are responsible for global warming these past couple a few thousand years   

many also believe humans are responsible for global warming these past couple a few thousand years   

No. no, just the last few years.

You know, I still don't see where any schools are outright teaching creationism.

So there's only one state, LA, where these "academic freedom bills" haven't failed. I imagine that this "Science Education Act" will be challenged eventually. If you look the thing up, the wording of it is very sneaky. It never mentions creation or intelligent design at all by name, but says it will allow "open and objective discussion of scientific theories" including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning." It also allows teachers to use "outside materials," presumably the Bible, although again, never specifically mentioned. So depending on the teacher, this could be used to bring in articles about cloning and hand them out to the class, or to bring in the Bible and teach the creation myth. I'm sure the bill's authors intended the latter, but they worded the bill in a way as to make it difficult to challenge using separation of church and state.

But still, the ACLU has proposed to regulate it, adding provisions forbidding the discussion of creationism, and if it is used for those purposes, they'll challenge it in the courts. The ACLU is absolutely committed to keeping religion out of public schools and their site you can see some of what they've done recently (I love the ACLU, I've been a member since high school  ). http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/index.html. It will be interesting to see if it holds up when it is inevitably taken to the federal courts. My personal feeling, especially given the current administration, is that it won't be around for long. These sorts of bills have a history of being struck down when they hit the federal courts.

I don't really see the UC system being sued by religious folk as relevant. Anyone can sue for anything, there's no rule that says your lawsuit has to make sense or be valid somehow, you just have to find a lawyer willing to represent you. Did they win their lawsuit? Does UC Berkely now have to say that the earth was created in six days on their website?

My point is, religion does not go un-checked in America. There are many many people, religious and non-religious alike, who feel very strongly in keeping church and state separate, and I think the people who believe in that principle, far outweigh the religious right wingnuts. That's not to say that it is scary that some powerful people people believe those things, and that challenges to the seperation of church and state shouldn't be taken seriously, they certainly should. That NY Times article was very interesting, and it is good to be aware of new tactics that try and get creationism into the schools in stealth-mode, but these ideas and the people who try and push them into schools are still only representative of a minority, not mainstream American attitudes. I think the fact that these people -- the creationists -- keep trying and yet keep getting shut down, again and again (and keep having to switch tactics,) no matter whether liberals or conservatives are in office, for close to 80 years now, has got to say something about how America takes the seperation of church and state pretty seriously.

Nicely written TLD - we can only hope that the closing down of this continues to happen.  But an incredible waste of time and money that could be spent on improving the education system.


Although going back a little while ago:  March this year.
http://raoulschinasaloon.com/index.php?topic=3453.0