My forehead is slightly flatter today than it was yesterday. That’s because of the time I spent pounding it against my desktop last night when I learned that the President of the United States thinks that it makes perfect sense to combine science classes with folklore and mythology instead of having them in separate buildings. Tom Burka had the best perspective I’ve seen on the issue:
The White House announced today that President Bush would henceforth determine the scientific curriculum to be taught in America’s schools. The announcement came immediately after Bush endorsed the teaching of intelligent design.
President Bush apparently wants to adopt a modified pre-Copernican view of astronomy, to start. “This whole notion that the universe does not revolve around our great nation, our great planet, seems kind of crazy,” he told reporters yesterday.
Bush was also skeptical about what he called “the notion of gravity.” “I’m uncomfortable with teaching our children that bodies are attracted to each other,” he said. “That seems like an unwholesome idea to put into children’s heads, don’t it?” He speculated that objects fall to the ground because “God wants them to.”
Maybe we should all suggest appropriate additions to our local school curriculums. For instance, instead of teaching high school students about how modern manufacturing systems work, why not provide this alternate explanation?
Also, in next year’s Federal budget, I want to see R&D funding for alternate energy systems based on dilithium crystals. Scotty would’ve wanted it.
Ed Bott 
Time to unsubscribe. Do you think you should’ve indicated that your quote was from a satire site? Oh well, your expertise was mediocre at best.
Bye.
And just to be clear, the first paragraph from Tom Burka’s Opinions You Should Have is a sad but true fact. The rest of the post is satire, as I hope most people would realize. I wish that the whole thing were satire.
Ed,
I agree totally.
By the way, are you suggesting that you don’t believe that cargo is created by spirits across the great oceans and that it’s not gifts meant for the Melanasians?
Not to politicize your blog, but it’s become obvious that with some people facts are an irrelevant after-thought and that believing something makes it so…
tsb
Thomas, that’s a completely open question. I believe students need to hear both points of view. Some people think consumer products are created in factories by workers, using machine tools and raw materials, in processes that conform to ISO 9001 standards. But who are we to say that cargo is not created by the gods and sent in silver chariots to the chosen people on the sacred landing strips they build?
Having multiple points of view is important.
Seems to me, if we believe that the consumer products are sent from the gods, we don’t have to worry about their quality of life…If workers (human) made stuff to be bought, well, heck…We’d have to place value on that.
Having multiple points of view is very important. One of the reasons I’m very envious of my daughter (she’s 4) is that she sees everything from such an innocent angle…I wish I could get back to that!
By the way, thanks for the great tip this morning on clearing out the desktop!!
Are you still having NewsGator Outlook Edition 2.5 issues? I’m getting entries from months ago on mine…
tsb
Here’s the direct quote: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, Bush said. Youre asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.
Certainly much different than “…combine science classes with folklore and mythology instead of having them in separate buildings.” Don’t you think?
How convenient to leave out the first part of that quote, Matt: “Both sides ought to be properly taught … so people can understand what the debate is about.”
The implication being that this “science” stuff is just one side, and that Creationism (let’s call it by its true name) should be on an equal footing with science. It’s a rejection of about 500 years of human endeavor.
As long as we’re teaching “both sides,” why not allow the Flat Earth Society into the debate. And phrenologists. And spoon-benders.
There are controversies in science, but putting the known facts about evolution on an equal par with the creation legend is, to put it bluntly, bullshit.
Matt,
Bush’s quote seems innocuous enough. However, Ed’s point really (if sarcastically) was about the difference between evolution/orgin of species (the two are not the same, if they are often equated) and creationism. Evolution and the Darwinian origin of life are based on the application of the scientific method. Intelligent design attempts to explain the same evidence with theology: that is NOT science. Perhaps that should both be taught. They should not, however, be taught as science; only one is.
Truth be told I just did a copy/paste of that quote from the MSNBC article linked in Ed’s post. I should have found his entire response, shame on me.
Anyways, personally I live in Kansas, the state that every time a school district has to buy new sciences text books, the Bible thumpers come out of the woodwork to inflict Judaeo/Cristian creationist views on others.
The point I was coming from was from the MSNBC article, and the quote they had they seemed to have a very different bent than the one Ed portrayed… At least to me…
Unfortunately, our media, in their zeal to be balanced even when the issues don’t deserve it, present everything as if it were a debate. Let’s get a quote from the “other side”! I notice that the MSNBC story included two quotes from far-right religious political groups and one from Democratic Congressman Barney Frank. Hmmm. Who’s missing? Oh yes. Scientists!
Nicely said, Carl.
Intelligent design theory is not science because it is not falsifiable and testable. It is literally theology masquerading as science. It doesn’t belong in a science class.
Bush is yet another fool who believes what he is told to believe “Saddam had nukes!” for example and god-believers fall into that same mental comfort zone. Tell me what to think, and I will think it. Tell me what to believe and I will believe that. Tell me what to say and I will parrot it. Remember, no one ever asks Bush what books he has ever read. The man almost flunked out of Yale, and went AWOL from the 1970s National Guard! My 13-year old nephew could graduate from Yale, folks. But the kid’s not stupid enough to believe that creationism bull hockey.
First, neither scientists nor religious zealots are not the arbiters of truth.
Second, the last time I checked, evolution is still a theory. Even Hawking has had to change his black-hole theory. Some theories are stronger than others. However, in every theory there is room for doubt.
Third, reasonable people can cogently discuss both points of view since both have elements of truth (depending on how one defines “the truth”).
Last, the voters of this country get the politicians they deserve. Many people complain but when you ask them what they did to try and change the outcome…silence.
Science and theology are not mutually exclusive folks. Take a look at Pascal’s Wager.
Actually, Pete, in the Western world scientists have been the arbiters of “truth” about observable facts in our physical world since the Enlightenment. Other cultures, east and west, believe the same. It was, after all, Arabic cultures that developed most of the basics of mathematics. In virtually all cultures, religious teachers are the arbiters of morals and philosophy. I don’t know of any advanced culture that conflates religious myth and science.
As for “evolution is just a theory,” that’s nonsense. Evolution consists of both facts and theories. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the broad outlines of evolution as a fact. Various mechanisms of evolution are still being debated, and there are various theories about those mechanisms that are being tested using accepted principles of scientific observation. But that’s a far cry from saying “evolution is just a theory.”
In fact, the “just a theory” argument is one that religious zealots use as a code word for discrediting all scientific observation. Anyone who falls for it either neeeds to go back to school and learn about the scientific method or acknowledge that they’re using an intellectually dishonest argument.
You’ll find some good reading here.
Ed,
Excellent link. I knew it was satire but would not have been surprised if Bush actually said that. He is quite capable.(I guess Adios was surprised that it was not.)
I am honestly surprised that this country has made this much progress while a good majority of people are essentially ignorant about the basics of life. I cannot believe the religious aspects being imposed on its people is considered a good thing. One would have thought history and even current events should have taught them otherwise. I think a good history curriculum would be more beneficial.
On other note, I enjoy your blog, including the non-technical portion of it.
Ed: “Evolution consists of both facts and theories. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts the broad outlines of evolution as a fact.”
I guess you didn’t make your point with me. I would say that evolution is a theory that is based on facts and observations, but that evolution itself is still a theory, as it cannot be proven. As to what the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts, well, history has proven that to be subject to radical change over the years, so that is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
I think evolution is a theory that makes a lot of sense, although there are a lot of questionable tenets to it. By questionable, I mean things science either has not or cannot prove, but are postulated based on things that are known and can be proven. This is, in fact, good use of the scientific method, but all too often these proofs assume evolution as a basis of fact, rather than actually questioning and attempting to prove some of its core postulates.
In the absence of better theories and proof of anything contrary, it is logical that evolution is studied and taught. The fault I find is that too much of it is taught as (pardon the pun here) “gospel” truth and the basis for all other science, when in fact it is the other science that is the basis for the theory.
Quite frankly, intelligent design (leave religion out of it; blame it on little green men or whatever) is not such a bad theory, either. There is just not much that can be (or, at least, has been) proven along those lines (or necessarily disproven, either), and, as such, is likely to be a rather short discussion in a science class.
As to what is taught in schools, sadly, there is probably already too much taught as fact that is not necessarily so or that is presented in an improper manner, and this is hardly limited to the science classes.
Personally, I am in favor of keeping an open mind to different possibilities. Too much of school these days seems to be directed at closing people’s minds and locking them into only one way of thinking. Obviously, facts are facts, but conclusions and interpretations of those facts should be left somewhat open, because that is what will breed the next generation of true scientists.
I am not necessarily opposed to alternate theories of origin being presented (on the theory that inclusion of all ideas is a better goal than exclusion of any); the danger, as you noted, lies in one group’s being able to control and dominate the presentation.
There is room for good intelligent people to disagree on this one.
Ed: Good points. However, I’m not that interested in the “truth” of evolution theory. What I’m most concerned about in this society is the seemimgly complete lack of critical thinking by the general public.
I saw evidence of the “spoon fed” generation in the college classes I taught. Little if any original thought, a general lack of creativity, and, the most distressing, a complete lack of intellectual curiosity. The Socratic method was painfully lost on these poor folks.
This country still has a great higher education system but I wonder how long it can last with the continual dumbing down of entrance requirements and the general egalitarian nature that many universities/colleges have adopted all of which has lead to even the so-called top tiered schools compromising their integrity.
Anyway, I know that there are at least some participants of this information age who have something to offer…like this blog.
Thanks for the space. Keep up the good work. And keep giving us sparks of curiosity.
God Bless,
Pete
The problem is that “Intelligent Design” demands belief in the untestable. At that point it becomes faith, not science. Science overtly rejects belief without direct or indirect evidence, falsifiability (in the 1930s, Karl Popper advanced empirical falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing scientific theory from non-science). Teaching students, at taxpayer expense, to see them as comparable leads straight off the path of scientific rigor. Some of the best scientists may cherish a religious faith, but they don’t mistake one for the other.
[Zaine R., above]: “The problem is that “Intelligent Design” demands belief in the untestable. At that point it becomes faith, not science.”
I guess I view the ultimate summation of evolution as a conclusion based on certain facts and observations. The facts and observations themselves are testable, but the conclusion itself is not.
As such, evolution, to me, also requires a step of faith.
Peter, you could say the same about gravity. Or the speed of light. Both are conclusions that are are fully consisted with the results of tests and observation.
Ed:
The problem here is, if you look at the ultimate conclusion of the theory of evolution, it is not yet fully consistent with the results of tests and observations. There are a lot of open questions and lots of missing proof/evidence. Those questions may be answered someday and that proof may be found, but for now, it requires (for me, at least) a great deal of faith to accept it as the final answer.
What I find interesting is that no matter what one’s view of origins, they always seem to find that the evidence supports their initial view. If someone believes 100% in evolution, everything they see/read/find/study seems to support it. If someone believes 100% in “intelligent design”, what they see/read/find/study seems to support it. Unfortunately, both sides are starting with an assumption.
I’m not sure I’ve heard a theory of origin that I could grab hold of and claim 100%. Fortunately, it doesn’t really affect my daily life a whole lot. 🙂
Actually, I’m not sure I agree with you on gravity and the speed of light requiring faith. Both are measurable. Evolution (the ultimate conclusion) is not, as surely as “intelligent design” is not.
What makes anyone think it was intellegent design anyway. Not-So-Intellegent design seems a more likely possibility to me, given the number of defective units I’ve seen. Also, what makes anyone think that if the Theory of Evolution is wrong or incomplete that their fantasy of choice is any more likely to be true?