Damn He Dumb!

[GodsAreUs]

Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught
-
Tuesday, August 2, 2005


(08-02) 04:05 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --


President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.


During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.


"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."


The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.


Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.


On other topics during the group interview, the president:


_Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a CIA officer's identity, but he stood behind Rove. "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said.


_Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.


_Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.


Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.


URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/01/national/w200833D87.DTL

[solidsquid]

He is the last person who can speak with authority about biological scientific theories, let alone science in general...he's a complete idiot.

[landlady]

exactly.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

I agree that bush is a complete and total moron. The hole point of school is to give children a solid point with which to view the world through facts, science, literature, and art. If you put an idea like intelligent design into a school it will create a contradiction.

[Filter]

In the recent issue of Time. Apologies for the lazy cut and paste; I just loved the way this guy articulates the point. His reply to "Can You Believe in God and Evolution?":

STEVEN PINKER
Psychology professor, Harvard University

It's natural to think that living things must be the handiwork of a designer. But it was also natural to think that the sun went around the earth. Overcoming naive impressions to figure out how things really work is one of humanity's highest callings.

Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.

The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows.

The theory of natural selection explains life as we find it, with all its quirks and tragedies. We can prove mathematically that it is capable of producing adaptive life forms and track it in computer simulations, lab experiments and real ecosystems. It doesn't pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a complex designer).

Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.

[vertigo]

How do you respond to the common criticisms? For instance, with monte-carlo simulations and such one needs to backtrack or 'reseed' when the pool gets filled with one inferior strain. How does evolution facilitate this?

Another one, half an eye would hardly be useful to an organism. How did an eye come about?

[solidsquid]

You're kidding right?

[Filter]

vertigo said:

...half an eye would hardly be useful to an organism. How did an eye come about?

Which half?

Actually, a less than perfect eye would be of great advantage in a world full of less sophistated blind delicious creatures.

[GodsAreUs]

Depth perception means little when dealing with one who has little depth.

And I mean 'W,' not anyone who may post here. The 'locals,' if you will, at least have the depth to question what they hear.

[vertigo]

You're kidding right?

Sadly, I'm not. Science has never really interested me. If I was more interested I would read up on quantum mechanics, etc, but I have never felt the urge. What is interesting to note is that as much as I have seen people posit evolution, they go as far as to say "evolution is fact". It's about as useful as saying "My dad is bigger than yours."

So I am more interested to see if the people who say "evolution is fact" actually know what they are talking about, or whether they are merely following the trend. Call it a behavioural study if you like. Human behaviour has always interested me more than physical science/biology/history.

Perhaps I will be proved wrong and I will come across somebody who backs it up with an explanation that convinces me. It won't take much.

Edit: SolidSquid, you don't count. I know you know, but you don't go around using it like a buzzword.

[vertigo]

Let me say more, before people get worried. I am a strong atheist, and a determinist/fatalist, but I don't think this is compatible with quantum mechanics. If I cared enough, I would research QM and gain a better understanding of the world, but as it stands, I do well enough.

When I hear things like the cosmological constant can be explained because there are a gazillion universes, it's enough to put me off. I will stick to my simple model for now.

I don't understand the workings of evolution, but that is only because I have chosen not to read up on it. This is not to say I believe God was the creator.

Typically what interests me is human behaviour/nature. It probably sounds like I am a die-hard cynic. That is not true. I hold hope for people, but having been let down time and time again I now wait to see for myself.

I am a pragmatist, in that nitpicky details miss the point. The closest philosophical view I hold is that of Camus, although in a more pragmatic way (on second thought, perhaps not that close, kind of like a Camus-Rand mix).

Oh yeah, you may have noticed, I haven't studied philosophy, it is far too nitpicky.

[solidsquid]

vertigo said:

You're kidding right?

So I am more interested to see if the people who say "evolution is fact" actually know what they are talking about, or whether they are merely following the trend. Call it a behavioural study if you like. Human behaviour has always interested me more than physical science/biology/history.

Perhaps I will be proved wrong and I will come across somebody who backs it up with an explanation that convinces me. It won't take much.

Edit: SolidSquid, you don't count. I know you know, but you don't go around using it like a buzzword.

Okie dokie, I'll let everyone else take a shot then.

I noticed you're interested in human behavior, would that be more general psych or social psych? I, myself, am a biopsych major and eventually hope to get my doctorate in behavioral neuroscience.

[vertigo]

I noticed you're interested in human behavior, would that be more general psych or social psych? I, myself, am a biopsych major and eventually hope to get my doctorate in behavioral neuroscience.

If biology was something I enjoyed, I imagine I would do that too. When I was studying, I felt I was not in touch with the world socially. I didn't understand people, what they do, etc. I got a book from the library, hoping it would provide some answers.

At the start it was good but then it progressed to a type of pet theory of the author. Unfortunately, that's what all philosophers sound like. I wanted to understand. Knowing that a book said XYZ was not good enough for me. I needed to see it for myself.

So I decided that reading books was not ideal. The authors are human too, and people say things in books they wouldn't say to your face. A book is a very biased forum. I decided to migrate to unbiased forums: web forums and IRC.

I decided existentialists were the ones to watch (existence before consciousness). I searched on about.com for forums and came up with SOLOHQ.COM, a forum about objectivism.

To cut a long story short, in the nearly four years since I did that I have gained much understanding. It has been quite enjoyable. I also picked up some philosophical clarity along the way.

So concerning evolution, I am more interested in how people who support it behave, especially when confronted, than in evolution itself. I want to know why people do what they do, not because neurons fired but because they felt lonely, or they were annoyed, etc. I want to be able to read people.

I want to understand the human condition.

[solidsquid]

Ahh, I see. I recommend possibly trying some texts maybe. At least with the texts you can review the literature they've utilized, find the literature and investigate for yourself. If you're really interested in doing active research, I'd recommend getting a research methodology book to construct and design your own research. Maybe post some surveys on messageboards and such; set up your IV and DV's and your hypotheses; form a data set and figure out what statistical methods you might want to utilize in order to analyze the data; and so forth.

Or take a look at the latest research done by others in some journals such as:

www.apa.org/journals/psp/

www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/1823

www.socialpsychology.org/journals.htm

www.psychology.org/links/Publications/Behavior_Analysis/

Maybe these links can provide some avenues for inquiry for you.

[vertigo]

Thank you, it sounds exciting...

One more thing, this piece above was not a plug for SOLOHQ.com. I just mentioned it because it was a defining moment of sorts.