intelligent design
On the face of it, the notion of teaching intelligent design as or alongside regular science is ridiculous. Mind you, I fully understand how a totally rational person could believe in this concept as a legitimate description of how life began. However, teaching it at public schools as a system of thought or theory comparable to that of evolution is ludicrous and potentially damaging to students' comprehension of science and the scientific method.
That being said, it is no surprise that President Bush is out on the stump advocating for intelligent design during his working vacation.
Frankly, I can't believe either the President or his policy advisers really believe that this is truly a good idea. Hell, six months ago, his own science adviser John H. Marburger III stated that "intelligent design is not a scientific theory." (Maybe he'll "retire" soon too.)
However, it does serve two purposes: it can be seen as 1) some symbolic red meat for the true believers who voted so overwhelmingly for him on the basis of "social issues" and 2) an attempt to push Karl Rove further down in the list of daily news stories.
Meanwhile, the editors at the National Review actually believe that "Whatever the outcome of the debate over evolution, it should be conducted at the local level." I can't believe that anyone really believes that we should have different standards for what constitutes science based on what state or county one lives, but, what do you expect, it is the National Review.
That being said, it is no surprise that President Bush is out on the stump advocating for intelligent design during his working vacation.
Frankly, I can't believe either the President or his policy advisers really believe that this is truly a good idea. Hell, six months ago, his own science adviser John H. Marburger III stated that "intelligent design is not a scientific theory." (Maybe he'll "retire" soon too.)
However, it does serve two purposes: it can be seen as 1) some symbolic red meat for the true believers who voted so overwhelmingly for him on the basis of "social issues" and 2) an attempt to push Karl Rove further down in the list of daily news stories.
Meanwhile, the editors at the National Review actually believe that "Whatever the outcome of the debate over evolution, it should be conducted at the local level." I can't believe that anyone really believes that we should have different standards for what constitutes science based on what state or county one lives, but, what do you expect, it is the National Review.
posted by ediehl at 12:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home