Bush Science Advisor: "Intelligent Design is Not A Scientific Concept"

As an update to last week's revelation that President Bush thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in science class, his own science advisor has now either clarified or muddied the comments further depending on your point of view.

Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution
NYTimes.com



Okay, first of all kudos to the Bush administration for clarifying the fact that 'intelligent design not being a scientific concept' is both common sense AND old news.

But now we have to teach "social context" in science classes. Who's that supposed to make happy? Not science teachers, and certainly not fundamentalists (without "common sense" and unaware of "old news").

Compromise or cop out? I think we all know.

I'm surprised by a few things here actually, beyond the fact that I continue to be surprised by anything from this administration.

First and foremost, I've scanned the net for the prerequisite outrage from the social conservative base over this stab in the back from the Bush administration undoing nearly a century of disinformation efforts in the field of so called "Creationism Science."

Seven official little words have now ended some very lucrative careers and scuttled the entire position of half this forum's posters: "Intelligent design is NOT a scientific concept."

Perhaps the Evangelical Christians currently waging no less than 18 statewide legal campaigns to force the teaching of Intelligent Design in science courses don't read newspapers or listen to their own former ideological champions anymore.

Perhaps they're just regrouping again, as they did when Creationism first evolved into "Intelligent Design" for their current educational and political bid.

In anticipation then of whatever further ploys are to follow, we should consider the implications of the now suggested "Social Context" to science curriculum's carefully.

On the one hand, the 2001 amendment to No Child Left Behind from Sen. Rick Santorum's (who no longer supports ID) could interpret the "social context" as merely an explanation as to why the Creationism and Intelligent Design concepts held by so many are not valid scientific contexts...

“that good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science. Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and prepare them to be informed participants in public discussions.”

Which is sure to outrage creationist Mommies and Daddies everywhere.

On the other hand, going back to the President's statement prior to scientific clarification and redaction... "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught..."

That's clearly not what's being said at all with this new "social context" clause to science.

The clarification requires clarification and fast. Otherwise, this administration (in addition to presumed 2008 Presidential candidate Rick Santorum) seem to be suggesting that it's the job of science classes to explain why closely held religious beliefs aren't scientifically valid and why science makes Mommy and Daddy so mad.

In my opinion, absolutely no good can come of this required "social context" political correctness in science class. But I'll happily entertain any thoughts to the contrary.

.
The whole ID, creationism debate attempts to package them along with evolution as though they were science.

Like it is being 'Politically Correct' to include ID and/or creationism along side evolution in a science class.

This isn't about political correctness. This is about science.

ID & Creationism ain't science. This isn't about politics. This is about facts. These are theologically based notions that are being trumped up to pander to the undereducated.

This is like including a little feces in your soda.
Excuse me, I prefer my soda and my science pure.
If you want other things to consume that is your choice in a free nation.

10 gallons of wine + 1 gallon of sh*t = 11 gallons of sh*t
10 gallons of sh*t + 1 gallon of wine = 11 gallons of sh*t

Hasn't mankind lived in ignorance long enough?

This is intellectual Cholera.
.

Creationism doesn't belong in Science class period.

Modern science has provided humankind with the best techniques for testing, confirming or disconfirming ideas that has not been discovered.

Science offers, power, predictive ability, technology that bears results and eximent for the "human experience"

Sciences doesn't need "Revelation" " Prayer" or " Meditation" but offers technical trining, human insight, hunches, free and open inquiry.

The use of "Logic" and willingness to learn.

All these are the reasons fundamentalist and Creationist are fighting so hard to gain control of " The Science Curriculum" in schools.

Creationism doesn't offer anything but stagnation and control.

Funny that the "social context" will be very much disected by anit-creationist groups when it comes to take the issue to court.

But the problem is not how to make it into courts, but first it has to pass the school boards and school curriculum.

In order to make it valid it has to start in the local level first, it seems to me that American people are more vulnerable when it comes to small towns and easily influence by the local chuches in what is right or wrong for them.

I can't believe this nut job stole 2 elections. Well, he didn;t, the people he works for did that. But still, this is like teaching the Holocaust didn't happen in History class or the Holocaust Museum was never built in Architec(sp?) class.

It is wrong therefor should not be in school.

The problem is, is that the science and religion are both theories and really both of them deserve the same amount of respect. It's rediculos that for so long people seem to think these are both arch enemies, with science being the education of sin and satan, while religion is opium for the masses.

JTL,
Using your argument, there is a whole lot that is not taught in the classroom in the US. Not just because it did not happen but because it does not cast a good light on those in power.
An example that I can give, When I went through school, even in college, there was absolutely no mention of things like, the Japanese detention camps that we kept Japanese / Americans in just because of their race. Nor was there any information given as to what happened to those poeple while in the camps.
Back on the subject,
I do not think that ID nor Creationism should be taught in a classroom, not due to their religious basis but due to the lack of evidence. What I would advocate though would be that if and when a teacher was to be presented with a question that will come up from a student that the teacher first direct the student to the library, parents, religious leaders. If the question is of a "scientific" nature, then the teacher should respond to the student
teachingthe student why such a question is incorrect and how to properly use scientific methods.

I remember one kid in the 6th grade actually argued with a teacher on the origions of where people came from. This was in a biology class. The student's parents (as well as Saturday Morning cartoons) had taught him that babies came from the stork. Using the same reasoning that has been given so far as to why teachers should not at least respond to questions, this student should still be under the impression that babies come from storks sicne of course the teacher would not have corrected the student.