Third Party & Independents: Archives

REPORTER:Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

I guess it depends how you define “properly taught.” If you understand that to mean that both should be discussed in their proper scientific context (Evolution is supportable with scientific evidence, ID isn’t), then there’s no problem. If, instead, he meant that both should be taught as equally viable explanations on the origins of man, then he’s throwing his weight behind a movement that results in reducing the effectiveness of American public schools.

Based on the context, I think it’s the latter.

I’m glad he’s not supporting a Constitutional Amendment to force ID into schools (which would be required), but I’m disappointed that the President of the United States does not support teaching the best science in science curricula.

Has it ever occured to you that the reason the Media tends to do this is because the Politicians almost never say anything at all? When you listen to them drone for 30 minutes on some subject and realize they are all platitudes, even you would be tempted to fill in the blanks.

Aldous, yes that is part of this. Also most politicians don’t want to give a firm answer, as can be evidenced by the above example.

Even more reason we should make sure it’s not being taken out of context. I see so many debates/arguments that end up being really over statements that are not true or accurate.

Lisa:

Journalists are increasingly going for the “gotcha” comment, while politicians are increasingly saying nothing. As one side does its thing more, that in turn causes the other side to do its thing more. And the wheels on the bus go round and round….

But journalists are supposed to be (ideally) reporters of the news. They are not supposed to create the news, or to give their version of the news. That is what columnists and editorialists are for.

Increasingly though, we see media outlets that are obviously on one side of the aisle or the other. One only has to read a few articles a day to know who is who.

Why do so many Bush supporters consider him a man of conviction?A man who stands by his actions and words does not need to speak so circularly.
I’ve listened to the President answer question posed by reporters, that were most likely hand picked and rarely do you get a clear, concise answer.

Very good post Lisa,
Fortunately blogs like this one have become increasingly popular to help people like myself hear sides of issues (or issues in general)I wouldn’t be exposed to and information as to how to research them.

Lisa,

I must admit I disagree. Bush’s comments support the espousal of a religious doctrine in our nation’s public schools. He’s advocating that local school districts should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to violate the First Amendment with impunity - and I think that that’s news.

First, I agree that evolution and ID should be properly taught: the former as part of public education and the latter as part of religious instruction. As I understand the latter theory, it posits that some form of omniscient intelligence created life and has been controlling evolution since the beginning of time.

Interesting theory. Unfortunately it doesn’t contain a shred of scientific proof and in fact contravenes the arbitrary nature of evolution, which has been proven scientifically. Hence, it has no more place in the biology classrooms of our public schools than the equally interesting theory posited in Genesis.

Should other disproven or questionable religious theories be taught in our public classrooms? Perhaps we should teach that the Sun revolves around a flat Earth. Does Pope Urban deserve equal time with Galileo?

I know it sounds broad-minded to say that “kids should decide for themselves”, but it is extremely disingenuous. If our state schools are going to tacitly confer scientific legitimacy on any religious theory of creation and evolution, shouldn’t they do so for every theory? (My favorite is the one about the giant female turtle that laid the Earth, and IMO it merits equal consideration with ID.) After the instruction has been completed, could a local school district compel its teachers to require their students to pray for divine guidence about which theory to believe?

When our state institutions begin to confer factual legitimacy on any religious dogma, our society has taken a strong first step in establishing an official religion.

I have no problem teaching ID in our public schools - as long as it’s taught properly: as theology, not biology.

Chuck, I do not see President Bush’s comments as anything new, since it is the way he felt as Governor of Texas. I used this as an example because it is not anything new, but old material recycled to appear something new and newsworthy.

He doesn’t state he wants both taught side by side, just that he feels both should be taught. The assumption of how he wants them taught is being made by others.

I do believe local school boards with the input of parents should be the ones to decide what is the proper format of such issues, in accordance with whatever State requirements for curriculum are in place and of course whatever legal requirements have to be met.

As far as my own personal opinion on this, one of the first questions that comes up when teaching Evolution is “What about God”? So I do agree there should be some debate on how to handle what is scientific (appropriate for public schools) and what is faith based (questionable for public schools). A teacher merely responding “We can’t talk about God this is science” may be enough for some but it’s not a real solution. Offering Intelligent Design or a series on different Creation Theories as a part of a Social Studies curriculum would be one alternative. Then during the evolution discussion the response would be “You did discuss that in (insert class title)”.

However, the President didn’t even suggest any of that. To me, all he basically stated was when I was Governor this is how I felt and I think people should learn both sides of issues and that should be up to local school districts to decide.

REPORTER:Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

I don’t see anywhere in the report that the President says that it should be taught as a science. From the comment that I pasted here he talks about teaching what the debate is about. A political or religious debate class and maybe even some civic history classes would be appropriate for that kind of topic. We were all taught that the world isn’t flat but, we were also taught that people believed that it was and why they did. This topic is at the beggining of that kind of debate, neither has been totally proven or disproven. Teaching a topic as it happens seems to be a good idea in my book, not just waiting until it gets into our history books.

I don’t mean to derail the topic as this is about intelligent spin in the media; but while I agree that teaching evolution belongs in a science class and creationism in a theology class, it’s wrong to have one without the other considering how widely adopted both ideas are. If they were teaching creationism as fact in school then atheist parents would be forced to make their children dismiss those teachings, undermining the teachers as a whole and vice versa for evolution.

I think it’s a nonpoint to mention the multitudes of radical religious theories on our origins when considering that for most of our lifetimes, whether one is true or not, the fact is, that the two major arguments are evolution vs creationism (christian or not).

And lets not forget the scientific argument that evolution is “fact” based on theory - which would make it only as solid as creationism. Another little detail not mentioned in school.

Maybe a 1000 years from now when new theories appear, evolution, creationism and intelligent design will be taught in the same way the flat earth theory is taught in history classes today. Maybe the only objective way to teach anything based on these topics is to teach it with that consideration in mind.

—While we unrealistically expect the media to present objective, fact based stories, as long as the news corporations are owned by political ideologists and the newsrooms staffed with sublime activists, it will never happen. The responsibility to obtain the real story will rely on the individuals who thirst for it. Recognizing spin when you hear it is the counter-art.

that the two major arguments are evolution vs creationism (christian or not).

One is scientific and one isn’t, so only one should be taught in science class, no matter how many non-scientists believe one or the other.

And lets not forget the scientific argument that evolution is “fact” based on theory - which would make it only as solid as creationism. Another little detail not mentioned in school.

The fact that you bring this up simply shows that you don’t know what the word “theory” means in science as opposed to common usage. Check out the “Love, Not Intelligent Design” thread for further discussion on this.

Brando, very valid points, especially about it being our responsibility. Hopefully those of us that seem to have more of a thirst for it can inspire/encourage others to feel the same.

Part of the reason the media gets away with this is because few of us make it an issue. If we demanded more factual context rather than the creative spin they would have to produce or face the loss of readership/viewers.

We also have to be fair in our application of this, I realized the other day I had almost achieved that level of fairness when I searched out then corrected a comment attributed to Senator Santorum. As I thought to myself, now this is a new one to actually defend him on an issue, I believe even the Santorum’s of the world deserve to be quoted in context.

Lawnboy,

When I say “theory” I mean something that’s not yet proven. Common or Scientific. What I was referring to was that some in the scientific community say that many of the facts that support evolution are based on ideas that were never proven. Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know, I’m just saying it’s as valuable for this to be taught as it undermines evolution, in the same way that evolution (typically) undermines creationism: If educators are going to paint the picture,they should paint the whole thing to give students the benefit of choosing - in the same way that reporters should do the same with our news.

Lisa,

Perhaps you’re right. In rereading Bush’s quote, I presumed that when he used the word “debate”, he meant the scientific debate between the validity of evolution and ID, not the theological debate between the validitiy of monotheism and atheism. In fact, I still think I’m right, but I admit that one has to infer this conclusion from Bush’s comments due to typically sloppy questioning on the part of the the reporter.

In other words, if the reporter had asked Bush if he believed that both should be taught in biology class, I think that Bush would have given the exact same answer:

THE PRESIDENT: I think … that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
REPORTER:Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

Somehow, I don’t think that Bush meant that evolution should be taught as scientific fact and that ID should be taught as superstitious bunk, but his apologists could certainly read his comments that way. I think that his meaning was clear enough, certainly to those fundamentalists and evangelicals (dare we call them “religious extremists”?) who are trying to control the American social agenda and establish a state religion unconstitutionally.

Conversely , I certainly don’t believe that education needs to conform to some sort of secular credo in order to retain its cultural validity, but there’s a big difference between teaching the history in Nazism in social studies classes and innate genetic superiority of the Aryan “race” in biology classes. In my view, the latter is dangerous bulls**t, just like ID, and it doesn’t belong anywhere near a legitimate scientific “debate” within a public institution.

Brando,

It doesn’t undermine Evolution if you know what Theory means:

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

Saying that this undermines Evolution is equivalent to saying that the Atom, Gravity, Plate Tectonics, Electricity, etc are undermined because they are Theories. All are theories, but none should be respected any less for that.

Yes, students should know that there are still unsolved questions within Evolution, but they should be given an unscientific hypothesis as a way to cover those gaps.

And please, let’s move this to the other thread, because debating Evolution itself was not Lisa’s point.

Lisa said: “I used this as an example because it is not anything new, but old material recycled to appear something new and newsworthy.”

It is new! He is President of the Nation, now, not governor of one state. He now speaks for 294 million people. That makes it new. He swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. and the Constitution states the government shall not establish a religion. ID in public schools is the establishment of religion, and the President is sanctioning this violation of the Constitution.

That is new, because the circumstances have changed!

Lawnboy - agreed. So then, what are some ways we can force media outlets to quit with the spin? How many people even realize they are being duped to begin with? And how do we instill a passion for the truth in these people?

I remember hearing about how big a failure the attempts in this past election were at getting the youth to come out and vote (to defeat bush). Knowing this, is it possible that even if we could prove to these groups that they are continually being twisted into believing something a certain way, that they won’t care anyways?

NOUN:
pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Still doesn’t make it a fact.

Kevin,

You’re right. Evolution is not considered proven due to its status as a Theory.

It’s considered a Theory because evidence and logic have established that is it solid enough to have earned the label “Theory.”

Nothing as complex as the Theory of Evolution could ever be considered a fact because a fact refers to a specific validated piece of data.

So, Evolution isn’t a fact. It’s merely been established as true beyond a doubt given known evidence.

Is that acceptable, or do you want to play more semantic games?

And let’s move this to the Love, Not Intelligent Design thread, please, so that we might be able to talk about Lisa’s original point.

David, yes the interview was new, however trying to package a statement made that he clearly related back to his position as Governor (which I’d say as informed as most of us are here we already knew) to me wasn’t new news.

It was grabbed by those who are both for and against this issue and misquoted to make it appear even more “newsy”.

That is where I was coming from as to the it is not new comment.

Now if he would have stated “I believe Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught together and I as President of the United States will work to make that a reality”?

Then it would be worth the huge amount of discussion this one little blurb as part of a larger press conference has evoked.

I’m sorry but I have seen an extraordinary amount of mountain out of molehill stories in the media as of late.

Yes, lets please move the unrelated debate to another forum (I’m sorry for mentioning it…I should know better by now!)

—Can we name some reputable news sources (tv, radio, web) that are reliable for unbiased, objective news?

And where do the existing news monsters stand? I get so sick of hearing from dems about how Fox news is responsible for all of their problems-whenever my liberal friends go into their anti-fox rhetoric I tell..hey, maybe the right has Fox in their pocket, big deal- the left has everyone else!!

Can we name some reputable news sources (tv, radio, web) that are reliable for unbiased, objective news?

It’s not exactly unbiased, but I like news.google.com. It collects news stories by an automated process, so no editorial bias comes through that I’ve detected.

Another interesting option is the International Herald Tribune (iht.com). It’s sold around the world, so the target audience is everyone. I think that makes it more difficult to have a regional bias. Also, you find out more about (for example) local politics in Africa than you ever would from U.S.-based sources. However, it’s owned by the New York Times, so many may discount it immediately.

lisa renee, I can’t help but look at the bigger picture. Put all these together:

Bush’s faith based initiative pushing for fed. tax dollars to support social service religious organizations with government revenues.

In Jan. of 2003 Bush published a proposed rule to let religious organizations build or renovate facilities with federal housing money, as long as the buildings house social services along with religious activities.

Bush’s support for vouchers and private religious schools funded from public tax dollars.

Bush’s continued references to support ID taught in schools.

The big picture is a President violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution by subverting the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. And this is the newsworthy aspect. Bush has said in many venues, that he takes direction from God. The U.S. is a nation of law, and Presidents are elected to take their direction not from God, but, from the Constitution of the U.S. Psychiatric hospitals have plenty of folks who take their direction from God.

This is a big deal and newsworthy for its implications.

David, we have different big pictures, I was using this as one example of how a larger statement is taken out of context to create a discussion that was not warranted by the original full statement.

It’s more distractionary in nature designed to have us paying attention to topics like Intelligent Design and Evolution rather than urgent matters. As you stated, Bush has made frequent comments about ID, so this is just one more which makes it not new.

Now, if the media wanted to do as you did and present past Bush comments concerning ID and Evolution to show a concerning pattern rather than to misquote out of context? I wouldn’t have selected that as an example because it would have been in the proper context.

I fully understand what you are stating, we are just looking at this from a different intial point of perception.

If I had to make this my biggest picture I would say, society cycles in patterns of extremes, this is not the first time it has appeared that those more religious in nature are gaining too much control. It reaches a peak then the extreme heads to the other direction which then causes the same to repeat. Themes or values that prevailed at the beginning of an historical era often give way to their opposite as the era comes to an end. So historically? What is happening right now is expected given the history of man.

lisa renee,

“If I had to make this my biggest picture I would say, society cycles in patterns of extremes, this is not the first time it has appeared that those more religious in nature are gaining too much control”

Why is it though that the cycle stays so briefly in the middle?
I guess that I should be happy that it arrives in the middle twice as often, though it doesn’t seem to stay there as long as at the extremes.
It seems that all we can do is wave at it as it goes by.

Lawnboy,
I wasn’t playing a game sorry that you think so. I’ll get out of the conversation then.

Rocky, I wish I could give you an answer for that, but it seems it’s human nature to react one way then rather than to settle on a middle ground go to far the other way. Maybe it’s because those of us that would love to see the middle ground last longer both extremes seem to not want to pay much attention to.

Kevin, you were vocing your opinion, at times on all forums what the original focus of an article was heads in a different direction.

You made some very valid points and it is appreciated.

Typically, I wouldn’t try to move conversation to another thread (I’m guilty of a lot of tangents myself). However, since there’s currently another live thread on ID vs. Evolution, I thought it would be best to redirect that tangent to that thread and leave room for the original topic to grow.

I apologize if I was too heavy-handed.

I did not take it as you being to heavy handed LawnBoy, my post was not along the same lines as the active one that was dealing with that specific issue. While I’d love for every thread to always stay on topic sometimes that doesn’t happen so I’m pretty laid back about that.

Once in a while the offshoot from the original topic can end up being an even better discussion than what I originally intended.

:-)