|
BUSH ON "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"
Glenn Branch, NCSE
During a press conference with a group of Texas reporters on
August 1, 2005, President George W. Bush responded to a
question about teaching "intelligent design" in the public
schools. The reporter referred to "what seems to be a
growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design" and
asked, "What are your personal views on that, and do you
think both should be taught in public schools?" In
response, Bush referred to his days as governor of Texas,
when "I said that, first of all, that decision should be
made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides
ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand
what the debate is about." (It is noteworthy that Bush
tacitly equated "intelligent design" and creationism.)
Pressing the issue, the reporter asked, "So the answer
accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative
to evolution?" Bush avoided a direct answer, construing the
question instead as a fairness issue: "you're asking
me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different
ideas, and the answer is yes."
Although there was nothing unexpected about Bush's response,
which is consistent with his previous statements on the
topic, the present heightened awareness of issues involving
evolution education ensured a
media frenzy. NCSE was widely consulted for comment. The
New York Times quoted NCSE's Susan Spath on the specious
appeal to fairness: "It sounds like you're being fair, but
creationism is a sectarian religious viewpoint, and
intelligent design is a sectarian religious viewpoint," she
said. "It's not fair to privilege one religious viewpoint
by calling it the other side of evolution." NCSE's Glenn
Branch concurred, telling the Los Angeles Times that because
"....the question was presented to him as a fairness issue,"
it was not surprising that Bush expressed the view that
"both sides ought to be taught." Branch also told the
Financial Times that "Bush would have done better to heed
his White House science adviser, John
Marburger, who had said that evolution was the 'cornerstone
of modern biology' and who has characterized ID as not even
being a scientific theory."
When interviewed by The New York Times, Marburger reiterated
that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and
that "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."
According to the Times, Marburger -- who is Science Adviser
to the President and Director of the White House's Office of
Science and Technology Policy -- suggested that it would be
"over-interpreting" Bush's remarks to endorse equal
treatment for "intelligent design" and evolution in the
public schools. Instead, he said, Bush's remarks should be
interpreted as recommending the discussion of "intelligent
design" as part of the "social context" in science
classes. Marburger's charitable interpretation was not
shared, however, by Richard Land, the president of the
ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern
Baptist Convention, whom the Times quoted as
construing Bush's remarks as supportive of the view he
favors: "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as
evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another
theory that has the most support among scientists" --
presumably alluding to "intelligent design."
The scientific and educational communities are already
rushing to deplore Bush's remarks. The American Geophysical
Union issued a press release in which its executive director
Fred Spilhaus stated, "President Bush, in advocating that
the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the
theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at
risk." The American Physical Society accepted Marburger's
interpretation of Bush's remarks, but emphasized that "only
scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should
be taught in the nation's science classes." The American
Institute of Biological Sciences issued a press release (not
yet on-line) in which its president Marvalee Wake stated,
"Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not
be taught in science classes." The National Science
Teachers Association, the world's largest group of science
educators, was "stunned and disappointed that President Bush
is endorsing the teaching of
intelligent design -- effectively opening the door for
nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12
science classrooms." The American Federation of Teachers,
with over 1.3 million members, described Bush's remarks as
"a huge step backward for science education in the United
States," adding that "by backing concepts that lack
scientific merit, President Bush is undermining his own
pledge to 'leave no child behind.'"
On editorial and op-ed pages, Bush's remarks are also taking
a hammering. The Washington Post's editorialist wrote,
"To pretend that the existence of evolution is somehow still
an open question, or that it is one of several equally valid
theories, is to misunderstand the intellectual and
scientific history of the past century." Referring to
"intelligent design," the Baltimore Sun's editorialist
wrote, "It's creationism by another name, and if it makes
its way into schools at all, it should definitely not be
part of science classes." In its editorial, the Sacramento
Bee connected the dots between Bush's remarks and the Wedge
strategy for promoting "intelligent design," commenting,
"America's children deserve a first-rate education in
science in public school and not a false, politically
motivated 'Teach the Controversy' debate between science and
religion." And in his column in The New York Times, the
economist Paul Krugman perceptively remarked, "intelligent
design doesn't have to attract significant support from
actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is
create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a
controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory."
To read the transcript of the press conference on the
Washington Post's website, visit:
To read the coverage in The New York Times, the Los Angeles
Times, the Washington Post, and the Financial Times, visit:
To read the statements from AGU, APS, NSTA, and AFT, visit:
To read the editorials and op-ed columns mentioned, visit:
|