Bush Endorses ID

According to several sources, including this Seattle Times article, president Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design Creationism:

WASHINGTON — President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and “intelligent design” yesterday, saying schools should teach both on the origins and complexity of life.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with evolution in the nation’s schools.

The article goes on to present the two viewpoints in a couple of paragraphs:

Proponents of intelligent design suggest that the complexity of life forms cannot be explained by evolutionary theory alone but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine.

The theory of evolution, first articulated by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859, is based on the idea that living organisms developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature that favored certain traits that helped species survive.

Not a bad summary, for being so short. Notice, in particular, that ID boils down to “somewhere, somehow, there’s something wrong with evolution.” It’s not a scientific theory that can stand on its own. Embracing ID is a lot like voting for the challenger merely because you don’t like the incumbent.

I’m not particularly surprised that Bush is this ignorant of science. But when the article says,

Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with evolution in the nation’s schools.

that raises the question of what, exactly, schools should teach. ID proponents have yet to come up with an actual lesson plan, syllabus, or anything that can be taught. The Discovery Institute‘s official position is “teach the controversy“. Their site has lots of articles advocating teaching the “controversy”, but precious little, if anything, that explains precisely what the controversy is, or what evidence there is to support ID.

Thanks to PZ Meiarhz at Pharyngula for the heads-up. William Dembski also has this story, without comment.

Also, Betty the Crow comments on this with more snark than I can muster this morning.

Update, Aug. 9, 2005: NCSE has a good article on why Intelligent Design is not scientific and is not accepted by a majority of scientists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>