Noam Chomsky
Khaleej Times, October 6, 2005
President George W. Bush favours teaching both evolution and "Intelligent Design" in schools, "so people can know what the debate is about." To proponents, Intelligent Design is the notion that the universe is too complex to have developed without a nudge from a higher power than evolution or natural selection.
To detractors, Intelligent Design is creationism — the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis — in a thin guise, or simply vacuous, about as interesting as "I don’t understand," as has always been true in the sciences before understanding is reached. Accordingly, there cannot be a "debate."

The teaching of evolution has long been difficult in the United States. Now a national movement has emerged to promote the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools.

The issue has famously surfaced in a courtroom in Dover, Pa., where a school board is requiring students to hear a statement about Intelligent Design in a biology class — and parents mindful of the Constitution’s church/state separation have sued the board.

In the interest of fairness, perhaps the president’s speechwriters should take him seriously when they have him say that schools should be open-minded and teach all points of view. So far, however, the curriculum has not encompassed one obvious point of view: Malignant Design.

Unlike Intelligent Design, for which the evidence is zero, malignant design has tons of empirical evidence, much more than Darwinian evolution, by some criteria: the world’s cruelty. Be that as it may, the background of the current evolution/intelligent design controversy is the widespread rejection of science, a phenomenon with deep roots in American history that has been cynically exploited for narrow political gain during the last quarter-century. Intelligent Design raises the question whether it is intelligent to disregard scientific evidence about matters of supreme importance to the nation and world — like global warming.

An old-fashioned conservative would believe in the value of Enlightenment ideals — rationality, critical analysis, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry — and would try to adapt them to a modern society. The Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment, championed those ideals and took pains to create a Constitution that espoused religious freedom yet separated church and state. The United States, despite the occasional messianism of its leaders, isn’t a theocracy.

In our time, the Bush administration’s hostility to scientific inquiry puts the world at risk. Environmental catastrophe, whether you think the world has been developing only since Genesis or for eons, is far too serious to ignore. In preparation for the G8 summit this past summer, the scientific academies of all G8 nations (including the US National Academy of Sciences), joined by those of China, India and Brazil, called on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off global warming.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify prompt action," their statement said. "It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

In its lead editorial, The Financial Times endorsed this "clarion call," while observing: "There is, however, one holdout, and unfortunately it is to be found in the White House where George W. Bush insists we still do not know enough about this literally world-changing phenomenon."

Dismissal of scientific evidence on matters of survival, in keeping with Bush’s scientific judgment, is routine. A few months earlier, at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, leading US climate researchers released "the most compelling evidence yet" that human activities are responsible for global warming, according to The Financial Times. They predicted major climatic effects, including severe reductions in water supplies in regions that rely on rivers fed by melting snow and glaciers.

Other prominent researchers at the same session reported evidence that the melting of Arctic and Greenland ice sheets is causing changes in the sea’s salinity balance that threaten "to shut down the Ocean Conveyor Belt, which transfers heat from the tropics toward the polar regions through currents such as the Gulf Stream." Such changes might bring significant temperature reduction to northern Europe.

Like the statement of the National Academies for the G8 summit, the release of "the most compelling evidence yet" received scant notice in the United States, despite the attention given in the same days to the implementation of the Kyoto protocols, with the most important government refusing to take part.

It is important to stress "government." The standard report that the United States stands almost alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols is correct only if the phrase "United States" excludes its population, which strongly favours the Kyoto pact (73 per cent, according to a July poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes).

Perhaps only the word "malignant" could describe a failure to acknowledge, much less address, the all-too-scientific issue of climate change. Thus the "moral clarity" of the Bush administration extends to its cavalier attitude toward the fate of our grandchildren.


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20051006.htm

I agree with Bush. The man is an intellectual of the highest proportions, so if W says it, we should believe it. He talks to God man... He freakin talks to God! How can you argue with that? I mean, there hasn't been a major political figure since Rasputin who claimed to have two-way conversations with the Almighty. And really.. Has the Iraq thing really been so bad?

I mean, a lotta people are makin some major moolah on this deal.

Anyway... Back to the topic at hand. I do agree with I.D. In fact, I say we take it a step farther. I mean, really... Who SAYS the earth is really round? Is it? Or is that just another liberal communist pinko hack theory like that whole 'gravity' thing?

God created all. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!!

Its not where we've been its where were going. 'Aint no power in no gospel when the preacher snortin powder in his nostrils'-dead prez

"President George W. Bush favours teaching both evolution and "Intelligent Design" in schools, "so people can know what the debate is about." To proponents, Intelligent Design is the notion that the universe is too complex to have developed without a nudge from a higher power than evolution or natural selection."

That sums it all up. Why can't both be taught? Don't believe dissenting opinion has a right to be taught?

smells like a manipulative way to get the bible in school. Here I got a better idea. If you want teach creationism in schools have a one page explainging that "some" believe that some intelligent 'OTHER' designed and created humans just as we appear today. Then on another page list all the myths by name and date that adhere to the theory of creationinsm.

That keeps any specific religion out of the school while offering the many different religious myths that seem to quantify creationism as a science.

thast a great idea! n i agree with u on that!

Intelligent Design is becoming more widely accepted by the day. That is, without the name "Intelligent Design". Many scientists believe that Earth never had the conditions that they believe would have allowed the creation of life. Some scientists believe that life started on Mars and came here on accident, others believe that life was created by aliens (ID) or God (ID). Richard Dawkins admitted in an interview that life might have been designed by aliens. Intelligent Design proponents have been very careful to never say who or what the designer is. Some see agenda, but I believe that maybe they are trying to be as scientifically accurate as possible. If the evidence points to a designer, it's likely that the evidence doesn't describe the designer. So the designer could be the God of Abraham, a patheistic god, an alien race, etc.

What about those who believe that life was designed by aliens? Wouldn't it be better to offer evidence for ID rather than list "myths" of who / what was the designer? Science books should have scientific evidence and logical conclusions, not lists of religions presented as "myths" so as to indoctrinate all students into believing that their relgion is a "myth" because their science text book says so.

Christianity has accepted that the earth is round since it's foundation. Some of the first people to be excommunicated from Christianity were excommunicated for claiming that the earth was flat. The round shape of the earth has been accepted by most educated people for close to 3000 years. The claim that Christians believed in a flat earth was created by an atheist who wanted to make Christians look stupid. Historians have since proved that most ocean-going / educated people believed in a round earth before Jesus was born.

Ahmmmmmmmmm Ronald Reagan!

Lindyy

Science and mankind have yet to prove that God does not exist.
Think about that one.

Lindyy

The Bible used to be in the schools. In my school district, the homeroom teacher pulled out the Bible, read scripture, said the Lord's prayer, said the Plege of Alliegence (with In God We Trust in it). Then the Bible was taken out and now look at the mess the school system is in and how the kids are turning out.


Lindyy

Intelligent design is not science. it's people looking at nature not understanding the science behind it and jumping to the conclusion that an intelligent being must have a hand in it.

People used to believe the Sun was a god, even the king of gods. When you look at the the nature you might think God is the sun. The sun warm the earth, warms the the oceans and air and creates the global climate patterns, the solar energy made by the sun is used by plants to not only convert carbon dioxide to oxygen but grow food that we eat. By these fact you would conclude the sun is God. Heck why don't we worship the sun by this reasoning.

This is of course a misterperation of the facts. Luckly today most people would say that the sun is giant nuclear fire ball of gases.

If you were to teach intelligent design you allow the misterpertation of the facts, allow ignorance to halt the progression of science in favor of religious theology.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Lindyy

GW can't even pronounce "new clee er" what do you expect?

intelligent design has no place in biology class...
philosophy perhaps, religion certainly, modern comedy sure why not?

Why stop at the bible? You could teach the torah which is Bible 1.0, the New Testament which is the Bible 2.0 and the Koran which the Bible 3.0, and then there's the Book of Morrmons which is the bible 2.1, the book of "Scientology" which say that people are decendants of aliens. The fact of the matter is there are many versions of creationism.

Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause. Science doesn't support a divine intelligence and unlike religion, science has to at least try to prove its theories. It isn't based on hysteria. Religion has caused more war and despair in the world than any other force of nature. There is NO reasoning with religious believers. How can you argue with, IT Just Is? Just because you believe it, it doesn't make it so.

Science should be taught in school not trying to sneak God in thru a pseudonym.If you want to study creationism go to pariochaial school or Will smith's scientology school.