Bryan, what makes your posts so very close to trolling is that you appear simply not willing to understand the realities of political discourse. Bush does not believe in evolution. Nobody who believes in evolution is supporting “Teach the Controversy”.
You’re misinformed, Doug. Michael Behe and William Dembski both subscribe to evolution. They simply see it as a mechanism requiring intelligence at some point in the game.
If by “evolution” you refer specifically to a mechanism that is explicitly utterly unintelligent then your position is just as religious as ID and you would be a hypocrite to advocate teaching it in public schools if you oppose ID on the same basis.
Indeed, “Teach the Controversy” is a slogan put out by the Discovery Institute which was created specifically to root out the teaching of evolution in schools.
So the evolutionists Dembski and Behe want to eliminate the teaching of something they both believe in? Or are they not true (doctrinaire) evolutionists? Insufficiently orthodox? Is that it?
Yes, obviously “Teach the Controversy” does inter alia involve the teaching of evolution. But that’s because the political realities at this point do not enable evolution to be entirely removed from the classroom. You have, however heard of the Wedge Strategy put out by the Discovery Institute, right? It’s a strategy aimed at thoroughly theologizing the teaching of science, and it starts with getting a wedge for theology in science class, and ends up with only theology in science class.
You need to review the wedge strategy, because you’ve misrepresented it.
The Wedge document operates under the presumption that modern science is effectively materialistic in its worldview. The document doesn’t talk about replacing science with theology at all. Rather, it talks of restoring the openness of science to theological explanations (admittedly with the expectation that research done within the new framework will assume a position as the dominant paradigm).
You can disagree that modern science equates with materialism, but if you disagree on that point then I don’t see your grounds for asserting that the Wedge document advocates the overthrow of science. You should be asserting that they are going to war against a phantom.
Do you have any evidence that shows Bush to be in opposition to this general strategy?
Because if I don’t have the evidence then he supports the general strategy? Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, Doug, not to mention the fact that the issue is the Bush administration’s supposed active support of ID, not the president’s personal feelings about it. Still waiting on the evidence for that one, unless you’re standing pat with one quotation plus the Kitzmiller case.
Although others on this site may make inflammatory posts from time to time, the concern the Mods have with you is the pattern we see in your manner of argumentation. You often do not seek to advance discussion, but simply to nit-pick in order to score meaningless rhetorical points,
I have a problem with false information such as that presented in the OP of this thread. I would hope that the moderators would share my concern over the proliferation of false information. If the moderators would prefer I use a different method for challenging false information I’d certainly be open to their suggestions.
or to make claims (as you were before that Bush was not in favor of ID)
Doug, I didn’t make that claim and you have little excuse for thinking otherwise. My position from the first has been that President Bush apparently hasn’t done anything at all significant in support of ID. Balak’s not coming forth with evidence to the contrary and neither are you. The appropriate thing to do is admit that the claim has no support if it can’t be supported. Then the thread can continue based on whatever merit it otherwise might possess. You (AFAICT) chose to defend the proposition that Bush has thrown the weight of his administration behind ID based on one comment that appears to support ID. That, I think, exceeds anything I’ve written in terms of bad faith.
that are not in question by any members to the argument, on either side of the debate.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. It hints that you’re ignoring my point about the Bush administration having virtually nothing to do with ID in favor of your red herring proposition that Bush supports ID (the latter being the uncontested point) in at least one statement he has made during his two terms as president.
This gives us good reason to believe you are simply arguing in bad faith.
I find that very hard to believe. Your argument on this point appears to depend on Bush’s one statement in support of ID serving to justify the proposition that Bush has thrown the power of his administration behind the movement (“religious fables”).
I would have a much better case arguing that the latter is a bad-faith argument, not to mention the time when you gratuitously associated Bush with the Kitzmiller case. But it wouldn’t occur to me that you’re a troll.