George Bush, Scientist

This may be a day or so late, but let me add my name to the ever lengthening list of people who are saying "whaaaah?" about this.

Recently, George Bush spoke out in favor of Intelligent Design. Here's how the Washington Post describes it:

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

And here's a transcript:

Q I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, 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.

Q Both sides should be properly taught?

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

Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

First of all, a "growing" debate??

Secondly, there are certainly some troubling things in there. First, Bush says that "the decision" should be resolved at the local level. So on the one hand, if a locality wants to teach Evolution and only Evolution, he implied there should be no federal interference in that decision. But on the other, if a school district wanted to teach ID and only ID he seemed to be fine with that as well. But which scientific "theory" is right? Shouldn't the best science be taught in science classes? I guess that's up to the largest number of local voters.

He did add the proviso that "both" sides should be taught - if only so that everyone knows what the debate's about.

Second troubling aspect is his categorizing Evolution and Intelligent Design the same way - both as "schools of thought." He also dodged a few questions. First, he didn't exactly sketch out where he agrees/disagrees with each, and secondly he also doesn't really answer the final question - whether Intelligent Design is an acceptable alternative to Evolution. But I think we can assume an answer to each.

For me for Intelligent Design to be "properly taught" a teacher would have to involve Occam's Razor. For a proponent of Intelligent Design to impose the concept of a "designer" onto the data because that data is "too complicated" to be adequately explained (by that "Intelligent Designer," of course), is to enter a discussion that is more or less non-scientific. Who is this designer? Where/when did the designing occur? Was it before the big bang or afterwards? Intelligent Design doesn't simplify things at all - it only makes them far far more complicated.

But our glorious leader has also shown his confidence in science in another venue. David Jackson of the Dallas Morning news puts it this way:

Little more than an hour after word of Rafael Palmeiro's suspension for violating Major League Baseball's steroid policy, President Bush defended the former Texas Ranger.

"He's a friend," the president said in a White House roundtable interview with several Texas reporters. "He's testified in public, and I believe him."

Citing Mr. Palmeiro's previous statements under the "klieg lights" that he had not used steroids, the former Texas Rangers part-owner said: "I believe him – still do."

Look at that. The evidence doesn't sway him at all. In spite of that evidence (of Palmiero's drug usage), Bush still believes what he's believed all along.

Yea, he's got a healthy respect for science.