Why is this no surprise?

“The World Health Organisation does implement programs obviously relying on science. I am not saying they influence education in the US, but it is an example of what tme’s original post outlines.”

Kuri, we could say most organizations “implement programs obviously relying on science.”

A quick review of the context in which you brought up W.H.O.: Lumpy mentioned the promotion of Creationism, I asked where this occurred, and then you said something like “are you kidding?” and bring up the W.H.O.

“Tighten up,” as Archie Drell told the Drells.

If I had the time right now I would do some searching around to address those creationism points exactly.

Speaking in a broader context though GWB and others he’s nominated, such as Ashcroft, do implement policy influenced by fundamentalist beliefs (see Ashcroft’s war on porn).

As an example I remember shortly after taking office GWB signed an exec order to withhold money from any international organisation engaging in planned parenthood programs, which affected AIDS operations in some African countries, and which many have argued has been partly to blame to the worsening of the AIDS situation there.

Yes, please, find where the administration has promoted Creationism.

As for AIDS in Africa, it’s my understanding that the Bush Administration supports programs which educate and support in this sequence: (1) abstinence (2) trusting monogamous relationship, (3) use of a condom. Planned Parenthood programs are not the only ones which educate against the spread of AIDS. As I understand it, these non-PP programs were in place in many African towns before Bush was in office, and have shown success.

Brian,

You stated that evolution has been discredited. This is false. Evolution as a scientific theory (the accumulation of genetic change across a population through time) has enough evidence to be considered an established scientific fact.
What is still being debated are many of the mechanisms of evolution. For example, the ideas of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. The theory of evolution has as much evidence supporting it as the theory of gravity.

JayM…um, no. Very dangerous to start pronouncing that theories have enough evidence to be facts. Darwin’s evolution has been statisically disproven and as for Gould’s adaption of the theory, there is not enough evidence yet. “Genetic changes over time” is an idea broader than “the theory of evolution.” Of course, this does not mean that there isn’t tons of evidence against Biblical Creationism, because there is.

Brian, in 2001 Bush reinstated whats known as the Global Gag Rule that prevents money from going to any organisations that may support abortion, but these same Planned Parenthood groups are the very same that have been shown to actually lower abortion rates through encouraging birth control.

see: http://www.ippf.org/
http://www.heldtoransom.org/gag.asp

Just a start but this piece has several links relating to Bush’s stance on Creationism in schools. While he is careful enough not to outright say creationism should be taught, he certainly does not discourage it. Moreover GWB does have backers who advocate Creationism in public schools.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=1006378

"The National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit group chartered by Congress to give the nation guidance on important scientific matters, issued a statement in April, 1998. The Academy emphasized that evolution, the most important concept in modern biology, must be a vital part of science instruction and that lessons on creationism do not belong in science classes. They contend that “students are receiving little exposure to it [evolution] because teachers are being bullied into silence by religious groups.” http://www.loudoun.net/mainstream/Education/evolution.htm

But if you lean towards Creationism anyway then nothing I say will change your mind.

and your for Edwards?

Kuri, if you’re referring to me, you should read the posts on the thread more carefully otherwise “nothing they say will change your mind.” As an agnostic/atheist, I do not lean toward Creationism. On the other hand, I dislike when “science” (or a body of ideas and prejudices that purport to be science) becomes its own religion.

My preference for President in descending order: Edwards, Bush, Kerry, Nader. And I’d be scared for our nation and our world if Kerry won, so you know how I feel about Nader as President (straight-shooter though).

Your Slate link actually says that on the state and local level, certain Republicans want Creationism taught alongside evolution (what a shock!), but you’ve described them to us as GWB’s “backers who advocate Creationism in public schools”! The article concludes that George Bush wouldn’t mind that happening, but hasn’t initiated it. Horrifying stuff…

Kuri, as I said, Bush has directed funding to organizations that successfully teach safe sex (and I presume successfully lower the birth rate–they lower the rate of HIV infection). I don’t believe he has to sign on to PP’s agenda, as they have different beliefs.

Brian,

An assertion that biological evolution has be shown to be false is simply that - an assertion. “Er, no,” is not an argument in any sense of the word. I would be interested in seeing citations for your assertion that evolution is not true, since this would come as a shock to the scientific community, as the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that evolution is an established scientific fact.

As for your comment that the genetic change in a population over time is not evolution, well, that is pretty much the definition of biological evolution. Biological evolution also typically includes the idea of common descent. Evidence for both of these ideas (genetic change over time and common descent) is massive and compelling.

The “Theory of Evolution” (note the scare quotes and the capitalized E) includes many of the currently speculative mechanisms, such as natural selection. Just because scientists disagree about some aspects of these mechanisms (e.g., the relative importance of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium) does not mean that the fundamental ideas of evolution have in any way been discredited. The areas of commonality among scientists about evolution are vast compared to the areas of contention.

I look forward to your list of publications supporting your claim that evolution is false.

JayM, dropping words and phrases like “gradualism” or “punctuated equilibrium” does not make any kind of argument either! Whether “most scientists believe” that evolution is an established fact is a problematic issue to bring to the debate. However, I will look for a good article that sums up the crossroads at which the scientific community currently is, with regard to available evidence and science education. I will post it on a new thread. JayM, my only dog in this fight is that a theory should not get prematurely coronated because of fear of the social influence of another “theory” (biblical creationism, which I would argue along with Gould, is not a “theory” in the scientific sense, as it has been forwarded for students’ consideration).

And BTW, I never said that Evolution was false. I said that it lacks proof and, statistically, had been “discredited.” It may be something for you to consider that the crucial elements of a “Theory of Evolution” is not biological changes over time, but submitting definite time frames in which various bilogical changes occured, and then hypthesizing the mechanisms that brought about those changes. Both these sets of claims need the support of evidence. Various religious beliefs allow for biological changes over some period of time (you’ll find many wanting to somehow equate 6 days and millions of years). I’m not sure what subset of believes think that Satan put dinosaur bones in the earth to trick mortals.

Brian,

You said:

“the theory of evolution” has been discredited. Of course, it should still be taught, as this is what people believed for a very long time, but right now the scientific community is in a crisis. They can’t honestly back “evolution”

You were the first to cite an argument from authority when you said “the scientific community is in crisis. They can’t honestly back evolution.” This is demonstrably false. Evolution as a fact and a theory are completely alive in the scientific community - there is no crisis.

The “Theory of Evolution” has not been discredited. Some aspects of the theory have changed when new evidence has been discovered. For example, when the fossil record displayed evidence that sometimes change is much more rapid than can be accounted for by strict Darwinian gradualism, and that there are relatively long periods without apparent change, the theory was modified to account for the new evidence. This is how scientific theories work. When new evidence is discovered, the theory is modified to accommodate it (if possible), or the theory is discarded. Evolution as a theory has not been discarded, however some of the mechanisms postulated for evolution have been modified.

Look, you don’t throw out the squat just because some people disagree about the depth you need to go. The parallel school and the deep school may argue about aspects of the squat, but they don’t abandon the squat as useless. Scientists argue about details of the theory - the fundamental aspects of the theory are not in dispute.

The theory of evolution has been discredited by whom?

And no, Pat Roberson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham don’t count. Neither does the Bush administration or the Kansas Dept of Education.

Evolution is about the kookiest and stupidist idea that someone could believe in…and some people call themselves “enlightened”???..ha…

JayM, what you quote doesn’t show that I said evolution was false. I did not mean by “discredited,” disproven. Perhaps when I said “honestly back” that threw you off. I was referring to how evolution is taught to middle school and high school students today. Perhaps while I find you an article, you can get me one that explains how punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that is no longer awaiting supporting evidence. I also did not say that a theory of evolution can’t be flexible in accomodating new data. Remember, however, that it ultimately consists of specific claims about changes within time periods and the mechanisms of those changes.

Want to talk about GB distorting scientific fact? How about senior classifying anabolic steroids as a Schedule C Narcotic? (the same classification given to cocaine i believe) And now junior is banning ephedra, pro-hormones, and the ability to send a fricken email without the government reading it! Go ahead-vote for that shit.

“He who would give up a little freedom for security deserves neither”

PtrDr, were you being sarcastic with that comment?

This a legitimate question. Im not sure if you were making a joke or not.

Brian,

I had a long winded response written to this, but it’s just not worth it.

You seem to be a reasonable person, with a healthy skepticism. Believe what you want.

Further to the debate: From Space daily

Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report

LONDON (AFP) Feb 22, 2004
A secret report prepared by the Pentagon warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism, The Observer said on Sunday.
The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by “US defense chiefs” for four months, until it was “obtained” by the British weekly.

The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and President George W. Bush’s skepticism about global warning – a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide.

The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that “abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies,” The Observer reported.

The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life… Once again, warfare would define human life.”

Its authors – Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California – said climate change should be considered “immediately” as a top political and military issue.

It “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern”, they were quoted as saying.

Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include:

– Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.

– by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California

– Europe and the United States become “virtual fortresses” trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.

– “catastrophic” shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.

Randall, one of the authors, called his findings “depressing stuff” and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters.

“We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,” he told the paper.

Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability “vastly eclipses that of terrorism”.

Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said.

“It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat,” he said.

Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having “misled the public”.

Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington “systematically” skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues.

Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated.

The person behind the leaked Pentagon report, Andrew Marsall, cannot be accused of the same partisan politicking.

Marsall, 82, has been an advisor for the defense department for decades, and was described by The Observer as the author of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s plans for a major transformation of the US military.