President Bush made some interesting remarks to a group of Texas reporters that’s achieved some mileage in the blogosphere this week. Consider:
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.
That’s the extent of the issue I’ve seen in many places. It’s important, but it cuts out some of the context. The back-and-forth continued with this:
Q Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.
That’s getting closer, I think, but it’s still not complete. The bloggers doing their best to defend President Bush push all the way to this:
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.
As is obvious, the question and answer was about intelligent design. The topic has many facets and can be argued for or against with various tactics. His response was fundamentalist, bold, out of touch with reality, nuanced, whatever, all depending on who offered the commentary. All of which I find to be tedious and pointless, if only because I’m not motivated presently to debate the religious aspects. Yet, President Bush’s remarks are useful, so allow me to repeat his last sentiment.
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.
Hmmm, interesting. Really? No kidding? He could’ve fooled me. But perhaps we can hold him to his valid theory of education, at least when read exactly as the words were spoken. Ignore the subtle back-pedaling focus on one issue that I assume he meant to engender and he offered something useful. Could what he said, just perhaps, be applied to homosexuality, as well?
He wants schools to teach intelligent design, a theory that is scientifically unverifiable, yet he has no problem directing our government to pretend that homosexuals don’t exist? Forget even proving whether or not homosexuality is biological. The topic of homosexuality must not find its way into education in any way, lest children have an agenda pushed upon them. Shame on society should a defenseless child see something as perverse as a homosexual couple with kids in a textbook or an instructional video. It could lead them to acknowledge the existence of those we’d rather not acknowledge.
But I forget, it’s all about the children.