(no subject)

[learnedax]

So I've seen quite a number of impassioned mentions of Bush 'endorsing' intelligent design, both on my friends list and in articles like this, this, and even this. Now, I am no fan of Bush or his administration, but I almost side with them here - in as much as he didn't actually endorse it. If you look at the transcript, you will see that the pointed question-and-answer goes like this:

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

A: 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.

So a reporter backs him into a corner, and not only does he try to say as little about the issue as possible, pulling the old change-the-question gambit, he almost slips up and comes out against ID. So, yeah, he is a typical politician, so he's trying not to raise the right's hackles, but he tried his best to avoid supporting it either. And yet, the reporter who put him on the spot gets to run the headline that he supports ID, and every liberal in the world repeats with morbid glee that he's an insane, despicable enemy of science. The system contrives to invent repugnance even when its worst offender backs off, and the ultimate result is the same. It's no surprise that our political machines will churn on regardless, but it's sad that we are so throughly drawn into repeating what our opponents want to be true.

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

You are such a great guy - how can you be so naive? Here is a man who has a strong track record of buying the entire evangelical agenda, and who in the past has worked toward teaching of ID specifically - and he gets asked "are you still in favor of it".

Aren't there multitudinous reasons why he might not give a straight and factual answer?

If all you want to offer is a plain reading of the text, you might be right. But that does ignore his position, his situation, his personal agenda, and so forth.

I don't see that "too much" was made of what he said. Really.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

Yes, he has in the past supported it, for whatever reasons, and I think that's dumb. And yes, there are many possible reasons, even ones we don't know, why he might try to slip out of committing to an answer... but my point is that he did.

A big deal is being made of this, even though it was already known that he historically supported ID, because people think it's a big deal for The President to endorse it. And it looks to me like he thought it was a big deal too, and that's why he didn't do it.

But, of course, you are correct. There are many additional factors that I am not analyzing. And he did come close to endorsing ID, with the weak 'both sides' answer, so maybe he was trying to very carefully say it without saying it, which puts him back in the IDiot category. But we can't really know, I think.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

We can't know to a sure and certain surety. But if 99% odds work for you (and they do for me), then we know.

And your original point was that he hadn't said what the press was attributing to him. And I think he did. I suspect you are starting to think so as well....

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

What he said is not what they attribute to him, it is an inference therefrom. I see how one can argue that it is a reasonable inference, but I remain skeptical that this interpretation is so clear as to justify considering it as fact.

Nonetheless, perhaps I was too vehement...