1 i don't think "intelligent design" is science, and it shouldn't be taught in science classes. But really, President Bush was asked his opinion and he gave it. The man's entitled to his opinion. People are getting bent out of shape over this as if he had proposed a federal law mandating such. He has not. This is just part of the sneaky way reporters try to earn points with the religious phobia crowd who think Bush is trying to install a theocracy. They set the President up with these questions and then they use his honest answer to whip up a mass hysteria. Then it's like "Oh my God, the president supports teaching creationism in schools!!!" Well, yah. Is that a surprise? He's a born again Christian. Most evangelicals feel that way. It's a totally different matter than if he had said, "I support the so-and-so law that would make Creationism theory mandatory in all schools." But he'd never do that, because there would be such a shit storm it would make the war protests look silly. And plus, it would be totally unconstitutional.

2 He gave his honest answer; fair enough. They reported it; that is their job, and he knew he was on the record. If he didn't want his answer reported he could have declined to give an answer, or given one of the non-answers politicians know how to give. I don't see reporters trying to whip up mass hysteria, and I don't see anything sneaky about it. Surely questions about what policies the President would like the government to adopt are legitimate, even if they aren't policies that he is on the verge of trying to enact.

3 Sarah, Transcript follows: "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." You see how the reporters are the ones who put words in his mouth? They decided he means he believes in Intelligent Design and he is a kook. He didn't sayso. He just says both sides should be taught correctly so people know what they are arguing about. I don't see how that translates into teaching creationism or intelligent design as a science class. It seems to me that it says tell the kids what evolution and intelligent design are defined as, and let them decide whether their parents religious beliefs or the accepted theories of Darwin are valid or are even compatible. I think you (and all the media) jumped the gun on this one, Sarah. I am Catholic. Obviously we are taught that God created the world and everything in it. Just because he chose evolution to get us to this point doesn't mean he didn't cause it or allow it to happen, and it sure doesn't mean He doesn't exist. But how do you prove a negative? You don't. That's why it's called "Faith". Subsunk

4 This is just one more front in the Republican war against science. If you didn't know about it you weren't paying atention.

5 Subsunk, Don't bother us with the facts. We know the TRUTH...