The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

Some of it is just hatred of Republicans. CNN actually covered it without sensationalism, though I guess AP deserves the credit. This article seems to have run in MSNBC and several other places, not just CNN.

Antonia Cortese of the American Federation of Teachers said Bush’s “misinformed comments… signal a huge step backward for science education.” She compared Bush’s comments to advocating “that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.” She is very upset.

Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science… Intelligent design has been repudiated by every respected scientific organization in the nation, including the National Academies, the AAAS, and the NSTA.

Oh, Mrs. Cortese! That’s exactly why this needs to be taught in the classroom. I will come back to that in a moment.

But if you want an analysis that will knock your socks off, Edna DeVore, Director of Education and Public Outreach for SETI Institute, has written a great article about the current furor over President Bush’s remarks. That crazy scientist, she actually goes back to the interview and examines what was said, and what was not said.

What does she find? (I have added emphasis)

There is an ongoing debate over intelligent design vs. evolution, at least in the media and in politics. There is not a debate in the greater scientific community about the validity of evolution. Further, the vast majority of scientists do not consider intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution…

She quotes Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, as saying

President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion…

On this last point, I completely disagree with Drs. Cohen and DeVore. I am a science educator, and I want it in the classroom for comparison. I have taught children from Head Start science to university physics, and I am currently a high school physics teacher, and I have seen that one of the best ways to explain any theory and its historical significance is usually through contrast and comparison. We must explain what other beliefs exist to explain an observation, and why one is better than another, or why certain beliefs should not be considered scientific by the students. If you don’t tell them what “Intelligent Design” means, they won’t ever know why they should not believe it. I have found that to actually give more credibility to a belief - if you simply say "that's beyond the scope of this course", you do not challenge the weaknesses of the belief, and you do not show the student why the belief is not scientifically valid.

We have to let a student make the final evaluation on their own, but they cannot make that informed decision unless the facts are laid out for them to evaluate. If they are not given all of the information, they are not being taught science – they are being taught dogma, and they are being taught that dogma is just an alternative to science, as opposed to a hinderance.