As you all may well know, Bush wants to have abstinance only be taught in sex ed in U.S. public schools and his funding for such has gone up quite a bit over the past couple years. So while providing these funds for schools that only teach abstinance and no other choice (i.e. condom/birth control)......he's saying there should be multiple views taught in public schools on the topic of creation.


"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

BTW, The White House stupid buzzword for creationism is now "Intelligent Design". :mad:

No wonder why we have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world.

Remember...just say no! wink

Not quite. Bush does not want multiple views on the subject of creation. He is not advocating that schools teach the Hindu or Anasazi creation stories. He is advocating that biblical creation be taught as science.
Did you see his science advisor try to spin it? Hilarious.
It is consistent. Bush has consistently opposed science on teaching evolution, factual sex education, environmental data, stem cells et al. This is after all the faith based and not fact based administration.
Not surprising that scientists, who tend to at least publicly stay out of politics and who as a privileged group often removed from the daily concerns of the bulk of society tend to be conservative, are overwhelmingly opposed to this administration.

Well put! Do you think that the President is unable to understand the difference between science and theology or is just using "intelligent design" as a sop to the Republican talibanic base?

Any you wonder why no one votes for you candidates....

I would hardly call more than 59,000,000 people (48% of all voters) "no one" but those are your ignorant words.

Here is a CNN link for you to sit on.

Aren't the programs now already teaching about choices, options, condoms, etc? Yet the rates of teen pregnancy are as high as they are. So the idea of teaching a program of abstinence can't actually be responsible for the already existing high teen pregnancy rates, can it? Guess I'm missing the connection.

Actually, abstinence programs are now predominant in many parts of the country; the sexual education classes of the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the condom-handout and preventive strategies of prior years years no longer exist. (And Clinton actually oversaw the 1996 abstinence education act that was part of the Welfare Bill, so it precedes W.) Teen pregnancy rates AND abortion rates and incidences had begun to drop in the second half of the 1990s, but in places where there is abstinence-only education (and abstinence pledges, etc.), I believe I read somewhere (I'll try to find it) that the rates are going up.

Planned Parenthood on Abstinence Ed (It actually doesn't let Clinton off the hook)

Another take on abstinence-only sex ed

[ August 03, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I have no idea. I'm not in his head. It has been said that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the administration where being a person who "reads books" is seen as a negative. But as far as Bush not knowing the diff between science and theology, I neither know nor care. Just like I don't know or care whether he really thinks gays and lesbians are "not sacred" enough for marriage or that a fertilized egg is the same as a person and should be granted rights that are not granted to any born person or that every convicted person on death row is guilty and can be executed without worrying about whether the lawyer was drunk during trial or that everyone whom he designates a "terrorist" really is or whether or not he really did believe that Iraq was actually planning on nuking San Francisco (wait, he'd probably like that, change to Texas).

I am concerned with results. The results of the policies are clear regardless of whether he bases them on political expedience or genuine ignorance.

I’ve got a grand idea which will solve all of these problems… let’s allow the parents to teach their kids about these things. You can teach science without saying there is no god, only evolution.


By allowing parents to decide which values they wish to instill in their children you take out having some priest or god-man-hating woman deciding what type of education you child receives. This will always be a lose/lose issue. There is no way to teach any of this without someone being offended.

If I had a kid, yes I would encourage them not to do these things, and make them aware of the dangers/responsibilities if they do. Further, I would teach my kid about underage drinking and making bad decisions where some of these things usually happen. Most of the values parents pass on to their kids help in these situations. If you teach kids to be responsible and considerate.. they usually don’t get into these messes.

When you push these issues in school (evolution/sex ed)… the religious side always wins because that is what most people believe in this country. You crazy lefties always fall on the wrong side of the fight. You can stand on your soap box and preach about how unfair it is not to teach evolution, condoms on bananas… when push comes to shove, people vote for the conservative view over whatever crazy dem is running.

When will you figure this out and get your heads out of “books”? Stop thinking ya’all are smarter than everyone else and know what is best for them. Why do you think arch conservatives target certain dems they can vote out? You may not like it, may not think it is fair, but it’s a brilliant strategy. Seems the dems are just too dumb to see the strategy or deal with it.

Most people want abstinance only education? That's news to me.

It's funny, in college the hardcore republicans I knew were the same ones that slept around, drank a lot (underage), etc.


In the only poll I can find about abstinance only programs, 15% believe abstinance only should be what is taught (NPR/Kaiser).

And yet 30% of schools teach abstinance only.

And how many parents do you seriously think teach their kids these things? What will these kids do if they get to a university where evolution will definitely be taught in science courses. Evolution should be taught in school science classes, churches or religious studies classes can cover creationism if need be.
As for sex ed, I know very few people who actually had that discussion with parents. Given the high rates of teen pregancies and STD's I think its fair to assume very few teens have been taught anything of value either in school abstinence only classes or at home so it would seem that they need to learn about options to protect themselves and their partners.

Not really. Almost every major question in biology is answered with the help of evolution. Cell theory, biological diversity, relatedness among organisms, etc., etc. Evolution is the central principle in modern biology and can't just be ignored because it makes a few fundamentalists queasy.

But hey, if you think it's more productive not to teach biology at all in high school, then more power to you.

So um Phillyfanatic, who is a more bad ass rocker, Cher or Madonna? When Philly starts talking about children, I am glad he is gay When Philly starts explaining politics and science, it is obvious he is a closet Republican that was not pretty enough for his Democratic Senator. Yeah I know I do not count because I didn't vote Repub or Dem. Yeah I know I do not have satisfactory employment. I am not one with an ass job isolated in a cubicle with fellow carpet walkers.

Yeah God could have created everything through evolution. Since he is all powerful and Saturday morning cartoon. Unlike the bible, man can find evidence that evolution exists. Yeah Jesus could help me through my everday struggles, but then alcohol is easier to swallow and heroin is more believable.

Thanks Fantomas for the details. Although Illini, who is such a wonderful source for the pictures we love to see and is, therefore, my expert of choice , said 30% teach abstinence only. That means that the large majority are still teaching about other options and approaches.

Either way, don't know what's happened to the high school youth of today. Back in the day (early 70s), we knew if you didn't want to get a girl pregnant, you had to know she was on the pill or you wore a condom. Didn't need a school class to teach us that. And our parents certainly didn't educate us either. And back then, a lot of guys talked about doing it, but much of it was just talk. And the girls definitely didn't mess around either...you knew the handful who were actually "active." (We had a much different term for them then.)

So is it that they are uneducated? Or that they ignore the education they receive? Hasn't that happened among gay men regarding condom use also...the awareness of AIDS led to a decrease in unprotected sex for a period of time, but the trend has reversed, I believe. Even with the incredible knowledge about AIDS and the value of protected sex.

Good Hands, I think 30% get abstinence only, while another sizable number get abstinence + benign neglect/pretty poor health studies classes, etc. In some places like whole pockets in the South, it's predominantly abstinence only, but then don't forget you have other populous states like California, New Jersey, etc., that don't go that route. So the figure is a bit skewed; certain states and regions also have higher pregnancy rates and so on.

I can tell you that when I taught in the New York City schools, where abstinence only was not mandated--this was in the late 1990s--the sex education component in the health classes was poor; the students were badly misinformed; and I had at least two ninth grade female students drop out because, surprise surprise, they were PREGNANT! This was at a time when people I knew who were working in the HIV/AIDS prevention field were trying hard to reach these children, and several commented to me that part of their outreach and intervention included basic information about sex, which the students were getting. So maybe 30% really are strictly abstinence only, but many more students are just not getting adequate sexual education I would imagine.

BTW, there's a fascinating article in the most recent Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, by a young gay man, about the prevailing ethos of abstinence and \"virginity,\" even among young gay people, which fascinated me, since it was so different from what I'd come out in--the immediate post-liberation + HIV/AIDS pandemic world.
I think there's more to this issue, and it really deserves another thread. But don't ever forget that there remain pockets of ignorance, even among many gay men, about HIV/AIDS transmission, treatment, and so on. Also, since HIV/AIDS is viewed as a chronic disease nowadays and not a death sentence, I think some gay men approach it as they might diabetes or arthritis--something not to get that worried about, because drugs can help one manage it. You even have people like conservative Andrew Sullivan singing the praises of having seroconverted, even after knowing quite a bit about HIV/AIDS!

But dear, dear PhillyFan, I AM much smarter than you. I prove it daily. By the way, the word is "y'all", not whatever gibberish you typed.

Sex education, like math and science, is not intended just to inform the teenager for the here and now. We all learned things in high school that we are still using, and that should include sex ed.

The average age at marriage has been increasing for some time now, and nearly all married couples use contraception to plan their families. Even if you don't believe in sex before marriage, knowledge of appropriate and helpful contraception is vital to post-marriage family planning, which is why I wholeheartedly support real sex ed - not this abstinence crap.

I think the reasons for the rise in HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) are varied, but it has been argued that the closeted and the poorer are more likely to forgo protection. Remember, 50% of HIV infections in this country are now in African-Americans, who tend to be poorer and are more likely to be closeted if they are in the MSM category. They may know, intellectually, that condoms prevent HIV, but as the disease remains stigmatized as a "fag disease" and many of these men do not consider themselves gay (and that is REALLY a topic for another thread) they don't use condoms because to do so would be a tacit acknowledgement of the truth.

In addition, HIV infections appear to have increased in younger MSM, who are the most likely to have received poor sex ed in school. They also did not live through the horrible years of the infection, and didn't experience the horrible mortalilty of those times.

We must also remember that the vigorous HIV prevention activities of the Clinton years were largely halted by the Bush administration - ESPECIALLY distribution and education about condoms. I am on the board of a local GLBT community chest in DC (called Brother Help Thyself), which funds small non-profits helping the GLBT community. Many of these organizations have engaged in condom education and distribution, often aimed at the young, for years, and have seen their federal money dry up because you simply cannot get grants for those activities any more - once again science is being tossed aside in favor of quasi-religious ideology.

I think the biggest problem with teenage pregnancy/STD rates is the "It won't happen to me." teenage attitude. Also the idea that so-and-so can't possibly have anything I don't want to catch because I've known them for years. There's a strong belief that you only catch STDs from strangers and one night stands, which persists despite knowing it isn't true. Education can only provide the information, it can't make people take any notice.

Here is an interesting discussion of the creationism vs science debate.

I follow the debate between :"Intelligent Design" and "evolution" with some bit of humour.

First, I don't understand how "ID" is allowed, but it must be an American thing.

But to let you know what the effect of it could be:

When I was in my 3rd year university, (this was 1978), I had to pair an Organic Chemistry course with another science course to get one of my pairs. (I was a business major).

I decided to take the course "Current Topics in Biology For Arts Students".

Now you have to understand that I went to University in a small town in Nova Scotia, and there were 3 girls in this class that were in their first year, and had never been outside of the small outport where they had been raised.

As the class got underway, it very quickly became apparent to the prof that these girls had no clue about how their own body worked. One of them actually stood up in class and said that her monthly period was because her priest said that she had sinned, so she was praying to god to take it away.
When they were quizzed about how a woman got pregnant, they all said that "god puts a baby inside". Their proof? YUP, the "priest" said so.

Now, I was, and still am, of the opinion that the priest should have been horsewhipped, and so should the parents, to let people grow up so backward.

And yes, these girls were homeschooled. In a very strict catholic home that taught that the bible was unfallible.

Now it might seem a little extreme, but the link between teaching "intelligent design" is there.

And probably in the Santorum household

I did post this earlier, why are my posts getting eaten? Anyway...

Actually, science does not teach "there is no god". Science teaches that this is an issue outside rational inquiry and hence not the province of science.

But let's not get confused with facts.

Why stop at biology? If schools can't teach biology because it contradicts someone's religious literalism, what about chemistry? Students would learn that proteins and nucleic acids form naturally because it is energetically favorable, and proteins and nucleic acids are the building blocks of biology. What about astronomy? Students would learn the universe is circa 15 billion years old and not 6000. What about history? Students would learn about the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas with genocide against the Native Americans and the Holocaust, all done in the name of Christianity. What about math? Too logical. Students might learn you have to be able to prove your answers are correct. What about English? No way, they may end up reading Catcher in the Rye !

In fact, since there is no subject that can be taught without offending someone's religious literalism, why not close public schools and have everyone home schooled? Not only will fundamentalists not have to worry about their kids learning biology or meeting people of other faiths (not to mention GLBT kids), it has the decided "advantage" of perpetuating class divisions, educated parents can teach their kids, poor kids will be guaranteed a life of uneducated unskilled jobs.... perfect solution, right?

Great ideas Ms. De Blazer! Awesome!

Now if we can just do something about those nasty horrible things callled penis, life would be set.

Imagine all the time we could have for proper teaching if they werent spending so much time showing how to "wrap up" the cucumbers!

I remember when the moon landing occured my father said at the time, I assume half-jokingly, "They haven't landed on the moon. They can do anything with cameras." or something nearly like that. I dread to think what my "home-schooling" would have been like.

The Holocaust was not done in the name of Christianity. The Nazis claimed racial superiority, that the Aryan race was the master race, and that all other "races" were inferior. In particular Hitler and the Nazis identified the Jews as "sub-human", and used that framework to justify their increasingly brutal and murderous attacks on Jewish people. Which then both opened the way and undergirded their attacks on any non-Aryans, any non-Nazis, including Slavs, Gypsys, Aryans who were communists, homosexuals, and people who were actually practicing Christians. It is a matter of record that Christians of faith were persecuted into concentration camps by the Nazis because of their faith, because they would not bow down to Hitler.

The results of the Holocaust were no less devestating, to be sure. But to frame it as Christian persecution is to fundamentally misunderstand the basis of the Holocaust.

The conquest of the Americas was driven by religious fervor and belief, including the utterly baffling concept that faith can be forced at the point of a sword. Yet the conquest of the Americas was arguably driven by greed as much as religious fervor. Gold, silver, copper, beaver furs, deerskins, otter pelts, the fountain of youth, and then, later on, the land itself...these were motivators of the conquerors to a great extent. I don't think the faith belief can or should be separated out when identifying what drove the whites, but to reduce it just to that is to oversimplify the actual history. Such oversimplification, in my opinion, allows for judgments and prejudices to continue. History as it was lived by those experiencing it was rarely just a matter of sound bites.

I wish his parents would have chose abstinance.

This is true to a point but it would be disingenuous to ignore Christianity's contributions. Centuries of Christian anti-Semitism led up to the racial theories of the Nazis. Before the complete unification of Italy in 1870, papal rule in central Italy was shockingly bigoted and included stealing Jewish children from their parents and having the raised Christian, Jewish ghettos, etc. Pogroms incited by Christian clergy were common in many parts of Europe until modern times. Also, in the Holocaust in Croatia, the extermination was actually organized and run by Catholic clergy with the (at least tacit) approval of Rome. After the war, the Catholic hierarchy ran an escape route that allowed many war crimials to escape justice.

[ August 09, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: memphistn ]

For some reason I think PhillyFan's cucumber is a hot little garlic pickle.

For the record I wasn't being disingenuous, because I wasn't ignoring centuries of European history. I was responding to the original comment, which was framed that the Holocaust was done in the name of Christianity. It was not. Since this thread contains responses regarding historical accuracy based on knowledge and understanding, and I thought the framing was inaccurate, I thought it was worth pointing out.

To expound separately that the Nazis had a fertile field within which to plow because of prior church activities, prejudices, and persecutions, and because other governments, such as Tsarist Russia, had persecuted Jews for centuries with the active participation of the church, is actually to illuminate the atmosphere of the time. To contemplate the centuries of church and state sponsored persecution of Jews is both horrific and important, because it helps put some perspective on man's ability to hate as well as even on current problems in the Middle East. Just as the idea that Christianity could be brought at the end of a sword, the idea that Christians and the church would judge themselves to be superior and righteous in persecuting others is anathema to me. Yet it is important to understand that it happened, since it still has an impact today.

But it still doesn't make the original statement accurate.

Sorry, Good Hands. I meant that as a general statement but when I read my post today, it looks like I was calling you disingenuous. My mistake.

Thanks Memphistn. Figured that's where you were going with it. Postings and emails can be hard to establish the real context sometimes. A little clarification is a good thing.

I realize there was more involved (same with conquest of the Americas) but the propaganda did lean heavily towards defending Christian Aryan nation. The Nazis did sign a concordant with the Vatican and did seek support from both Catholic and Protestant clergy and their parishioners. They targeted Gypsies, gays, political opponents etc but the primary target was Jews.

I don't want to get too far off topic here. My point is that if history is taught, real history and not just kings and who was president and how the US was always right in every war, students do have to examine what was done in the name of their country and their faith. And that could "offend" some people just as much as teaching biology does.
But facts are stubborn things and species DO change with time and the univserse IS billions of years old.

Appreciate the additional comments. Not sure we're really disagreeing as much as speaking at different points in the story.

I do think it's important to identify Nazi propoganda and tactics as such. The Nazis sought support of the church leaders. The Nazis also ran for elections and Hitler also took power legally, democratically. Not because he believed in democracy, but as a means to his ends. Yet I don't think it would be accurate to say the Holocaust was done in the name of democracy, either. Saying it that way puts the emphasis on the used rather than the user. No question that the Nazis target the Jews. But they didn't do so because they were Christian. They did so because they were racists and because they knew they could manipulate support for their actions by attacking the Jews.

That distinction is critical, imo, to sharpening minds and thinking, rather than relying on pat expressions and phrases. A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf, whether it is Hitler and the Nazis appropriating democracy and Christianity, or whether it's Jihadists appropriating Islam, or whether it's ...(fill in the blank).

True history should be taught. Accuracy is critical in teaching such true history, because history is often an interpretation of events rather than just the names, dates, and occurences. It then is a little humbling to remember how much is not actually fact, but interpretation. Even the theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact. In another few billion years or so it might be clear that it is a fact. It'll be good then to finally resolve that one.

[ August 10, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Good Hands ]

Good Hands, I did not totally agree but thought you had some really valid points, until I read:

This is what evolution deniers say over and over. It's "just a theory". In common parlance, a theory is an "educated guess", i.e. the detective has a theory of the crime, I have a theory as to why the A's play so much better in the second half of the season, etc. In science the word has a very different meaning which evolution deniers deliberately distort. In science a "theory" means an explanation put forward for a fact or group of facts. It is a FACT that species change over time. That is what evolution is, change over time. So evolution itself is a fact. Evolution by natural selection, to give it its full name, is the theory that describes and explains that fact. Just as the theory of gravity describes and explains both why soaring basketball players land on the court and why the earth stays in its orbit. Just as the theory of relativity explains why energy and mass are interchangeable.

I read an amusing blog that evolution deniers should renounce the gains of evolution, upright posture, loss of estrus, opposable thumb, big brain (although they have probably already renounced the latter).

I'm glad you explained the meaning of "theory" in scientific terminology.

Most people who are not in the scientific field use the "common definition" for theory and therefore think that a scientific theory is a guess or a stab in the dark. In scientific terms, that is a "hypothesis" not "theory"

As she said, a theory is a scientific statement that has been proven. and this perfectly illustrates what happens when people who don't know what they're talking about try to rebut scientific data with creationist mumbo jumbo.

In sum... I say... if we're gonna teach creationism in science classes, then I want evolution taught from the pulpit. fair is fair. Right?

On a tangent... let me give you anothr example of what happens and how idiotic people look when they deny the obvious scientific data in front of their face. Is he also gonna tell us that the world is only 7,000 years old like the creationists do?

[ August 10, 2005, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

I grew up in a creationist family. What I was taught was that the world has existed for 7,000 years or so, but God created the universe in a mature state. He created Adam and Eve as adults. He created the universe in "adulthood" or billions of years old. Scientifically, the universe is billions of years old although it has only existed for a few thousdand years.

TNmanfan, you have told us what you were taught. Now, tell us what you believe.

Hope you wouldn't throw out the valid points because you read something that you thought was wrong, Ms. de Blazer.

Either way, at that point I was trying to be ironic in using that statement. Obviously I did it badly. Mea culpa.

wadenatlanta. Do you play tennis? (sorry off topic)

I'm looking for someone to hit with this wknd.

anyway... so tennessee man, whether you believe what you were taught or not. If God created the world 7,000 years ago (as I stated earlier the creationists believe) why bother creating it "millions of years old"? Doesn't that seem
like a case of making the answer fit the question?

Supposedly, God made the world in a state where it was able to sustain itself. He didn't make Adam and Eve as babies. He may them as adults so they could take care of themselves and reproduce. He made the earth in a mature stable form so that it was inhabitable.

I'm just trying to give you guys a prospective from those that believe the world was created. It's not as if creationist haven't given any thought to scientific evidence. They don't totally discount science. They have a totally different prospective and, no doubt, their prospective is "I believe God created the world, so how can I incorporate that into what science has found". We all do that in certain areas of our lives.

I don't believe the bible is completely true. There are some historical truths. I don't believe a man built a boat and put two or more of every living thing on it. I don't believe another man was swallowed by a whale and spit out three days later to walk around and preach to people. I don't believe any good god would create beings for the fun of it knowing he would torture most of them for eternity because they didn't unlock the secrets of some book and do exactly what he said for them to do.

soapbox, sorry

Intelligent design?

Everyone knows that humans were put together by the 'entity' with lowest bid.

No, GoodHands, I don't reject your other points, even though I disagree with some I think they are valid topics of discussion.

As for intelligent design, it has been said with a great deal of truth that an undergraduate engineering student would get an F if he/she designed anything as poorly constructed as a human being. From oversized skulls to bad backs to choking due to esophagus and trachea sharing an opening, to men's kidney stones and women's urinary tract infections (men use one organ to reproduce and urinate; women use two but they are in close proximity and both have problems as a result), to our craving for sugar, fat and salt, to our teeth that are a size too large for our jaws (how many people have protruding teeth and impacted wisdom teeth?), to our badly designed knees (a hinge joint is an awful idea) etc. etc. I could list a lot more and a lot more species.