Ignorance in the White House

Yes, I refer to Giorgio W. Borgia, Idiot-in-Chief who endorsed "teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools".

Ahem, might I point out that there are no alternatives to evolution ... biological evolution is a fact. How can there be alternatives to facts? Nonfacts?

Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Debate is the key word in that statement. Debate falls under the aegis of philosophy, yet debate has little merit and ought to be abandoned when one side of the debate is clearly superior in terms of empirical facts and logic.

Almost four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon promoted empiricism and scientific induction. Science, which derives from the Latin root for knowledge, has long-since supplanted metaphysical philosophy for those who seek to comprehend the physical world. Scientific debate is a process directed toward better understanding of empirical facts.

As I have argued elsewhere, so-called "intelligent design" theory could be utilized as an exercise in philosophy classes. It is not science, it is not scientific, it is religion, it offers NO viable alternative explanation for the observable fact of biological evolution.

Why would Bush endorse an anti-science policy for public education? One can only assume that he is pandering to the conservative voters.

There are abundant reasons to consider Bush a fool who cares nothing for truth. This policy is yet another example. That Bush has blundered into a job far beyond his intellectual capabilities is testament to the problems inherent in the democratic process (voters) and to rigged elections. That Bush is allowed to remain in office despite uncovery of lies designed to instigate invasion of Iraq, when Clinton was impeached over a mere sexual peccadillo, is evidence of the intellectual malaise that has overtaken the US.

The Constitution insists upon separation of Church and State. Is Bush too dense to realize that his declared policy of putting ID theory into science classrooms is in violation of the Constitution? Does Bush not care to uphold the Constitution? Does Bush believe that most voters care nothing for the Constitution? Perhaps Bush knows that conservative voters do not know the difference between fact and fantasy. After all, some deluded souls voted for him.

Lunacy and Theocracy

Religion in America displays an out-of-all-proportion relation to educational level compared to other western nations; that is, Americans compare to nations with a functional IQ of only 83.

Why the excessive religiosity of Americans when neighbouring Canada is much more in line with the developed nations? The peculiar religious history of the US, coupled with its pro-greed hubris, its anti-intellectual ethos, and its bizarre political combination of isolationism succeeded by interference-ism must play a part in the typically anti-liberal attitudes of good-ole-boys and gals.

Thanks to the gullibility of the average voter, America now suffers one of the worst presidents ever. Giorgio W. Borgia is a man of less than stellar abilities who claims to answer instructions from God: Nabil Shaath says, "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

While most Americans have opened their eyes and seen the con perpetrated by Giorgio W Borgia's administration, the devoutly religious of America still favor the fool.

In October 17, 2004, Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush said of Dubaya, ''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts. He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

And still Americans have not seen the costs and the danger of linking religious fervor to politics. Not only does American current policy demonstrate the dangers of excessive religiosity within administrations, the current Middle East, and world history demonstrate the political lunacies of theocracies.

Although the Founding Fathers' intent was that the state could neither establish a religion nor interfere with personal religious beliefs, religion and state are to be maintained distinct. The exigent need is no longer the protection of religious freedoms, but rather to protect political decision making, minority rights, and education from the depradations of religious fundamentalists.

Of less immediate danger to America's wellbeing, creationism disguised as pseudoscience has attacked science education at a time when only the best educated nations can hope to prevail.

This blog is participating in the July 1-4 Blogswarm against Theocracy. First Freedom First is an organization dedicated to separation of church and state, and provides resources, including articles and book recommendations. FFF is NOT a "sponsor" of the Blog against Theocracy blogswarm.