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.
transcript

Of course people are talking, but what are they saying?

William A. Dembski thinks the president should be commended for his courage, wisdom and foresight. I disagree, but Mr. Dembski does point out an important distinction between intelligent design and creationism.

…intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture.

Creationism, by contrast, takes a particular interpretation of Genesis (namely, it interprets the days of creation as six consecutive twenty-four-hour days occurring roughly 6,000 years ago) and then tries to harmonize science with this interpretation.
Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Bush’s comments “irresponsible.” He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints,

“doesn’t understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint.” Lynn said Bush showed a “low level of understanding of science,” adding that he worries that Bush’s comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.
Bush Remarks On ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Fuel Debate

Woah, settle down! A directive to the Justice Departmennt? Don Singleton’s thoughts, while not directed at Mr. Lynn, would be an appropriate response to this kind of alarmist reaction.

… and remember, this is not a New Initiative the White House decided to lauch, he was just answering a reporters question. And I guess the press stupidly hoped he would say something they could use against those who want Intelligent Design taught.
Designing an Intelligent Debate

Charles Krauthammer had this to say about President Bush’s comments:

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
Let’s Have No More Monkey Trials

Very well said Mr. Krauthammer (as usual), I could not agree more. I’m a bit confused, though. Does President Bush support the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific theory? I’m not sure his response indicates that.

And Albert Mohler had this to say about Krauthammer’s comments:

Strangely, Krauthammer seems to believe that ’science’ is independent of any prior worldview. This usually clear-headed columnist needs to think this issue through again. Every worldview includes a religious element — faith in some reality, idea, or deity. The naturalistic or materialistic worldview is just as religious as Christianity. There is no way to separate science from the larger worldview or from prior intellectual commitments.
Intelligent Design in the News Again

I’m confused again. Science is independent of a prior worldview. I concede that there are people whose worldview is based on materialism or naturalism, but this is not the same as saying that ’science’ is a worldview. Science is a method of learning based on the scientific method. People of all worldviews may participate in this pursuit. Certainly a persons worldview may taint the quality of a hypothesis, but the beauty of the scientific method is that this hypothesis will be tested!

Ron Hutcheson adds this:

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted,” the academy said in a 1999 assessment. “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
Bush Endorses Teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory in Schools

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how everyone is making the jump to teaching these things in the science classroom. If President Bush is referring to teaching these concepts in a science classroom, then I agree with this and some of the other comments here, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The NSTA issued this statement:

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms.

“We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,” said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

On Monday, Knight Ridder news service reported that the President favors the teaching of intelligent design “so people can understand what the debate is about.”

“It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,” said NSTA President Mike Padilla. “Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students’ knowledge of the natural world.”

NSTA strongly supports the premise that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 education frameworks and curricula. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other scientific and educational organizations.

NSTA is “stunned and disappointed”

Intelligent design is not science. Agreed, but again this statement is addressing the ’science classroom.’ Is there a place for this discussion in other classes?

An open letter to President Bush by Prof. Robert P. Kirshner:

As President of the American Astronomical Society, I was very disappointed by the comments attributed to you in an article inthe August 2nd, 2005 Washington Post regarding intelligent design. While we agree that “part of education is to exposepeople to different schools of thought”, intelligent design has neither scientific evidence to support it nor an educational basis for teaching it as science. Your science adviser, John H Marburger III correctly commented that “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.”
Open Letter to President Bush

Okay, so we are all in agreement. Maybe it should be presented, but not in a science class. Sounds good to me.

If some public school teachers are using evolution as a vehicle for atheist propaganda, that’s outrageous, and a proper matter for school boards to deal with. If schools want to offer classes on religion and philosophy that explain religious views of the origins of life, fine. But to make science classrooms a platform for a pseudoscience whose sole intent is to counter ”godless” natural selection is a travesty of both science and faith. And this effort may well alienate many scientifically literate people from the Republican Party and conservatism, making the caricature of evolution as left-wing dogma a self-fulfilling prophecy.
God vs. Darwin: no contest

Right! It’s not science, but schools certainly have a right to offer opposing viewpoints. Couldn’t have said it better myself!

Don Singleton adds this:

One could also teach Evolution from an Intelligent Design perspective, acknowledging the fact that a Supreme Being was involved, but that adaptation and evolution were tools He used.

Designing an Intelligent Debate

Of course one could. Perhaps this is why the NABT no longer uses the word ‘unguided’ in its description of evolution:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of biological evolution—an unpredictable and natural process of descent with modification that is affected by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, migration and other natural biological and geological forces.
NABT’s Statement on Teaching Evolution

An editorial from the LA Times reminds us that President Bush is not the only person to think this way:

Bush is far from alone. In 1999, soon after Bush said “both [creationism and evolution] ought to be taught,” Vice President Al Gore said through a spokesman that schools should teach evolution but local boards “should be free to teach creationism as well.” Gore backtracked, but he deserved all the scorn aimed his way by scientists and teachers.
Faith vs. evidence

As usual,
Phillip Greenspun’s thoughts were far less compelling than the
his readers thoughts (I liked this one).

One writer inexplicably quotes from the Creation Science Association for Mid-America.

CSA believes that “Revelation” trumps “scientific pursuits,” Genesis is the “written Word of God,” and therefore, the world was made in six days. To protect its belief in a young earth, CSA has to argue that “fossilization does not and cannot require a long time,” the Grand Canyon could have been formed “in hours or days,” and “dinosaurs lived very recently and coexisted with man.”
Bush advocates Intelligent Design curriculum

A quick review of the CSAMA site will reveal that the theydoes not even support “The Intelligent Design Movement” and don’t think much of one of its strongest supporters.

orangeclouds115 at livejournal explains intelligent design:

… the dominant current challenger to evolution in education is intelligent design, which asserts that there is a scientific argument that some complexities of nature, unexplained by Darwin’s theory, cannot be the result of random mutation, but must be the work of an unnamed intelligence. Some critics call it “creationism lite.”
Dinosaur Museum Shows Dinos Sharing Eden With Adam and Eve

Creationism Lite. I love it!

A cynical writer states:

The sole purpose of “Intelligent Design” is to make creationism look like a scientifically credible theory, so that it can be perpetuated in public schools, among other places. Intelligent Design, however, is not supported by scientific evidence, and is invalid as a scientific theory.
The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Op-Ed)

Another good one:

I believe we should base all our conclusions on solid logic, which the opponents to God and “Intelligent Design” falsely claim to do; they usually do not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about, and have not studied anything, but simply want to fight and oppose. You can figure where that draws its power and origin from . the Opposer/Satan.
blitzer from 100777.com

Well, where do I begin? Evolutionists “usually do not have the faintest idea,” they “have not studied anything,” yet they claim to base all their conclusions on logic. We “should base all our conclusions on solid logic?” No, we shouldn’t, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence for stating that most “opposers to God” claim to do that. Science and logic are no the same thing!