Posted on 08/02/2005 4:16:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.
In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.
Bush declined to state his personal views on "intelligent design," the belief that life forms are so complex that their creation cannot be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone, but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine.
The theory of evolution, first articulated by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859, is based on the idea that life organisms developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature that favored certain traits that helped species survive.
Scientists concede that evolution does not answer every question about the creation of life, and most consider intelligent design an attempt to inject religion into science courses.
Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. While he was governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.
On Monday, the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."
The Kansas Board of Education is considering changes to encourage the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas schools, and some are pushing for similar changes across the country.
"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.'"
The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both have concluded there is no scientific basis for intelligent design and oppose its inclusion in school science classes. [Note from PH: links relevant to those organizations and their positions on ID are added by me at the end of this article.]
Some scientists have declined to join the debate, fearing that amplifying the discussion only gives intelligent design more legitimacy.
Advocates of intelligent design also claim support from scientists. The Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle that is the leading proponent for intelligent design, said it has compiled a list of more than 400 scientists, including 70 biologists, who are skeptical about evolution.
"The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life," said John West, associate director of the organization's Center for Science and Culture.
Where are your sarcasm tags?
No intelligent person could make that statement and be serious.
Particularly good post. Thanks for the data.
Kind of like that loony notion that we're all responsible for our own actions--we aren't, you see.
Chemistry is responsible for our "crimes". Which really, aren't crimes at all--child molestation, murder, theft, these are mere behaviors brought about by imbalances in brain functions. These behaviors are deemed uncomfortable by societal organizations, and are called "crimes".
And what administrations had the better science policies? Our nuke program is still screwed up due to Carter. And wouldn't we all be better off if Clinton had gotten Kyoto passed? < /sarcasm>
Your sarcasm isn't close to reality, it IS reality.
Sincere inquiry here. Assume for the sake of argument here that evolution is "true". Now I understand fully that many of the earlier evolutionists were not a-theists, Darwin included. But, really, if evolution is "true" then the most logical conclusion is also that a-theism is true.
If you really feel compelled to disavow a-theism, then at the most, one who believes in evolution can only accept some sort of deism where the creator god is very distant and virtually never intervenes in the created god but sits basically on his "Mt. Olympus" and watches it all.
Either scenario, then, bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible.
Agree or disagree?
(Please don't come back with the glib answer that says that "God can create any way that he wants...both the evolution and the Bible are true". I am sincerely trying to advance the discourse here and I think those sorts of sleight of hand statements understand neither evolution nor the Bible. And by way of full disclosure, I am in the Biblical camp).
I still don't understand why these otherwise intelligent freepers don't get the political connection with the academic elitist left, and question what they've been taught by those same people in science class?
A grounded conservative student, subjected to leftist brainwashing in any field, doesn't become a missionary for the left. He/she fights it, because it's biased and they know it.
These folks must not have been solid in their understanding that their profs might just be handing them a line in science class. Gullible is the word that comes to mind.
Bravo, Mr President.
This must be another Karl Rove plot to tweak Liberals.
What exactly IS "Intelligent Design"?
I won't vote for a Clinton, a Kerry, a Kennedy or a Gore on this, but I won't vote for Dubya again next time, either, now!
I'm quite familiar with this phenomenon as well. If the creationists are successful in linking their dogma with the conservative political ideology (as the press so loves to do whenever the opportunity presents itself), the net effect will be devastating, politically. Headlines like the one of this article certainly can't help.
There are plenty of things many conservatives don't agree on with Bush (and, to a much lesser extent, Reagan). Otherwise, why would we have a discussion forum instead of just posting everything President Bush says, and having a poll for every item asking "Do you agree with the President on this issue?" and giving only a yes option?
My favorite baseball team is not the Texas Rangers ... guess I must be a liberal, especially as John Kerry says he was a Sox fan.
Since this is a politcal forum, I wonder how that little fact eludes them.
It probably doesn't ... just as how conservatives for stronger borders haven't missed the President's opinion on that either ... or how conservatives for stronger legislation on video games haven't missed how that's become Hillary's pet issue. Does the ID side of this argument REALLY want to make this a game of pointing out who's on each side of the argument?
I also wonder if they blindly swallowed what their leftist political science profs shoved down their throats, like they swallowed what their leftist science profs shoved down their throats........
Probably not, as they're on a conservative forum, but they could all be sleeper trolls that have been on this board for years, waiting to use evolution to destroy our great nation ... no, I'll stick with "probably not".
I would hope people would not base scientific theory upon what politicians supported or did not support it.
Inquiring minds want to know...... ;)
Cool, if you really want to know ...
No. I think high school science class is the proper place for scientific challenges to evolution. And don't pretend there aren't any. There are.
I also think that 18th and 19th century philosophy should be taught in High Schools, so that students understand that Darwin's 'science' was based on the prevailing philosophy of the academic community of the time, and not on scientific inquiry.
I think High School students should find out the truth and make up their own minds.
But then, I'm an educator who actually believes in education. Not brainwashing.
Nope.
The mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is accepted by the scientific community. The extent of anthropogenic global warming is disputed, though almost all of us believe there is some; it's a question of how much. We also disagree about how harmful it is (my own opinion is it's real and largely beneficial).
However, most scientists who know anything about the subject will tell you that regardless of the extent of global warming, Kyoto is a useless and likely harmful international agreement.
Evidence points to the contrary.
Fortunately, I didn't vote for him based on his scientific acumen. (Not that Kerry had any, either).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.