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.
Nope. I accept the validity of evolution and I'm quite comfortable with the existence of the Almighty.
Only a specific and narrow interpretation of Scripture leads one to believe that evolution is incompatible with God. That is why the vast majority of those who accept the validity of evolution are also church-going Christians.
One thing that is often lost in discussions about politics and criticism of candidates (including those candidates we support) is that politics is always about your second choice. Unless you are on the ballot, the person you vote for will likely not be your first choice.
GWB sure as hell wasn't my first choice and there is plenty to criticize him for. But, believe me, he was definitely my second choice - and he was infinitely better than Gore or Kerry or for that matter any other idiot the D's will ever put up! I think most everyone here would agree on that!
Most scientists disagree with you.
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.
Spoken like someone who hasn't stepped inside a high-school since he left. They can't complete a respectable math curriculum, and you want to teach them Hegelianism?
But then, I'm an educator who actually believes in education. Not brainwashing.
What kind of educator are you? let me guess, not in science.
Did God create humans separately or allow them to evolve from some lower life form?
Thanks for the ping!
The latter. There is too much evidence supporting it.
They are only theories, which amount to educated guesses - no proof = a need for faith.
Ant theory on where all the matter came from to begin the Big Bang? Did it exist as matter or energy? If time started with the Bang - what was there before time? What does science have other than guesses designed to fit their theories?
This is entirely different. You disagree with Bush and Reagan because they are more conservative than you, and don't line up with what your liberal professors taught you.
VERY different.
Nobody's basing their scientific theory on what conservative Presidents believe............just noting that conservative Presidents agree with open debate in academia, and liberals agree with you........that students shouldn't be taught both sides of a legitimate scientific debate (i.e. taught only the liberal side of it).
What I want to know is the truth. How about you?? :)
No, you don't.
but the basic question is does man have the ability to understand any basic question in physics or biology that goes beyond the gross physical senses.
This is a question?
Well, man is quite adept at making tranducers which convert the invisible to the visible, the inaudable to sound and to detect energies we would otherwise not perceive. I guess if we cannot physically perceive a phenomenon or its effects, then empirical observation is impossible and we are thus left with pure conjecture.
I'm afraid you're mixing apples and oranges. Even if only one-third of the population accepts the validity of evolution (and science is NOT a matter of popularity), fully 80 percent of the U.S. population professes to be Christian. Therefore, it is quite conceivable for the majority of evolutionists to also be Christian.
In that regard, it is no different than Gravitation Theory, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory...
Scientific theories cannot be proven. All they can do is gather mountains of evidence.
You see, you're an example of what I meant when I remarked on a "specific and narrow interpretation of Scripture."
Like I mentioned to another "scientist", please explain these comments with scientific arguments rather than "because I said so" dogma:
They are only theories, which amount to educated guesses - no proof = a need for faith. Any theory on where all the matter came from to begin the Big Bang? Did it exist as matter or energy? If time started with the Bang - what was there before time? What does science have other than guesses designed to fit their theories?
After all - it was only recently that they decided to revisit the expanding universe and decided they need to rethink their other theories - rather than answers, science comes up with more questions, yet some folks are even more religiously fervent in their faith in scientific answers than the Believers are in how they express their own belief in the Biblical accounts.
You may well be comfortable with the existence of the almighty. That would put you in the deistic camp, as I already posted.
I don't think an interpretation of Scripture which precludes evolution is narrow at all, but is rather reading the Bible in its entirety. Scripture, on the whole, teaches that God is utterly sovereign that He intervenes and directs all human events, including the rise and fall of governments, the weather, the good that happens to people, the bad that happens to people, etc. The players in the NT (including Jesus) obviously believed in a literal Flood and a literal Adam, that is, they simply believed the Hebrew scriptures were "true". Pauline theology explicitly hinges on the Fall happening in real space, real time, just as redemption happens in real space, real time.
I think a reading of Scripture which says also that "evolution is true" is superficial.
Also...since this thread is full of obviously rigorous logicians, I don't think the argument that countless of "church-going Christians" support evolution is evidence that there is much understanding of either evolution or Scripture. Let's face it, most people are ignorant in the extreme - although most people also purport to be experts at, well, almost everything. That holds true whether you are talking about the Bible, about the Constitution, or about evolution.
I agree, but...
Much like a computer with out a USER.
The software does little to nothing with out the interaction of an outside force. Good analogie, take it the rest of the way!
"Your sarcasm is closer to reality than you might think."
Agreed.
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.