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.
I base my interpretation of Scripture on how it matches up to the real world (that is the only way to test the validity of any belief system). Evolution is supported by the evidence (and millions of pages of it collected and tested for more than a century and a half). If an interpretation of Scripture discards this evidence and the conclusions drawn from it, then it is the interpretation that is lacking.
The evidence is so hard, that there were recent articles that spoke of anomalies that might not fit current theory. Once again, where did the original matter come from to allow the Big Bang? There had to be some originating source. Unless you want to take it on pure faith that it always existed...
"...Darwin's 'science' was based on the prevailing philosophy of the academic community of the time, and not on scientific inquiry."
Laughable.
The operative word being MOST. So the debate is not legitimate to you because there aren't enough scientists on the other side? Interesting POV on a conservative forum.........that the minority is necessarily wrong and should be silenced....
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?
OK.......that's really funny. I believe in actually educating youth, and you mock it. (How about taking away sex ed, and self-awareness classes, and teach a course on the classics including philosophy.........or is that silly to you, Prof?)
And no, I'm not a science prof, but what does that have to do with intellectual honesty? Are only science profs capable of commenting on the state of University education, and the leftist elites who OWN it? What kind of 'right winger' are you anyway, that you don't know what's going on in higher education these days?
He had a pre-set viewpoint when he began his 'inquiry' and looked for evidence to back up what he already thought philosophically.
That's not scientific.
Also, this might be useful: How to argue against a scientific theory.
Once you decide the Bible can mean anything to anyone, there is no longer a point to having the Bible. It becomes totally meaningless, which it may be to you, but millions of others have no problem believing it.
I SO enjoy lurking on these threads and watching you evolutionary zealots make fools of yourselves.
I enjoy it too! Oh, wait, you're saying I'M an evolutionist?
But once in a while, you're so ignorant and arrogant that I can't help but intervene and point that out.
Thank you. I didn;t realize you knew me so well. I AM ignorant on quite a bit (as I am not perfect) and I AM arrogant (I believe America is better than other countries ... no matter what the news tells me).
This one's a doozy. VERY funny,
That's all I'm going for most of the time.
but at the same very sad, that you are so ignorant of what understanding the Creator is all about,
Well, yes, I do admit I could never in this mortal life understand what the Creator (God, right? You're not one of those "aliens seeded the earth" people, I hope) is all about.
and how there is no conflict between faith and science, UNLESS the 'science' is based on false religion and post-modern philosophy
... or if the religious leaders are wrong, as Galieleo might attest. It does cut both ways.
...........as the pseudo science of evolution is.
But they write papers and everything!
If teachers and professors would teach only true science, we wouldn't be having this debate, and students wouldn't be being brainwashed in class and denied true scientific inquiry as they are now.
I should clarify that my original post (that WildHorseCrash responded to) was trying to poke fun at the idea that scientific understanding should not change (and, pardon the expression, "evolve") ... and if you support ID, isn't part of your argument that you want scientific understanding to change?
So9
Not responsive to my post.
To repeat:
Evolution has lost precisely zero ground.
The teaching of scientific thought and methods has.
Not the same thing at all.
To explain:
Replacing science in science classes with either religion or non-scientific notions, dilutes the teaching of science. It has no impact whatosever on the facts which are independent of our opinions about them.
I see we're having at it again. These threads never cease. We ought to start one monster thread in which we just debate. It would save time.
Sorry that your feelings got hurt.
Your sarcasm is closer to reality than you might think.
And that's why the debate is one of emotion, not reason, although far more for your side than mine.
You can accept ID and still believe 99.9 percent of the Theory of Evolution.
You can accept ID and still be an atheist (albeit why one should chose to believe in material spacemen creators than a supernatural one leads to other questions).
You can't accept ID, however, and believe that man is the ultimate intelligence for if we are not one must conclude that there is something to which we must account for the actions we take public and private. This is a life-changing thought.
There are no scientitic reasons to oppose ID -- only religious ones.
Many disagree with the "facts" of evolution. And if you had kids in high school, you would know very little evolution is taught anyway. My kids were taught evolution and creationism in public school. So what?
Some just want to sound smart. Mostly they're atheists. It's a religious thing.
As I said, I base my interpretation on how well it stacks up against reality. If you cling to interpretations that fly in the face of reality, you run the risk of alienating increasing numbers of people.
Good post!
You can accept ID - but you certainly can't test it, or gather evidence for it, or falsify it.
There ARE scientific reasons to oppose ID being taught in SCIENCE classes, when it is simply not science. There is no testable, falsifiable hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design.
Don't try that.
I didn't say it and you are wasting everone's time on red herrings.
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.