Bush supports 'intelligent design'

MyrtleBeach Online ^ | 02 August 2005 | Ron Hutcheson

[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.

---

[Links inserted by PH:]
Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. President of the National Academy of Sciences.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.

[Asphalt]

very near the truth

[Tribune7]

You can accept ID - but you certainly can't test it, or gather evidence for it, or falsify it.

Can you test this theory -- "All life evolved undirected from a single cell"?

[From many - one.]

If you are trained in biology and medicine you seem to have missed some bits of bio 101.

Evolution is how species differentiate. It has nothing to do with the physical properties of water in relation to life.

Evolution starts with a given: life exists.

Then there is the observation: it exists in many forms.

Now the question: how come?

That's it.

[jec41]

What are you evolutionists afraid of, anyway? That your lock on the minds of the young might be broken and the truth seep in??

Apparently so

I am afraid of any doctrine that would promote any actions such as the Salem Witch trials.

[Quick1]

That's not evolution.

[doc30]

the physics of H2O as needed for life are in conflict with most other matter ...ie freezing and expanding solid less mass than liquid

When I was in grade school, a teacher taught that no one knows why ice, solid water, floats (i.e. is less dense) than liquid water. It was taught like it was some supernatural mystery and that only God could make it so and left it at that. Then came freshman chemistry at college and the physics of this phenomenon were explained very well. Nothing miraculous about it. This is just another example of how bad schools are at teaching science.

As an aside, ice has a lower density because the molecules are arranged in a crystal structure that has more free space, or gaps and voids, than liquid water.

[ohioWfan]

So it's scientifically acceptable, in your learned view, to have a 'hypothesis' with a specific goal in mind, and to accept only the evidence you find that supports your pre-set philosophy (note.....I did not say science.....I said philosophy).

This is science to you?

[ThinkPlease]

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).

That's if both sides were equally valid scientifically...they're not. Evolution is where it's at, Intelligent design chooses to spend its dollars politically rather than on research. Not a surprise that they have no scientific theories?

[mlc9852]

So your belief system is predicated on whether or not you alienate people? Jesus alienated quite a few.

[ohioWfan]

I am afraid of any doctrine that would promote any actions such as the Salem Witch trials.

So Tribune's right, and it IS about religion.

And fear.

We can't actually examine the evidence scientifically with minds open because some one might burn us at the stake.

I learn SO much on these threads.......

[mlc9852]

Then skip my posts like I skip yours.

[Tempest]

I love the President too and I understand that he has a much harder job than I do.

[mlc9852]

Do you fear teachers of evolution will be burned at the stake?

[liberallarry]

Where are your sarcasm tags? No intelligent person could make that statement and be serious.

Of course I'm not serious. I'm using outrageous hyperbole to forcefully make a point.

[JohnnyM]

I assume you are Christian, so how do you reconcile the resurrection and the miracles performed by Jesus since they clearly defy science and the real world?

JM

[ohioWfan]

It's new..............there is research, but there haven't been 150 years to manipulate the system yet, like evolutionists have had.

And if you don't think evolution is political, I have some great swampland to sell you! LOL!

Evolution and (leftist) politics have been intertwined for over a hundred years. But I'm guessing that you're a victim of post-modern philosophy, and you believe life began the day you were born, so I'm not surprised that you don't know that.

[ohioWfan]

I'm going out to get the gasoline and run to the High School as soon as we successfully get ID taught in education.

You wanna join me?? Let's burn em ALL!!

[doc30]

Let's hear it for the debate!

Let's hear it for intellectual freedom!

Let's hear it for scientific inquiry!

... What are you evolutionists afraid of, anyway?

The problem is that in order to teach ID, the students cannot be taught basic science. They will have to unlearn everything scientific already taught to them and then be forced to accept "god did it" or "aliens did it" or "black monoliths did it" as a substitute for rational discussion. Then the students will be ignorant little morons who won't understand science because scientific ideas are confused by the mysticism of ID. The easy asnwer will always me "becasue it is that way" or "God did it" so the student will no longer have to think. It is the introduction of the Dark Ages. But then again, some churches like their worshippers to stop thinking so they can get more tithes from them, too.

[From many - one.]

The word Christian does not apear at all on the page you cited.

You have not successfully contraverted the statement that most of those who accept the validity of the scientific theory of evolution are church going Christians.

I would say that it is probably correct for the United States and Europe, but China and India proably have more non-Christians who accept the theory than Christians, simply because they have more non-Christians in their population. Same for Israel.

[JeffAtlanta]

Try rapidly. And not just this country.

This is how Europe and Asia are going to soon surpass the US. Our fundies won't be satisfied until we are the Taliban reincarnate.

I wouldn't even mind a democratic president for 4 years if we find a way to put the fundies in one party and the non-cultists in another.