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.
Read up on what a scientific theory is.
Evoution does not address big bang, small sizzle or any other subjects including what kind of car to buy.
Could you cite some examples? The only politics I've seen have come from the Creationist side where they want to find a way force religion into schools.
"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."
You are saying, then, that, if Scripture teaches that God constantly intervenes and actively governs the world (which it does), not to mention the other "scientific" claims that Scripture makes which are rather central to the entire history of redemption (a few of which are in my previous post), and these claims are inconsistent with science/evolution (which they are), then Scripture is to be disregarded, because it is not holding up to real world scrutiny, as you define real world.
The Scripture you are left with under your interpretation is sort of like the Jefferson Bible. That is about as close to deism (a rather minor movement in the history of religion, incidentally...precisely because it is almost indistinguishable from atheism) as you can get.
I think, all in all, the most strident pro-evolution posters on this thread would be compelled by logic and integrity to agree with me that if you take away all of Scripture which is inconsistent with the evolutionary worldview, then not much is left. (I am assuming that the pro-evolutionary folks have actually read the Bible...which may not be true...from their perspective it isn't particularly relevant, so it is perhaps not fair to ask them to opine on something which they are not deeply interested in...fair enough).
At any rate...I think I have answered the question I posed a few posts ago satisfactorily.
I certainly prefer to discourse with honest atheists and evolutionists rather than those who want to have it both ways. At least we are agreeing on the rules of the game which include the rules of logic and which demand consistency in one's thinking.
You really don't think macro evolution takes faith? C'mon!
There's more mysticism in believing that humans learned language and creative thought by random chance than in the logic of believing that some one designed it.
Trust me, it won't 'confuse' science students to be taught that the possibility of ID, because it's far more logical and intellectually honest than evolution is.
It is YOU who want students to stop thinking because you are afraid of introducing something you don't personally believe in.
That simply shows that man is selectively controlling the reproduction of living things. It does not demonstrate ID. If man can selectively breed desired traits (at leasted desired by man), why can't natural, environmental factors apply pressures that cause selective breeding on wild populations? That's an underlying concept of evolution and no need to envoke outside control. The only differnece is that the natural pressures are just that, natural, and do not have a controller behind them that desires a certain outcome.
Why are you against religion?
Obviously.
This is entirely different. You disagree with Bush and Reagan because they are more conservative than you,
Actually, I'd push that from the STRICT definition of the word, IDers are the ones trying to CHANGE current scientific theory, making the supporters of existing scientific opinion on evolution to be the conservatives in the field.
If you mean, and I suspect you do, conservatism from a POLIICAL standpoint, I'd have to point out that politics and science should not be the same thing.
And I'd have to point out that you might want to qualify your statment You disagree with Bush and Reagan because they are more conservative than you with the addition of "on this issue" unless you are trying to demonize evolution supporters (or, in this case, someone who just points out that there are evolution supporters who are conservatives!), and do the equivalent of dancing around them chanting "nyahnyahnyah, you are not true conservatives".
and don't line up with what your liberal professors taught you.
Really? I've never actually taken a college class where evolution was brought up ...
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).
Cool. Please point out any post where I've stated that students shouldn't be taught both sides of a legitimate scientific debate . You may be confusing me with someone else.
What I want to know is the truth. How about you??
Immensely. Which is why I'd ask that the argument of science follow the accepted scientific terms, not take points away from a current theory because it has changed over time (as evolution has, and theories of disease have, and many others ... heck, the hypothesis of ID has changed over time, losing the strict idea that God was the creator, and allowing possibilities such as aliens), and follow strict scientific procedures. Once ID moves from hypothesis to theory, it SHOULD be mentioned in classrooms. But it hasn't done that yet ... the ID side is putting the cart before the horse here ... strengthen the scientific backing (not "numbers of scientists for", not "Bible says it's so", not "God exists, so of COURSE he has some bearing on the argument") but create a potentially falsifiable theory ... I mean, evolution has at least one big way to be proven false ...
Evolutionists will continue to laugh at ID until it tries to actually use science for support ... THEN the argument can move to pure debate. Most of these threads DO end up in name-calling and so on, simply because very little SCIENCE is actually discussed.
It's all ends up being a series of ad hominem, appeals to authority, red herrings, and all other argumental fallacies that I can;t remember the names for at the moment.
:)
;-)
And I do love how I have been added to the evolutionist camp just because I want scientific arguments to be (the horror) based in science. Just as I don't examine my Bible looking for scientific errors.
I have confidence that if the ID hypotheses is correct, science will eventually come to it ... but it needs to be through the scientifc method, and not some crazy idea that all opinions are equally valid.
(Please note that the statement above does not take a side in the evolution vs. ID debate. Really. If the statement bothers you, it must be for something other than evolution.)
Supporters of ID need to spend more time in the lab and less time in the courtroom.
(Heck, to put this in different terms, I believe the whole multiple universe ideas floating aroud right now are tenuous science at best ... wild guesses in may cases, presented as hard science ... but I'd counter them with science, not legislation.)
(Now someone will point out how multiple universes are possible, and I hope they do it with links and articles and data, and not just call me a moron, a liberal, or, strangle, a hard-core supporter of the multiple universe theory.)
I do appreciate how, at least, I haven't been labelled an atheist or Satan-worshipper yet.
Once you decide a small group of people have a lock on the correct interpretation of the Bible you substitute human hubris for religious humility.
I'll take humility in the face of God any day.
Here is one example; I have dozens of others.
When light first came to the earth, O-ma-ma-ma the earth mother of the Cree people gave birth to the spirits of the world. The first born was Binay-sih, the thunderbird who protects the animals from the sea serpent, Genay-big. Thunderbirds shout out their unhappiness or anger with black clouds, rain and fire flashes in the sky. The second born was Ina-kaki, the lowly frog who heightens the sorcerer's powers and helps to control the insects in the world. The third born was the trickster Wee-sa-hay-jac, who can change himself into many forms or shapes to protect himself. The fourth child was Ma-heegun, Wee-sa-hay-jac's little wolf brother. They travel together with Wee-sa-hay-jac on his back. The fifth born was Amik the beaver, who is greatly respected because he is an unfortunate human from a different world. Fish, rocks, grasses, and trees all came from the womb of the great earth mother O-ma-ma-ma. The earth was inhabited a long time by only animals and spirits because Wee-sa-hay-jac had not yet made any people.
Yet fundies have a fit when anything non-critical of homosexuality is taught in school. What are you guys afraid of anyway? Afraid your hypocritical actions will be exposed? Why not give equal time to other points of view?
Nope. How does God intervene? Is it through natural processes? Did He foresee the need for intervention prior to the creation of the universe and thus built His intervention into the "prgram?"
Those of you who bring it up are really confused and delusional, and filled with unfounded fears because you are intellectually dishonest and cover your heads in fear rather than face the debate head on.
Is it going to make you happy when the US is last in the world in science education and research?
I don't. Miracles stand outside the realm of science (they cannot be tested or replicated).
No. My belief is predicated on reality.
Avoidance of the question. I did not say that I was against religion.
Again, cite examples of how evolution has been used in a political manner. It should be very easy since you insinuated that a person would be very naive to unaware of it.
Evolution's political ties are deeper and older. One example. Planned Parenthood and population control directly tied to Darwinian survival of the fittest. Second example. Euthanasia. Directly tied to Darwin and evolution. (Both leftist politics).
There are lots more. But they happened before you were born. You didn't 'see' them..........so you can pretend they didn't happen.
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.