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.
The title of this thread is misleading. The Prez said he believed that local communities should decide how they run their schools. He was stating that he believed in different ideas. He did not say he supported "intelligent design".
And we can teach students to multiply both sides of an equation by zero to get them to balance out. After all, it's easier, too.
My point is that the easy answer, or the intuitive one, is not necessarily the correct answer, or the best explaination. With ID, there is no scientific theory behind it and no evidence to support it. Even if you believe ID is responsible for evolution, you are then acknowledging evolution as a prerequisite for ID. You are acknowledging that speciation can arise from natural selection but with the caveat that the natural selection aspect was guided by some invisible, unmeasureable influence that is beyond human understanding. There is mountains of evidence that supports evolution. In order for ID to be correct, that same evidence must be onsistent with ID.
By citing learned human language or creative thought, you are merely capitualting that it is too hard to understand, therefore is incomprehensible, therefore some higher power must understand it. It may be challenging to understand, but that does not mean that it is impossible to understand. The same can be said about quantum mechanics or string theory. To understand those theories takes years of study and dedication and only a very, very small poercentage of the population understands these theories. This does not mean they are invalid by the basis of their difficulty.
I'll beg to differ. For instance, two French researchers have discovered how a constant wind could push the waters of the Red Sea back a bit to let folks cross.
You realize that the list is bogus, right?
How many gay clubs have popped up around the world during that same time?
There is no scientific research for ID. There is no evidence for ID. But since you think there is, care to share some of it with us, so that I can show you the error of your ways?
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.
So is that the substance of your argument, throwing insults around? The depth of your knowledge is staggering.
But I never make statements without AMPLE proof.
You are free to think what you'd like, but the historic connection is clearly there...........but only if you really want the truth will you find it. Because the guys you're hanging around with sure don't want you to know it's there.
Not at all.
They are different subjects in different fields of study.
If you wnat to discuss evolution, fine, but don't try tying it to everything you don't like in the universe.
I interpret the Bible by what it says. Most of it is pretty straightforward.
Truer words have never been spoken. There is a level playing field out there. Sometimes I'm not sure that the ID proponents aren't scared of doing real research, their avoidence of a lab environment is so total.
So is that the substance of your argument, throwing insults around?
Just inverted your insult back at you. :)
Enjoy the discussion. Real life calls.
Yet many have found its meanings to change with the times. At one time, the bible belt felt that Christianity justified slavery.
Save us. Push it back a bit? How about make a part two miles wide so that millions of people could cross? Research has shown that to feed the Israelites, all the millions of them, required hundreds of train cars of food and water every day. Crossing the red sea in one night required a part approximatly two miles wide. A bit of wind could never do that.
Oh, bull. Margaret Singer (the founder of planned parenthood) was a devotee of Theosophy, i.e. the loony toons occultism of Madame Blavatsky. As such she accepted a crazy quilt scheme of "root races," vibrational levels, and all that load, that is as far removed from any scientific version of evolutionary theory as are the yammerings of the most primitive fundamentalist. Blavatsky's bizzare scenario of earth history has always been deviant wrt evolution, anthropology and all related sciences.
The association of Singer with evolution is exactly comparable associating Christianity as such with the deviant, racist and antisemitic sect of Identity Christianity.
According to what -you- think it says, backed up by the opinions of those who share your views.
You make good points, and I would like to stay and debate these issues with you, but can't.
Perhaps later...........
Serious question: How many Israelites (approximately) left with Moses?
Wow, I'm impressed. Did you go to law school?
I don't know, Jeff; perhaps you will enlighten us all.
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.