Bush supports 'intelligent design'

MyrtleBeach Online ^ | 02 August 2005 | Ron Hutcheson

[Rudder]

First and foremost...and like all politicians, Bush is one.

And usually a damn good one at that. But, yeah, you're right about that.

[Michael81Dus]

So, why do we have a Coccyx if it´s not from a tail our ape-ancestors still have?

I don´t know who created life in general, but I do know that humans evolved from apes, and that the first living creatures on earth were in the sea.

Everything else is subject to belief.

[mlc9852]

I would be interested in anyone's interpretation of how the Bible says slavery is okay. Any takers?

[Junior]

There weren't millions of people in the Exodus, regardless of what Scripture says. There may have been a few tens of thousands.

As you might have gleaned, I do not accept the inerrancy of Scripture. Those words have been through too many retellings to have any resemblance to their originals.

And, before you get into a high dudgeon about this lack of acceptance at face value of what claims to be the Word of God (a circular argument if I ever heard one), please note my comments that any interpretation of Scripture I accept must conform to reality.

[Michael81Dus]

Do I read on this thread that the ID supporters are not necessarily a majority on FR?

[bobdsmith]

I saw this on google very early in the morning (GMT). I searched for "intelligent design" and at first there were just two news sites running the story. I thought "uh oh.." and just hoped it wouldn't spread, but when I checked again an hour or so later there were a couple of dozen new sites running it. A few hours after that it filled the first 8 pages on google news and a neon word "darn" appeared in my head.

But I think this is blown out of proportion. It's probably been mentioned already but notice how Bush is clever enough to subtley divert the question:

"You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is 'yes.'""

Notice he didn't say that such non-science ideas should be taught in science classes though :) Very clever dodge.

[From many - one.]

I am aware that there is a small majority of Americans who believe in creation. Many of them also accept evolution, at least up to man.

Facts are not decided by voting, though.

[JeffAtlanta]

I don't know, Jeff; perhaps you will enlighten us all.

Wow, you guys are really mature. What is next? Are you going to start saying "I know you are but what am I"?

BTW, I see that you totally ignored the points in my post. (1)Your list of 400 is bogus and (2)The number of ID clubs is vastly surpassed by the number of gay or even video game clubs.

[PatrickHenry]

But I think this is blown out of proportion.

Perhaps, but the MSM knows a "good thing" when it sees one. This is going to be big in forthcoming elections.

I suppose we should look at the bright side. There won't be too many people asking why we have these threads on FR any more.

[From many - one.]

No.

Changing the subject, are we?

[jec41]

What kind of educator are you? let me guess, not in science.

Most people of religion seek to have their doctrine taught in schools but would exclude any other religion. I have long thought that Christianity should be examined in schools along with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism Buddhism, Greek Mythology, and Atheist ism. They should be examined for origin, intellectual thought, purpose and agenda. They should not be taught as science but could be taught as folklore.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Those scientists signed a paper stating: “we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

Are you saying those scientists are lying, Jeff?

[Tequila25]

Scientists concede that evolution does not answer every question about the creation of life...

Evolution does NOT address the creation of life. That theory is called abiogenesis.

What a poorly written article.

[Modernman]

My list of "discarded cr@p" actually comprises old Evolutionist lies that were finally deemed too transparent to keep defending, so they got jettisoned.

So, who disproved these various items you mentioned? Was it creationists or evolutionists?

And what does that tell you?

[mlc9852]

I'm not changing the subject. The subject is what we all think about President Bush promoting creationism. I think it's wonderful. Sorry you disagree.

[curiosity]

For evolution to work to explain life we must make one leap of faith

Sorry, but evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life.

I suggest you find out what a theory is about before you start criticizing it. That way, you can avoid making an ass of yourself.

[ConservativeDude]

That is precisely my point. And it shows that you are missing it entirely.

That is not what Scripture attributes the parting of the Red Sea to...it attributes it to the overwhelming and decidedly non-natural power of God Almighty, acting on behalf of His people, just as He told Abraham that He would. (Read the psalms and subsequent recollections of this event thoughout the Bible...it is not remembered as some sort of wind). Moreover, parting it a bit would not have allowed the million or so Jews leave on dry ground, which is how it is described. Nothing in the history of the natural world occurs like that. And then...interestingly...it flooded back to kill most of the Egyptian army. I doubt if the French researchers can account for that timing.

Finally....that is only one single example. These episodes occur throughout Scripture. Read the book of Daniel, for example. The examples would number in the thousands.

A naturalistic interpretation of Scripture is not an interpretation. It is a renunciation of Scripture.

You are free to reject Scripture. But don't reject its heart and sould and pretend that you aren't.

[RadioAstronomer]

What kind of educator are you? let me guess, not in science.

Bzzzt! Wrong!

[bobhoskins]

There are no scientitic reasons to oppose ID -- only religious ones.

I can't accept that statement. If ID moves from hypothesis to a potentially falsifiable theory, there'd still be plenty of scientific reasons to oppose it ... just as there are plenty of scientific reasons to oppose most scientific theories. If there weren't, our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology would never have improved.

Scientists should ALWAYS be allowed to question existing scientific theory and hypotheses --- even their own! --- in fact, it is necessary that this happens for science to be "science".

And before anyone states that this is why ID should be taught in schools, please understand that the scientific community wants issues that rise to the level of SCIENTIFIC theory be taught ...

I mean, I was taught multiple theories on why earth has a moon (captured by earth's gravity, chuck of the earth itself), so science definitely allows for multiple theories to be taught ... but not just ANYTHING. For instance, I couldn't say the moon was a paper-mache project I created in 2nd grade and taped to the sky ... as that theory is disproven by current evidence. For instance, I was a slacker in 2nd grade and didn't do my work.

[Asphalt]

I don't know exactly. In the

Your friend Junior will no doubt giive ou the evolutionist indoctrination