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.
And usually a damn good one at that. But, yeah, you're right about that.
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.
I would be interested in anyone's interpretation of how the Bible says slavery is okay. Any takers?
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.
Do I read on this thread that the ID supporters are not necessarily a majority on FR?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No.
Changing the subject, are we?
Are you saying those scientists are lying, Jeff?
So, who disproved these various items you mentioned? Was it creationists or evolutionists?
And what does that tell you?
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.
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.
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.
Bzzzt! Wrong!
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.
I don't know exactly. In the
Your friend Junior will no doubt giive ou the evolutionist indoctrination
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.