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.
I feel sorry for those who can believe so much in the world but doubt God. It's sad.
So the evos can repeat the same thing over and over but if those who believe in God as creator can't? That seems fair.
"All that other discarded crap" is why we're not still teaching Aristotle's theories as current scientific doctrine. It's called the "scientific method". You may have heard of it.
The trouble is that there is no Theory of intelligent design.
"If evolution IS the Truth let it experience competition. Let the weaker theory fall. It works in economics."
How refreshing!! Yet, you'll find few that will be willing to concede ANYTHING scientific regarding the ID debate. For them, it is quite simple: they know what will happen if people actually start THINKING about this stuff.
They'll start questioning what funds it.
And then, they'll find that about 80 cents of every science research dollar comes straight from .... the U.S. Gov't.
And then, they'll start asking questions, like, what value are we getting for all that expenditure?
And then, they'll start seeing that an awful lot of biologists in major universities really, really love wine and cheese shin digs.
And then, they'll start calling congressman, and say things like, 'maybe they might do more w/ less...'.
And we know that if THAT happens, then the Foundation Priests of Secularism will be forced to compete with, horrors! other Priests.
So, in short, your metaphor is excellent. In the end, it is about breaking a BONA FIDE ECONOMIC MONOPOLY, and G. Bush, is sounding more and more like T. Roosevelt. It is a good day today!
I don't see what the big deal is. Intelligent design could mean a lot of things, only one of them divine. It could also mean extraterrestrial. Nobody knows for certain where life on this planet came from or how it progressed. The scientists are right on both accounts. There is a certain amount of evolution that takes place and there is a whole lot of things that can't be explained by evolution. Teaching both views is does not hamper science but rather invigorates it. If you don't believe one view or the other then prove it. There is nothing like a little competition over views to stir a debate.
It'd be very nice to have an omnipresent invisible Abba that actually answers prayers and loves us more than anything else. However, if he exists, he's sure a big believer in the "hands off" parenting approach.
Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and perhaps he is simply teaching us a lesson in faith. *shrugs*
Eugenics ... my my .... I wonder how often that word gets used in SCEINCE classrooms, or even history classrooms...
To the lurkers out there, you'll find that thread after thread, this poster pretty much is consistent in revealing that he finds the agenda of evolutionists to be less than appealing.
Eugenics is a find word to attach to the whole debate. Remember the book 'The Bell Curve'?
Another soul lost to the irrational myths of ID and creationism. I feel this country slowly sliding back into the superstitious middle ages.
Yes, all those who don't believe in evolution are superstitious, backwards hicks. LOL
The notion of assisted evolution is as plausible as genetically engineered wheat, corn, farm animals, etc. that we are familiar with today.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Yes basically. I've seen it said here too.
ID can be taught in Sunday school, but it's not a science nor is it scientifically derived. It's merely an idea dreamed up by those who do not comprehend science.
thanks for the pity, but it is not warranted. just because i do not believe in a book written to keep people in line and is, at BEST, loosely translated from the original text, does not make me a bad person. i merely subscribe to a different ideology.
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.