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.
IIRC, leeches have been used for a couple of decades to help burn victims heal. They keep the blood flowing to an injured area and prevent the tissues in that area from dying.
Also known as "chemical evolution" so he gets a pass.
What a poorly written article.
Here I would agree. But it was well enough written to raise the ire of the Neo Darwinist Brigade to the point where they refer to President Bush in the same terms as the followers of Michael Moore.
The headline states the opposite of what the President said. Whodda thought the MSM could do that???
I don't think ID should be taught as science. While I'm intrigued by aspects of it, I see virtually no evidence developed to support the theory at present.
OTOH, there is a debate raging in the country, as evidenced by the huge number of threads containing hundred and even thousands of posts in this forum. It seems to me that high school students at some point in the curriculum ought to be informed of the controversy.
Chemical evolution does, your argument is with the universities who call it just that in their curricula, not with the poster.
Your statement is that By Chance it happens that Earth is at the right place in the Universe to have liquid water and mild temps ranges no crushing gravity and a moon to provide tides a stable Star on and on just a big casino to you huh..sorry if I do not follow you down the dogma trail. the odds were very much aginst an Earth much less life.Your incredulity is that of the man who won the lottery, and who says that God must have willed it because with the odds so stacked against him, he couldn't have won otherwise. The fallacy in that logic is that you are putting the rabbit in the hat. The odds may be 12 million to 1 against winning, but people do win. It may be
Here, same thing. It may be that the odds are that only 1 out of 50 planets will have the right conditions present for life. But you're putting the rabbit in the hat by saying since its unlikely that it happened that way, that it is impossible that it happened without God. That's just false, as every person now alive or ever living beat worse odds by having their mother's egg fertilized by the lone sperm that could produce them. It's not supernatural, it's just statistics and chance (which the human brain is poor at innately understanding, which is why lotteries flourish.)
I will bet you a million dollars that everywhere life exists, the conditions for life to exist are present.
That was exactly my point and you are totally contradicts your original assertion that the bible is straightforward and easy to understand. The fact is that it is not as interpretations have changed in very major ways from one age to another.
Maybe your very literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong as was the interpretation the Paul endorsed slavery.
Thank you for the compliment. It lunchtime here and I'm off! Too much work to do to check FR this afternoon.
Yeh, I thought they were in use for something but didn't remember what.
how come these sidebars are so much more entertaining than the crevo threads themselves?
I'm confident that they already are. They probably all have internet access. The existence of all those creationist websites isn't exactly a secret. They also have access to "information" about UFOs, crop circles, spoon-bending, haunted houses, etc.
"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."
thanks for your advice - i guess i expect those posting here to be able to read - I did not say that the theory of evolution tries to explains life - if you can understand the written word you may do well in life at this point you have not proved that. a hint at what I was refering to:
did we have DNA with information prior to evolution's first effects or not??
Lots of theories contain words that are shared by others - that doesn't make them joined. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to with beginning of life - that cannot be disputed.
And global warming.
"Yet many have found its meanings to change with the times. At one time, the bible belt felt that Christianity justified slavery."
There are some interesting threads on FR on this. Like these, they often end in shouting and profanity (I am usually one throwing lots of stones, to be sure).
First, let's acknowledge that we are all limited by the culture which surrounds us. Without illumination by the Holy Spirit, we are often engulfed by it and fail to see the clear teachings of Scripture. With regards to slavery, to me it is fairly obvious: Greco-Roman slavery is not per se condemned. If you research those institutions, though they are hardly desirable from the libertarian perspective, they are very different from race-based chattel slavery of North America (and those European countries/colonies where North America got the idea from).
The most relevant passage of Scripture which deals with that sort of slavery is the Exodus and the message is clear. "Let my people go!".
Tragically, if you seriously study the Biblical theology of the slavery era in the U.S., while it is true that otherwise formidable and orthodox theologians definitely justified slavery, there is absolute unanimity outside of the U.S. among orthodox theologians that slavery as practiced here is contrary to Scripture. Evangelical theologians around the world were mystified by this huge blind spot in America. (This blind spot was also encouraged by the fact that many/most of the abolitionists in New England at least were rather pagan and hardly Christian at all in any orthodox sense).
The point being: Scripture is fairly clear. But you must read it outside of your own biases and your own cultural limitations and cultural assumptions. You must strive to read it outside of your normal assumptions. This will make the reader very uncomfortable. But the life of the Biblical faith is not about comfort, nor is it about achieving the American dream, whatever that may be in a given epoch.
Yes, Scripture has been abused and misinterpreted often. But that doesn't negate its essential simplicity. That is what the Reformation was all about. Often we get the Bible wrong, but the pure Biblical faith itself often re-emerges, somewhere down the road. And it always looks the same.
I post for the lurkers.
I would like to think that these threads discourage people from repeating bogus arguments that they don't understand and that are easily disproven by evidence.
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.