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.
How so? If a person that that they used to very closed minded toward race relations when they were a member of the Klan, would you find that ironic too?
Evolutionists are by and large very open minded toward the subject - if a BETTER theory came around, the evidence would be evaluated and if it really was better, it would be accepted.
On the other hand, if Creationists are presented with a another theory, they don't even look at the evidence.
How about adding Marxist to that list?
Can't.
ID has enough material to last a few minutes. Done, and of no use thereafter.
Evolution's political ties are deeper and older. One example. Planned Parenthood and population control directly tied to Darwinian survival of the fittest. Second example. Euthanasia. Directly tied to Darwin and evolution. (Both leftist politics).
There are lots more. But they happened before you were born. You didn't 'see' them..........so you can pretend they didn't happen.
The global warming bunch uses meteorology to back their rants.
PETA uses biology (fish feel pain) to back their arguments.
Liberals use vocabulary to generate fake meos from the 70s.
Your logic above is the same logic used when people argue that because people have commit bad acts in the name of Christianity, all of Christianity is flawed. I don't accept that argument ...
There's a huge difference. Randomness simply means unpredictability to an observer. That is, an event is random if it is not predictable to an observer given all the information avaialable before it occurs. If all our choices were predictable before we made them, then they could not be free. The fact that they are not predicable allows them to be free.
I don't see how randomness, per say, can be causal. A random event can later cause other events to come to pass, but randomness itself? I don't see it.
SO are Young Democats clubs, pro-diversity clubs, GLBTA clubs (and whatever other letter they throw in there), cooking clubs, softball teams, chess clubs, etc.
Anyone can form a club. Doesn't make it science.
Yes, yes, I feel dirty equating ID clubs and GLBTA clubs, they aren't the same at all, but NEITHER has relevance on the reality of evolution or ID.
My my, aren't we cock-sure of ourselves. What are your credentials in the scientific community?Duel bachelor's of science degrees in Biology and Zoology, Masters in Biology, PhDs in Biochemistry and Genetics. (Or maybe I am just a very smart amateur, well read enough to know enough of the scientific study of evolution to know that it exists, is real, that the modern synthesis is our closest and best model of how it happened, and that the biblical story, presented as real history is laughingly false.)
Like I mentioned to another "scientist", please explain these comments with scientific arguments rather than "because I said so" dogma: They are only theories, which amount to educated guesses - no proof = a need for faith.Because, assuming that you mean "no evidence" where you wrote "no proof" (because "no proof" makes no sense, even with your quasi-literate writing style), you are gravely wrong. There is much evidence.
Any theory on where all the matter came from to begin the Big Bang? From my understanding, it didn't come "from" anywhere. Did it exist as matter or energy? If time started with the Bang - what was there before time? What does science have other than guesses designed to fit their theories?Go find a cosmologist and ask him. I am not a cosmologist, nor am I up on the latest science in that area. (But your question about what was there "before" time was created game me a good laugh. The question is pretty ridiculous. There was no "before" before time was created, because "before" means previously in time.)
After all - it was only recently that they decided to revisit the expanding universe and decided they need to rethink their other theories - rather than answers, science comes up with more questions,Oh, I see. You are opposed to the actual practice of science: questioning previously believed things, testing them, comparing the theories to the tests, and formulating new theories to meet new information. Well, that's a shame, because science has done some wonderful things. But if you're comfortable with the cosmology of ancient Semitic goat-herders, that's fine by me.
yet some folks are even more religiously fervent in their faith in scientific answers than the Believers are in how they express their own belief in the Biblical accounts.Ha. Doubtful. I've yet to hear about the scientist who talked hundreds of students into drinking poisoned Kool-Aid because of a challenge to his theory.
Then went on to say:
Wow!
That is one of the wildest posts I have ever read! Anyone else want to jump on the educational industry bandwagon?
One of the things I hate the most about evolution threads is how I, and others, get taken out of context. Here's the full context:
ohioWfan wrote:
Are only science profs capable of commenting on the state of University education, and the leftist elites who OWN it?
To which I replied:
No. Anyone may comment on the state of education. However, people who work in the sciences and in the educational industry should be considered more authoritative that some random person.
You're selective quoting seems to portray me as saying the educational industry is right and ordinary people are wrong. However, from the full context my meaning becomes apparent. For example, someone who works in the petroleum industry is going to be more authoritative when discussing the gas and oil business than someone who does not. What is so wild about this? Nothing. This stands to reason.
I happen to be a strong supported of homeschooling, and intend to homeschool my children. My mother in law is a retired elementary school teacher, and she's going to help my wife and I out.
Popping back in for a moment to say thanks for the laugh.
btw, if you purport to know anything about the devoted Darwinian Margaret Sanger, you should try to learn how to spell her name.
Otherwise, intelligent, learned people will just laugh at you. :)
Nothing I said was wrong which makes you wrong. How about that?
All chemical evolutoin is able to explain, thus far, is the emergence of chemicals that are necessary for the sustaining of life.
Yeah so? Does that stop universities from teaching "Chemical Evolution"?
Furthermore, chemical evolution is a completely different theory from biological evolution, and in standard English, the "theory of evolution" only refers to the latter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "in standard English" don't we capitalize proper names? I mean what the hell, NDE's use creationist as a catch all phrase, why does the word "evolution" mean something exactly specific to what you say it means?
Currently, there is no good testable scientific theory that can explain the origin of life, and every biology textbook I have seen acknowledges it.
I doubt it. You can theoroize but you can neither observe nor test it for reasons that should be obvious I would think.
I think Al's back on your side
During the 2000 presidential election campaign, Bush responded to the Kansas Board of Education’s decree that each of the state’s school districts must teach Creationism alongside evolution. He told the Associated Press, “I’d make it a goal to make sure that local folks got to make the decision as to whether or not they said Creationism has been a part of our history, and whether or not people ought to be exposed to different theories as to how the world was formed.”
Amid the political furor, Al Gore said through a spokesman that although he favored teaching evolution in public schools, the decision should be made at the local level, and that “localities should be free to teach Creationism as well.” However, after the Gore campaign was told that the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard prohibited teaching Creationism because it constituted religious belief, Gore retreated to the more politically correct position that Creationism should only be taught in religion classes.
So you don't believe differing opinions are a good thing?
What you have on this thread is FR's fairly small but very vocal minority that is opposed to ID.
Knew it, thanks. Kind of obvious.
The argument about whether Being is Being, or Being is God, and causation, is not new.
Neat. Don't know what the age of an argument has to do with this discussion, but thanks for clarifying.
Those who are afraid that ID means 'religion' are ignorant of the past (not surprisingly).
When many of the ID posts on these threads turn to Bible quotes, it's easy to see where the confusion comes from. I've tried to argue that the ID argument needs to move away from that, and start actually arguing their point in the realm of science, and not in the realm of law. Or personal attacks. Or verbal sparring.
I challenge you to look deeper into the philosophy of what you have been taught is science, and its roots
Thanks. Maybe I'll start reading some threads about evolution versus Id, or something. I fI ever find the time.
.......that is IF you are really interested in learning about the truth.
I know the truth. This discussion, however, needs to be about the facts. (And, no, I'm not saying the theory of evolution is the truth, or the end all be all fact, just to stem off that discussion.)
The science you have been taught in class (you did take science in college, didn't you?) has political and philosophical underpinnings that you have not been taught.
What was that darn "History of Science" class all about, then? Darnit, 3 credits wasted!
Try to find out what they are.
Sure! However, this doesn't make ID fit the definition (yet) of a scientific theory.
Do you think it should be taught in our schools that all life evolved undirected from a single cell?
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.