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.
You said randomness allows us to have free will, I take that to mean that randomeness is the cause that effects free will. God gives us free will, not randomness. Similary God gives us our soul, not evolution. Though both randomness and evolution may be mechanisms that God uses they can not cause souls or free will or God becomes superfluous. I don't believe God is superfluous.
"How do you know this isn't another reemergence of faith? After all, Geocentrism was once a part of christian dogma. Is science giving us a clearer understanding of biblical truth?"
Geocentrism is not part of Scriptural dogma. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that the Church may well have accepted it (though my guess would be that if someone actually researched that question without a contemporary axe to grind they would find otherwise...same as if you research who believed in flat earth you find out it was NOT medieval Christian theologians). However, that the Church adds requirements to Scripture is why the Reformation had to happen in the first place.
Scripture is fairly clear about Creation. The NT writers clearly affirm the flood and a literal Adam, etc. In many respects, NT Biblical theology hinges on these points.
Read Vol. II of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. He explains with plenty of force why evolution (or at least Darwinian evolution, and he was, unlike most people who are dogmatic on either side of this familiar both with the scientific lit of his day including Darwin and thoroughly grounded in the Bible) is atheism.
Sort them out, and when I get back, maybe we can have a coherent conversation...........without the patronizing, OK?
"Ignorant" as in covering your eyes and your ears and refusing to not only learn science and the knowledge acquired by it, but activing refusing to admit that such knowledge even exists.
"Arrogant" as in the fact that you not only favor wasting your life believing a fairy tale called Genesis (which we know was physically impossible) and beliving in a god for which there is no evidence, but also insisting that others do as well, as, to you religion is the only "true science." Pitiful.
No thanks, I'll reject your ignorance and arrogance any day.
Yes, but they are no doubt too busy casting spells they learned from Harry Potter books to bother with the Intarweb.
I love the President, but sometimes ...
Okay, you were responding to a different point in the thread. No real offense taken, anyway.
Are we being cynical today, bob? :)
Nope. I'm a positive person, although I believe many (but not all!) people are mtivated by selfishness, and I'm not a member of any Greek sects.
(Cynical, no. Sarcastic, yes.)
Sorry........but I have much to do today.
I don't, for once.
God bless you.......God bless President Bush.........and God bless America! Land of the free (at least for some of us! :)
Well, same to you! (Wait, that sounded rude ...)
That's fine. Good clarification. Glad to see you aren't on the educational industry bandwagon.
Which is exactly why I have no respect for those who believe that. They are those who "feel" that they are "entitled" to the world because theyare smarter than other "ordinary" people. They think they are more intelligent simply because they have spent more time in front of some college or post graduate professor who filled their head full of the "correct" way of thinking. Well, I have news for them. Education does not intelligence make. Education does not wisdom make. There are more things in heaven and earth than man(kind) can dare to think. What if....what if there is no reality? What if we only believe we exist? Chew on that for awhile.
At this point, the only thing keeping the GOP together is the existence of the Democrat party. If the Dems fall apart, the GOP will most likely follow them. To be honest, the only thing I have in common with the fundie wing of the GOP is support for a strong national defence.
Most naturally, you would probably end up with three different political parties.
To cause us immense pain on long flights?
"No. I think high school science class is the proper place for scientific challenges to evolution."
Any genuine challenge to evolutionary theory would be way, WAY out of place in a high school classroom. Such a challenge would play out in the journals of the discipline.
"But then, I'm an educator who actually believes in education. Not brainwashing."
ID has no scientific merit. How would injecting it into a science class be anything other than an attempt at the very "brainwashing" you decry?
"I don't see what the big deal is. Intelligent design could mean a lot of things, only one of them divine."
That is exactly the point. "Intelligent Design" is not a theory nor is it even a hypothesis. It is a throwing up of arms and giving up on searching for the answer. It is a wrapping of the unknown in the aura of unknowable. It is the ether of the our century.
And there's a desirable outcome in the Earth/water example: a planet in which life is possible. The universe doesn't care either way (just like the machine picking the lottery numbers doesn't care who wins or if anyone wins) but the life forms do.
To be honest, the only thing I have in common with the fundie wing of the GOP is support for a strong national defence.Ditto.
When you get outside of liberal arts and into engineering and the sciences, you find that the professors' political views tend to be much more reflective of the population as a whole.
And yet Genesis describes the BBT thousands of years before LeMaitre posited it. Arrogance I suspect is one of those things that is a function of perspective.
Sure, throw it on.
It was a joke, because I too, am gifted with sarcasm. (Which comes in handy in dealing with some of the insanity I've seen on these threads..........like Taliban and witch burning nonsense).
I think we're mutually confused about each other here. Maybe we should start over some time? (I really do have work to do........but this place kinda sucks you in......)
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.