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.
One thing, incidentally, that is often lost in these threads which tend to go back and forth on "evolution is true/false" and "ID is true/false" and "you are an idiot" is something pretty important.
First, why should we even have government schools? This thread is evidence of just one of the countless problems they create. We are all (in some sense) conservatives, and yet we are ready to kill based upon what we believe should happen in the government schools. Why not direct our wrath towards ending government schools?
Second, if it is a given that we simply MUST have government schools, then, we have to figure out a way to protect something fundamental to America and that is religious freedom. Like it or not, most of the colonies in what would become the U.S. were founded by those seeking freedom of religion. This value is fundamental to who we are and it is part of the Constitution (or used to be anyway....but hopefully conservatives can all agree that it is still part of the Constitution). The question then becomes, how do we have government run education, while not treading too much upon religious freedom...namely that the government will not be giving preference to a particular religious or particular anti-religious teaching?
The evolutionists who argue that the cold, hard facts of science are on their side fail to recognize that even if they are right, they are, by demanding conformity on an understanding of the origin of the universe, entering into areas which contradict the sincerely held religious faith of those who are paying for the government schools.
In a sense, then, it doesn't matter who is "right" on this, in terms of what is happening to religious freedom. Assume for the moment that the evolutionists are absolutely correct. Well, the problem is that if you interject their ideas into government approved curriculum and cut off those who believe otherwise, then you are violating the sincerely held religious views of millions of people. Then you send them a bill for the public schools.
There is something deeply problematic about that scenario from a human rights and religious freedom aspect. Incidentally, this is one of the main points that WJB brought out in the Scopes trial. If we are to have government schools, why can't the parents who are paying for it dictate what is taught, especially as it relates to their religion which makes normative statements about the whole of reality?
All I hear from the evolutionary side of the ledger is "because you guys are idiots".
But....let's assume for the sake of argument....ok, we're all idiots. Unfortunately, the Constitution as originally envisioned allows us to be idiots. Freedom of religion is part of our heritage. Freedom of religion is lost in a society where the government desires to monopolize the teachings of the origins of the man and the universe, and not even permit criticism of that, whether from "ID" or from purely religious views.
Just something to think about.
Trivia is fun, and non-controversial, generally.
This article is a response to three ideas that persist either in updated or outdated forms. These are: vestigial organs; atavisms (or reversions); and embryonic recapitulation. All three are similar in suggesting that living things sometimes reveal remnants of their evolutionary past. Darwinists have used these arguments to make their case for the common origin of all species. As we will see, however, the same evidence often suggests common design by an intelligent Creator.
Color me dubious but I'd be happy to see some statistical support for your assertion. Human nature is such that when the amount of your paycheck depends on the level of taxation only the the few and the proud would advocate for lower levels of taxation.
Whatever. Laugh as much as you like. Nevertheless Sanger was an occulist, a theosophist (and just generally speaking a complete loon) and thoroughly steeped PSEUDOsciences of the most ludicrous nature. Her views on race had, again, as much to do with any scientific version of evolution as mainstream Christianity has to do with Christian Identity or other racist sects.
You said Planned Parenthood was "directly" tied to "Darwinian survival of the fittest," which is just plan bull. As much as, and for the same reason as, saying Christianity is racist because there are deviant sect of Christianity that are racist. (And, just incidently, those sects survive to this day, whereas racially oriented eugenics is long dead.)
Never mind that Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest" anyway. That's from Herbert Spencer.
That would imply that all those creationists on these threads who also ridicule the BBT do not understand the Bible?
Good observation CD.
What's a "creationist"?
This 'joke' of yours (in response to the post it was a reply to) is both ignorant of what Christiantiy is, and what its followers have in the past, and now believe. You are ignorant of Christianity because you have naively swallowed what you have been taught in school about Christians by leftist historians and text writers.
And it is arrogant in it's mocking of those who differ with you, intellectually and logically, and not because you are not a man of faith......you are.........you have great faith if you believe in the impossibility of evolution. But you are afraid of those who challenge your particular belief system, so you mock them.
I stand by my post that it is you evolutionary zealots who are the ignorant and arrogant.
I think if schools are going to address the progression of life on Earth they should use the current scientific theories, so yes. If ID ever becomes a scientific theory it should be mentioned as well. But things that are just hypothese should not be mentioned as the equivalent to theories, otherwise people could start making up any old story they want.
(And this is the problem in other subjects in classes ... liberals can say communism works, despite facts to the contrary ... science classes, on the other hand, would like their theories to try to fit the facts a little better.)
But I'll add the caveat that I do believe all good science teachers should, after presenting current scientific theories, advise their students to examine the theories critically, and prove otherwise if that's not the case.
I wish those on the ID side of this argument would see that their biggest problem in arguing their side in the scientific community is that they DON'T in many cases have a strong grasp of scientific terminology or the actual current theory of evolution.
To argue strongly against the theory of evolution, you first need a strong idea of what the theory is! Heck, when I was in school, I was taught protons and electrons were as small as things got ... that's been shown to be otherwise since, but if I didn't know what protons and electrons even were, how could I hope to even grasp the idea of SMALLER particles?
From IDEA:
FAQ: Wouldn't intelligent design theory be the end of scientific investigation--a "science stopper?"
If we seek truth, design is progress for science. Inferring design in no way stops science from achieving its goal to understand nature. Like any new paradigm, design opens up new doors to research. Many evolutionary biologists might not yet see these doors because they have been trained to think under the paradigm of evolution. That does not mean design could not bear fruit for science, once science is willing to "retool" to accept design. Much work could be done trying to learn to discriminate between design and evolution in fields such as biochemistry, paleontology, the origin of life, systematics, and genetics. William Dembski has identified a number of scientific and philosophical fields where design can contribute. Design is not intended to "subsume" all science and will not force science to conclude that everything is designed if we apply the mechanisms of detecting carefully and properly.
I was trying to reply to your post. The number of issues presented therein are not under my control.
Sort them out, and when I get back, maybe we can have a coherent conversation...........without the patronizing, OK?
Sure, I'll hold you to that promise. Why don't you present your issues one by one, and we can begin.
All you have to do is to say that Darwin was wrong about this, but that his biological study is valid.
You don't have to deny the undeniable connections to still believe in evolution.
Just be honest about the whole thing.
That's funny, too. I don't understand the alleged correspondence. The objection to "Heather" is moral. Is the objection to ID also moral, and if so, ON WHAT BASIS?
Cordially,
Thanks...any proposed solution?
I think it would be preferable to simply omit any discussions of origins from science classes. At the end of the day, what happens in oil fields, auto manufacaturing plants, NASA, and hospitals doesn't depend upon what one believes regarding origins. We can find oil, do engineering, go into orbit and perform surgery regardless. This is where high school science needs to direct and to emphasize. When you get to college and venture into philosophy of science, ie, the presuppositions behind a system, then, it would seem to me that discussions of origins are fair game and I would think any serious student of science or math in college would be eager to knock down ID (or try). But it is expected that by college you are inquiring, not just consuming what you are fed.
Of course the better solution.....end government schools. Heh. I don't think even at FR there are going to be a lot of takers for that. Which raises again, the first amendment question....
And yet Genesis describes the BBT thousands of years before LeMaitre posited it.Oh, Baloney. Look at Genesis 1:1- 1:3, for Pete's sakes. You have "God created the heaven and the earth" (which is no description of the Big Bang theory; it's no description of anything); the earth being "without form and void", darkness being on the "face of the deep" and God's spirit moving on the fact of the waters; and finally, in the third sentence light is created.
The Big Bang was completely different then this. The most poetic of people cite to Gen. 1:3, "let there be light; and there was light" for your analogy, but the Big Bang was the creation of time and space, matter and energy, not just light. Further, light existed before either the earth or water, neither of which is borne out by Genesis.
Is this "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" or another book? Please provide authors next time so it's easier to search for these ...
In my research on population densities, the closest I could get was for the Medieval period and was based on the maximum output of arable land. Assuming the Medieval farmers didn't make too many improvements to crop yield over their classical forebearers, the population density of Egypt would have been between 12 and 48 per square kilometer. Egypt is mostly desert with a big river running through it, so I'm inclined to go with a lower figure of maybe 20 per square kilometer. Two million Israelites would've required 100,000 square kilometers just for their own support. If the habitable region of the Nile extends 50 kilometers out to either side of the river, then 1,000 kilometers would have to be devoted to just supporting these folks. I'm not certain how much of the Nile the Eqyptians of this time claimed as their own, but even if it was 2,000 kilometers the Israelites made up fully half the population. Such a mass migration would have economic repurcussions far outside Egypt, as trade would be disrupted (half Egypt's export makers would be gone, along with half the Egyptian market for importers).
It's pretty much for these simple reasons I've rejected such claims as David commanding 600 mercenaries during his formative years in the Levant. I can see 60 guys being possible, considering the productiveness of the land there, but 600 would be a major chunk of the population.
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......)
Sure, I won't hold this thread against you in future discussions (I try not to carry arguments from one thread over to another anyway).
Feel free to ignore any ill-will presented in posts before this one, unless you have a funny comback that's too good to pass up.
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.