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.
Which is more than one usually gets out of the anti-Es.
According to Dembski, intelligent design "...is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
This would seem to be the main definition of Intelligent Design. Perhaps this is what Bush means; teach the Gospel of John but use the idiom of information theory.
None of the creationists seem to object to this definition.
"Both EV and ID start with a philosophical premise"
Bingo. And in high school level science you need not even go there. Simply fast forward to the scientific method, and turn out the pre-engineering students. We will all be better off. No loss of religious freedom. More engineers means fewer lawyers, etc.....
Since that post I've seen you refer to Genesis as 'a fairy tale'.........so don't hide behind "I never used the word Christian" garbage.
But thanks for reminding me why I rarely frequent these threads, Wild. There are icky people here.
But remember this. Without evolutionary philosophy preceding it, Darwin wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. So HE was the first one to use the non-scientific to come up with his own brand of philosophy disguised as science.
Them's the facts, Wild. Even if ID is religion posing as science, your guy did it first.
You didn't complain when the Kansas Conservatives hired an Islamic radical as one of their experts in the Kansas textbook hearings.
Who are you going to listen to about science, a scientist or the guy who fixed your carburetor last week?
As a scientist I know enough not to make uninformed comments about cases in law. I just wish the lawyers that pose as scientists for the Discovery Institute would afford the same for Science.
Sorry for not being clear. I don't believe randomness causes free will. It only makes it possible, for there could be no free will in a completely deterministic universe.
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.
We are in complete agreement.
"The discovery of Troy has nothing to do with the number of Israelites leaving Egypt. Note that I did not dismiss the concept of the Israelites fleeing Egypt. I simply questioned how many did so, and I supplied a little research to bolster my position.
Which is more than one usually gets out of the anti-Es."
Read my post a little more clearly. I wasn't commenting directly on your post, as such. I was only getting into methodology.
In that sense, the discovery of Troy has nothing to do with...anything.
In another sense, it has everything to do with it.
Here's the point: sometimes an era's science is completely wrong. It is often especially wrong when it deals with ancient civilizations, economics, population movements, epidemeology and things of that sort. These things are often too complex to get a firm grasp on thousands of years later through any sort of research.
Sometimes....mythology - or that which is dismissed as mythology - may be a better source of actual truth than subsequent research.
It was so with Troy. It may well be so with Egypt. There is a good chance that there were in fact millions who fled, your research notwithstanding.
Ha, that makes two of us. My good intentions are suffering.
I've learned where stuff I've heard from creationists isn't valid, so I've made a point to investigate myself, including reading Darwin himself, and the history and philosophy that influenced him and that he in turn influenced.
But I also bring into the discussion my intimate knowledge of the Creator, through His gift of mercy, grace and love. In the end, the only thing that matters is our relationship with HIM..........and all this discussion only a diversion.
We'll all find out the truth in the end.
...Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public [government] schools;This quotation from the AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory is not a statement of science, it is a statement of politics. The question is, though, why does the AAAS Board feel the need to employ the coercive power of all levels of government to achieve its ends? What does the brute force of state power have to do with science? What does such a call for overarching government diktat have to do with conservatism?Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government. [emphasis mine]
Cordially,
By that logic, the military would be made of liberals.
I didn't?? And you know that exactly HOW, Doctor?
(Sheesh! Where do these people come from??)
Ah, I've got the whole DVR thing going on, two stations at once, and haven't watched live TV in a while ...
Those seeking to use the Bible as proof against itself run into the problem of the use of numbers in the ancient Hebrew language. They often do not correspond to our system of numbers.
Genesis describes a creation event, BBT describes a creation event.You're kidding with this, right? You really do see the first-grade level logic problem with this, right?
I have one... Dogs have tails. Cats have tails. Therefore dogs are cats....
The issue is that there are hundreds of creation myths, and who decides which is chosen to counter evolution. And as daysailor said, there are alternate myths about everything in science-- the fundamental elements he mentions, as he points out. This noise should be kept out of the science lab and left to other classrooms. It's about germaneness.
LOL. Who could be against more scientists/fewer lawyers?
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.