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.
Huh? I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. You seemed to be saying that scientists claim chemical evolution can explain the beginning of life. That is an incorrect claim. If that was not your point, then what was it? I apologize if I misread it.
Yeah so? Does that stop universities from teaching "Chemical Evolution"?
Of course not. Why should it? All sorts of untested, speculative hypotheses are taught in science classes. So long as their speculative nature is made clear, I see nothing wrong with that.
I doubt it.
You doubt that universities ackowledge that chemical evolution, as yet, can't explain the origin of life?
You don't have to take my word for it. Just go to your local university bookstore and look at the textbooks being used in their evolutionary biology classes. Look up "abiogensis" or "chemical evolution" in the index and see what they say about it.
You can theoroize but you can neither observe nor test it for reasons that should be obvious I would think.
Sorry, but I don't follow you.
OK, so the workings of nature created nature. Glad you cleared that one up.
"Physics" is how nature works.
Again, what created "nature"?
If things are random chance, why do we see order?
If "order" is an illusion, why do we comprehend "order" in the first place?
What a silly game. Let's just use your same logic to link Jim Jones, David Koresh and Eric Rudolph to Christianity.
While we're at it, let's link slavery to Christianity since many felt (and some still do) that the Paul legitimized slavery.
Heck, let's just link Christianity to racism as well. Many "Christians" still believe that the black race resulted from Ham, the cursed son of Noah.
"Who could be against more scientists/fewer lawyers?"
Only lawyers - and Democrats who love their money!
"First, why should we even have government schools?"
Because we learned a long time ago that an educated citizenry makes for a stronger, freer country than an ignorant citizenry.
People can argue all they want about the details of how this concept is applied, but I suspect there is general agreement that the concept is valid.
"Here is the rub. Do you think gravity is real? Remember there is a theory of gravity as well. "
Actually, I think the rub there is your assumption that the theory of gravity claims the cause of gravity.
A theory of diversification (we can witness that) would be much more accurate. We can observe different living things. We can observe the effects of gravity.
Can we observe the cause of either? Ha!
"Like any new paradigm, design opens up new doors to research."
Ahh.. So ID is a paradigm now. Let's see now hypothesis, theory, law. Hmmm... don't see paradigm anywhere in there.
By definition, a paradigm is a set of assumptions and it really goes to the root of ID's fault. It assumes an outcome and works to prove that assumption. It's science turned on it's head.
Yes. Or at least RNA. The theory of evolution can only explain what happened after the first primitive organisms with RNA came into existence. It cannot say anything about how those original organisms came about.
I guess you don't.
Cute - what are your thoughts of eternity vs. time? the PhDs would indicate an ability to express yourself with a reasoned train of thought instead of quips - I don't have those lofty degrees,The parentheticals were meant to indicate that I was kidding about all the degrees. I do have an post-graduate degree, but only one, and not in the sciences.
but I can detect a lazy/u informed evasion when I see it. I've heard the Big Bang theories that everything was compreesed to the size of an atom, when time/matter/energy did not exist, to be suddenly spewed out, creating time/energy/mass. Perhaps the term "before time" might seem simplistic to one so lofty as you, but the concept of it can't be that hard to grasp if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that state must have preceeded it. Then the theories that figure everything will stop expanding, only to recompress and then regenerate in a new Big Bang also indicates that there was a "before".Not an evasion. I haven't done any reading in this area in years, so I am not up to snuff on it, beyond the very basics. You need to find some one who is conversant in the science if you want any depth to the discussion.
Is it within nature to make things with no begining?
So would we assume that it would be *over* natural to have something *be* without a begining?
You can only comprehend a "within the realm of observation" which is why you CANT see the possibility of *more*.
"...one question why do some organisms never evolve??
even though they are under conditions that have changed over multimillions of years (green algae)- even large animals such as crocks-sharks seem hardly changed??"
several answers
1. they may not change in appearance but may have many metabolic changes
2. the evolved versions and the old versions may co-exist
2 they may be prevectrly siuted to their environment
So by your reasoning, Christianity is responsible for David Koresh, Jim Jones, Eric Rudolf and endorses racism and slavery. See what a silly game this is?
The difference is that there are actually Christians who believe that blacks descend from the cursed son of Noah.
are you asking why we try to make sense out of things we cannot understand? because that is my own reasoning for the establishment of religion. religion is based on faith which is not a bad thing. i often use faith. but while i see proof of evolution every day, i see no proof of miracles, angels, heaven, hell, or god. and i cannot live my life asking forgiveness for my sins and hope i go to a place i do not believe in when i die.
Really? Which ones? This is a honest and sincere question.
You are still using the fallacy of guilt by association. What is worse though is that many of the associations aren't even accurate.
How sad.
NOT studying Inuit or Tibetan creation stories in science class. :)
Thanks for the riposte - have a great day.
Does such a thing exist? Seriously, could you cite one that has been peer reviewed?
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.