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.
"Because we learned a long time ago that an educated citizenry makes for a stronger, freer country than an ignorant citizenry."
I believe that more than anyone.
And that is why I don't believe in government schools.
Education is WAYYY too important to be left to the government.
Maybe I should ask the question this way to clarify: Why should we have GOVERNMENT schools?
But that is another topic and I doubt if the posters on this thread want to go too far down that road.
I´m just like you an opponent of the ID. I believe that God has created life, yes. But I believe that once life existed, it has evolved freely - but tolerated by our Lord - according to the Darwin theory.
The parallel is NOT valid, Jeff.
Sanger, Galton, Spencer and the Darwins were all politically and philosophically associated with each other.
Charles Darwin endorse Galton and Spencer, even in his own writings.
It is your attempt to deny the connection that is a 'silly game.'
What I say to all of you who do this. Just admit that Darwin had some bad politics and believe in his biology. That's all you need to do.
To realize that we all need redemption through Jesus Christ.
(Besides, we all know that about ourselves anyway, don't we?)
Serious mental problems..........yeah, that's meIf you believe my joke about bloodletting was intended to attack Christians or Christianity, then yes, it is.
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 you attacked me before that time with your bizarre "attacking bloodletting is attacking Christians" rant. Besides, Genesis is an interesting but highly implausible story. So the use of the term "fairy tale," while perhaps impolite, is appropriate. You disrespect others' beliefs, you cannot expect others to respect yours, can you. Or do you think that simply because you believe it, that it must be respected, even if you disrespect others?
But thanks for reminding me why I rarely frequent these threads, Wild. There are icky people here.There are, and they are known as "creationists."
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.Wow. Ignorance in two branches of human endeavor at once.
Them's the facts, Wild. Even if ID is religion posing as science, your guy did it first.Unbelievable. You do nothing but push your religious mumbo-jumbo and try to teach it in public schools and when people object, you have the gall to turn around and say that other people are being religious? You're pitiful.
If you think about it, the notion that the intelligent creator of everything we know to exist did not need an even more intelligent creator himself is sort of baffling.
i kinda feel sorry for you in that you will never see what you believe in. i see it every day. even here in manhattan. very reaffirming.
Learn your history. Learn your philosophy. Don't stay in the dark any longer.
The historic facts back me up, so I have nothing to fear here.
You, however, do...........which is probably why you flail and kick and scream about the possibility of intellectual honesty in science classrooms.
Good day, WildHorse. Do your homework.
Yes it is. It leads to a conclusion you don't like so you deny it.
Why are you so obsessed with Darwin's politics anyway? If his theories are garbage then disprove them with material evidence. He is not a god and he certainly didn't have everything right - The Theory of Evolution, like any scientific theory, has been refined over the years as more evidence comes in.
Excellent!
...Bush declined to state his personal views on "intelligent design,"
Good strategery.
Because it keeps the followers in line. If a person believes that they are bad and a religion offers a way of making the person less bad, the leaders of the religion have a way to control the minions.
Not sure I can answer that so that you can understand it since it comes by revelation. It has to do with not being equipped to become good until we recognize that we are needy (bad). God is stronger when we are weak. It's the paradox of religion. Sort of like darkness does not exist, it is the absence of light. Cold does not exist, it's the absence of heat, etc. We believe in darkness and cold as we believe in evil. Unless we recognize that we truly are bad (dark)until we receive God (light), we are lost in the darkness. John 3:19-20 clarifies this.
NO it isn't. It is faulty and leads you to a faulty conclusion.
It's not that I don't 'like it so deny it.' It's that it's completely invalid.
See the difference?
FAQ: Who designed the designer?
One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed. If SETI detects a signal from intelligent extra-terrestrial life, we need not know how that life form arose to determine that there was indeed an intelligent being that sent the signal. Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer--it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer. See also an answer to a subissue the implications of whether or not the first CSI come from an unintelligent source.
So you've never sinned, not even once? Of course if everything is just relative, then it doesn't matter.
Evolution is baffling.
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.