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.
500
Please read post 398. I did a bit of research to back my assertions.
Then you agree that many cults use Christianity as a base. In fact, the number of cultic Christians probably outnumber the non-cultic ones - especially since many Calvinist protestants believe that Catholicism is a cult.
I don't think that's correct. Somehow, primitive organisms came into being before the process of biological evolution could begin. These organisms had some primitive genetic code. Whether DNA or RNA came before the organisms is not a question theory of evolution can address.
this has always been a problem for me in totally buying into evolution that is not directed in some way
I don't see why, seeing as how it is totally unrelated to the theory.
- and that major new species just appear as if the design was implanted complete in new members..both male and female..
I don't think that is correct. There are plenty of transitional species in the record and it is pretty clear new features of new species are a straightforward modifications of prior species' features.
To say God directly designed each and every species would be tanamount to saying God is an incompetent designer, since there are so many imperfections and design flaws in so many species.
And I didn't even plan it. Not that it matters since I own it all anyway.
Jeff, Jeff, you ask such simple questions. Why, the line up in eighty rows of twenty-five thousand of course
Actually, I would just be guessing. For one thing, being less enamored with moses (very good, you have a basic knowledge of the Bible) would not necessarily make them less inclined to follow him. They are alone in the desert. What other choice do they have? As for taking the whole day? It very well could have taken quite some time. It would be difficult, no doubt abou that, but they had a cloud to guide them. When you have hundreds upon hundreds of miles of desert, you can space yourselves out pretry well.
As for Junior's numbers, I don't know. I'm at the liibrary right now and the computers are screwy so I can't really do much. When I get home I'll take a look
Interesting - I like how these discussions branch off and divulge a lot of other information. Thanks
just did. When I'm at a bette computer I'll take a look
I guess you'll be trying to get Bush banned from FR now! :)
ID is based on theory that life forms were designed not chance mutations..done in the casino of life..
That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. Come back when and try again if the IDers ever come up with a *theory* of their belief. Until then, it does not deserve to be taught in classrooms as if it were science, because it most certainly isn't.
some basic data to that effect is man's long attempts to improve plants and animals for OUR GOALS...hope you see that
The fact that humans now improve plants and animals (usually by harnessing *evolution*, by the way) in no way supports the hypothesis that any other intelligence (of unspecified type) was involved (in some unspecified way) in the past (at some unspecified time) in the history of life on Earth. In order to support *that* hypothesis, you'd have to actually find specific evidence of such past intervention. And no, alleged evidence *against* evolution is not the same as evidence *for* design, since there are literally an infinite number of other possible hypotheses. In order to raise *your* favorite hypothesis, you have to provide positive evidence *for* that particular explanation as opposed to all other possibilities, not just knock down some other one paradigm.
If the IDers *ever* begin to grasp that elementary point, *then* they'll finally be taking the first baby steps towards doing actual science, instead of dabbling in pseudoscience as they're currently doing.
we have been proving ID since the first farmers grew and selected their crops and animals..
All that "proves" is that intelligent agents can shape the results of evolution. That's not in dispute. But that's not at all the same as "proving" the separate ID hypothesis that (unspecified) intelligent agents *were* (somehow) involved in (somehow) shaping life (at some time) before humans began doing so. In short -- yeah, intelligence *can* affect life -- but *has* it done so aside from human meddling? *That* question the IDers have not even *begun* to address in any testable way.
Your "argument" as it currently stands is as weak as, "well, since humans can haul dirt dirt down a hill when we want, this 'proves' that erosion is bunk and some intelligence actually grinds down the mountains and carries the results down to the valleys in little trucks."
the most obvious examples of ID are the various farm crops - animals and dogs we have bred oops designed.
We have not "designed" dogs and other animals. We have provided selective pressures which direct *evolution* to proceed in directions we want.
The really funny thing about your argument -- and the ID argument in general -- is that in the same breath when they say, "well, since humans can shape life, this 'proves' that some other intelligence must have also", they say, "if you scientists are so smart, why can't you *create* life?" Hasn't it ever occurred to you that by your own reasoning, this torpedoes your argument? If humans can't create life, doesn't this imply that "design" *can't* be responsible for the original creation of life? You can't have it both ways... How can you presume that life "must" have been designed, when you can't demonstrate that intelligence can design life from scratch at *all*, and the results to date indicate that it *can't*? You don't appear to have even thought through your own argument.
do you understand??
*We* do -- you don't seem to.
Of course many use Christianity as a base for cults. They should be pretty easy to spot. They have a charismatic human leader who holds him/herself up as having some special knowledge directly from God. As I said, the Bible should be our instruction manual for good living. Everyone has access to a Bible. Churches should exist as institutions of learning (the Gospel=Good News) from those instructions, and to give encouragement for the journey. The Church (capital C)belongs to God alone and consists of those who believe and confess that belief. The processes may differ at the earthly level. I sense that you have been hurt somewhere along the line by the process.
Perhaps. I think I missed some of the conversation, does this somehow debunk it? Or make it worse?
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.
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.