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.
What is your question?
Ok, good. A lot of those would, indeed, make a person bad, like committing murder, adultery, or stealing. However, things like "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" I can't get too worked over. When I was a kid, I had to go to school on Saturdays and Sundays and instead had Thursdays and Fridays off. Can't see how that makes anyone bad. It seems that under the commandments, most people are good, because most don't do the things listed, unless they practice a different religion.
Well said.
Do you have material evidence to offer up?
I don't agree with the president about immigration, locking down the borders, and how he has increased government to be a ridiculously large state. Now I also don't agree with him about intelligent design. But I would vote for him again tomorrow if the choices were the same as in 2000 and 2004.
you assume there were just as many Israelites after fourty years. Considering they were in the desert. And considering all the plagues (ground opened up, etc.) I would say a good half of them if not more could easily have died.
Please provide your falsification criteria for this hyphothesis so that it may at least approach something resembling theory.
It's not legitimate for a host of reasons, but there really is a tiny minority on the other side. Try < 1%.
Interesting POV on a conservative forum.........that the minority is necessarily wrong and should be silenced....
Interesting straw man. No, I lie. It's just a straw man, based on a fabrication.
OK.......that's really funny. I believe in actually educating youth, and you mock it. (How about taking away sex ed, and self-awareness classes, and teach a course on the classics including philosophy.........or is that silly to you, Prof?)
My kids' public high-school class didn't have sex ed.. In four years they had one required unit of 'health', which included sex-ed and a bunch of other stuff, such as nutrition, and hygiene. They didn't have 'self-awareness' class either. Do you have any direct knowledge of what's taught in high-school, or are you going by what you've read on NewsMax?
And no, I'm not a science prof, but what does that have to do with intellectual honesty? Are only science profs capable of commenting on the state of University education, and the leftist elites who OWN it? What kind of 'right winger' are you anyway, that you don't know what's going on in higher education these days?
A right-winger who's been an outspoken conservative on campus for the last 20 years, and whose biggest embarassment among his fellow scientists has been know-nothing creationists.
You're a crappy guesser.
You've never lied? How about coveted your neighbor's oxen (okay - I'm kidding on that one, unless of course you have).
Do random mutation and natural selection adequately account for evolution?
Now come on....did I attack anyone? I actually complimented the poster for going to so much effort.
Still, Canaan could not support 1 million folks at this time, even if they managed to kill off all the locals first, which Scripture says they did not (there were the Philistines, remember).
Show that life evolved directed?
.
Basically, the idea is that life evolved ... direction or a lack thereof isn't all that imprtant, but evolutionsists don't have to prove the absence any anything ... those who want for there to be a presence of some sort directing things need to prove the presence.
For instance, socks go missing whenever I do the laundry. I can state this happens ... however, if someone states the same thing, but claims tiny gnomes steal the socks, it's up to that person to show that gnomes ... not up to me to disprove the gnomes.
Especially Exodus 21, 1-8.
I don't really care what they are about unless they say that evolution is how it was all done.
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.