Bush supports 'intelligent design'

MyrtleBeach Online ^ | 02 August 2005 | Ron Hutcheson

[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.

---

[Links inserted by PH:]
Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. President of the National Academy of Sciences.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.

[Junior]

Why would God say he created the world and everything in it if he didn't?

Actually the question becomes, "why did a book say God said He created the world and everything in it if He didn't?"

Do not confuse your belief that the Bible is the Word of God with the reality of that claim.

[From many - one.]

I hope you didn't expect a solid answer.

[Dimensio]

Now come on....did I attack anyone?

Yeah, actually, you did. You said "That was a lot of work to support your faith. God sure did put a lot of work into creating such a marvelous system." when the entire purpose of the avalance of evidence that he posted was to demonstrate that evolution is supported by evidence, not faith. You insulted him by completely ignoring everything that he provided and reiterating the very point he was attempting to refute without providing any reasoning for why you rejected his refuttaion.

I'm getting sick of this creationist tactic of blatantly ignoring facts to launch an attack, then getting offended when they're called on it simply because they included a sarcastic level of politeness, if that.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I used to have a neighbor with a really nice llama... but where did I say I never lied? Irrelevent. My point is that none of this makes a person "bad" (aside from things like murder). I should hope that people can learn from their mistakes without having Big Daddy sitting up in the clouds frowning upon him and threatening him with hell.

[Dimensio]

Do random mutation and natural selection adequately account for evolution?

Irrelevant as to whether or not direction can be falsified or whether evolution claims that the process was completely undirected.

[WVNan]

Jeff, if you studied Christian Apologetics you know it's not about "material" evidence. It's a matter of faith. Everything we humans believe is a matter of faith, because all belief begins with a premise. I think therefore I am. Where does thought come from?

[Asphalt]

Consider all the battles they were in. Seems reasonable to guess that many died. Consider other events (grounds opens up), also, just regualr everyday events- dehydration, getting trampled by a donkey, or whatever. I would guess the rate of birth dropped, and the rate of death increased. Over the period of 40+ years this would greatly reduce numbers.

[mlc9852]

Yawn

[Clemenza]

Actually, I have no problem with teaching both. Teach evolution in science class and teach ID in theology class.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Is this the typical reaction when a creationist asks for evidence and gets it?

[Southack]

"Please provide your falsification criteria for this hyphothesis so that it may at least approach something resembling theory."

A successful lab experiment in which inanimate DNA was chemically or mechanically animated would go a long way towards falsifying ID. A more reliable refutation of ID would be a successful lab experiment in which long strands of meaningful DNA programming code were self-organized (without external aid) into usable genes.

Mathematical probability, however, points to the latter option as being unlikely. The former option is being explored by an innovative experiment currently under way at los alamos (Steen Rasmussen's project).

Now, I've delivered what you've asked, so it's only fair that in your next post to me, that you reciprocate with your falsification for Evolution. Name at least two acceptable methods as I've done above for ID, and name at least one credible scientific lab experiment currently under way to falsify evolution, as I've likewise named (e.g. Steen Rasmussen) for ID.

[spunkets]

"Where does thought come from?"

Your brain.

[Dimensio]

A more reliable refutation of ID would be a successful lab experiment in which long strands of meaningful DNA programming code were self-organized (without external aid) into usable genes.

How would this falsify ID?

[balrog666]

Yeah, all creationists are dishonest.

No, most are sincerely, but wilfully, ignorant.

That is extreme dishonesty.

[Dimensio]

It seems to be, yes. The general response is "ignore the content, attack the poster for presenting so much data". The method for engaging in the tactic varies from creationist to creationist, but the generic style is the same.

[WVNan]

Then why do animals not have the same thought processes and emotions. They have brains too.

[Dimensio]

I take it that you read the entirety of Inchenumon's post and are able to provide a sufficient refutation to support your acceptance of it being an "avalance of nonsense", correct?

Or are you just ignoring the substance and attacking the poster because you're too much of a coward to address facts?

[bobhoskins]

How would this falsify ID?

It wouldn't ... just because humans can do something or a reasonable facsimile thereof doesn't mean there couldn't have been a creator that did the same thing ...

It might show a creator wasn't required, but it couldn't show a creator didn't happen.

But, at least it was an ATTEMPT at trying for potential falsification of ID ... and that's more than I usually see on these threads.

(How DO you falsify a creator ... or, let's put it bluntly, God? Would you even want to?)

[jec41]

What kind of educator are you? let me guess, not in science.
You're a crappy guesser.

I did not ask this question. You have posted to the wrong person. However in a normal discussion one's education is apparent if questioned properly.