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.
It's possible that only a handful made it to Canaan, but one would've thought there would be some mention of this.
Figures. You really have no answer, so you have to handwave. I understand. Some things have to be accepted on faith, but those things cannot then be used as evidence in an argument because your opponent may not share your faith.
Not when it comes to science. If Creationists can't offer up any material evidence to support their contention then they shouldn't object when it is not taught in science class.
Thread over.
A million man army would have been very formidable especially before modern warfare. Even if they weren't armed as well, their sheer numbers would have overwhelmed almost any army.
There's a range of function and capacity from the simple, to the most complex and featured found in humans. Animals do have very similar base emotions, because the anatomical features providing the function are present. The higher cortical functions providing for rational thought are not. In animals action is primarily driven by emotion and auto reflex, but associative thought and memory are present. In man both decision and action can be either emotionally driven, or driven by reason.
But that's not how new genes arise. They don't appear out of the ether, they come from minor missense point mutations and chromosomal insertion/inversion/duplication errors.
You'll find most Bible thumpers aren't nearly as well versed in the book as are skeptics of Scripture. The latter have actually read the Bible (which is why many are skeptics) while the former go on whatever they learned in Sunday school or during their pastors' sermons.
Did you see the section about retroviruses? It was the very first section and is pretty brief - about 5 paragraphs.
Could you state how this section is nonsense? It is very damning evidence to those who think that the theory evolution is just a bunch of conjecture.
They do accumulate, like Rads.
Incorrect. Not for the very first life form, certainly.
By definition (think about it), the very first life form sprang from inanimate matter. Not mutations.
That's (one of several reasons) why Steen Rasmussen's Los Alamos experiment is so intriguing. He's got a process which, if successful, will ignore the noise later on and focus upon that first inanimate-to-animate moment.
I think the question was not about teaching Creationism in schools, but ID. I'm not really conversive about ID as I've not done any research on it, but I think there are some pretty good books out about it. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can offer some titles.
Most religious teachers don't know the bible any better than they know science.
I'll give you a big amen on that.
You would hold, then, that God specifically initiates each individual weather event ... rather than, say, having set a system in motion which then functions according to certain physical laws?
Maybe he knows something you don't.
Most? Sigh......I guess those 7 years of higher education in Theology were wasted.
Do you pull your posted comments off of the daily DNC talking points?
Ok, I understand - plus RadioAstronomer says you're a good person. :-)
ID is basically a back door way to present creationism as science. In reality it is creationist pseudoscience.
Here is a good primer on ID that presents both sides of the story... link
PLEASE!!!
Show a little courtesy to your fellow FReepers, would you?
Some of us have dial up!!
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.