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.
While that's true, that's a question of abiogenesis, which is a very different subject than evolution. The theory of evolution explains the change in allele frequency we see in living creatures over time. It does not attempt to explain how life originally came into being, which is a completely separate question. Personally, I believe that God created life in the beginning, but that's a question of faith: because unlike evolution, which is a fact, abiogenesis is an unanswerable question.
Many pastors don't have 7 years of higher education in Theology.
So, you're equating ID'ers with homos?
How many snakes do you handle every week?
How often do you "speak in tongues"?
Been healed by being slapped silly?
Burned heretics at the stake?
Drowned witches?
Eaten any transubstaniated flesh? Drink any blood?
Danced frenziedly in the aisles with or without clothes?
Wear only one kind of holy underwear?
Decorated yourself with ashes or warpaint?
Light candles and incense?
Conducted rites in dead languages?
Prayed at silly icons?
Prayed at medical problems?
Dunked babies in strange pools?
Bargained for indulgences?
Played softball for the Lord?
Made basketball shots in church?*
* -I admit that I've only seen that one on TV commercials.
They are both millstones around the neck of their respective party.
Evolution can be taught in public school, but it's not a science nor is it scientifically derived (from the scientific method). It's merely an idea dreamed up by those who do not comprehend a creator.
Thank you for the link. Will check it out later. I'm about out of "down" time.
My wife, before she converted to Catholicism, was a Seventh Day Adventist. I'd go to church with her, and to avoid being bored out of my mind (I am not a church-going kind of guy) I'd read the Bible. I started out with Genesis 1:1 and by the end of the year I'd gotten through the OT again. And, since I was actually reading it as an adult I began to notice the various oddities and contradictions found therein. Of course, everyone knows about the Gen 1/Gen 2 thingy, but there is also the clean animal/unclean animal controversy when Noah's loading the Ark. Noah and his were not eating animals at this time and prior to this, there is no mention of the difference between a clean and unclean animal (that doesn't come until Leviticus, IIRC), and yet God was commanding Noah to take two of every animal and seven (or seven pair, it isn't clear) of every clean animal.
After that, it just got weird.
Yes it is. They realize they can't refute it, and that they don't have any counterevidence, so they just fire off some variation on "lies, all lies, this means nothing, you can't confuse me with facts" and then they declare victory. Others think that saying, "golly, you can cut-paste/use HTML" is a meaningful response.
This is the same "argument" they want to present in science classrooms. None of it resembles an actual curriculum.
There you have it. Thank you for putting all these 600+ posts into a nutshell.
Huh? Where did you get the idea that it is excluded from the scientific method?
I know, which makes it difficult for those of us who do.
I disagree. So does Steen Rasmussen.
Don't block out facts and angles of inquiry merely because they may discredit your own beliefs, either. Answering how DNA code originally become organized is important, and relevant to the whole Evolution/ID debate.
Let's see...the Dems cater to moral perverts, while Republicans acknowledge the existence of a Creator.....And you consider them equivalents.
You can comprehend a creator? I'm sorry, but in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that's blasphemy. I believe in a Creator. I have faith in a Creator. I fear and worship a Creator. But I do not comprehend Him. Indeed, the Lord admonishes us, in Job 38, when we try to divine His ways from things like a facile understanding of scripture. And that's exactly what you're doing. Evolution is a fact, and the only thing that is keeping you from realizing it is your hubristic notion that you can comprehend the Lord.
Hey! I resemble that.
Two or maybe three different oral traditions and an attempt to combine them by a scribe, probably in David's time.
Prove evolution in the lab.
Prove the solar system in the lab.
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.