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.
Then tell me what it is and explain to me why Creationists favor it so over evolution?
Nope, true conservative here. Turns out Bush isn't that stupid---just that the article's title falsely attributed an ignorant opinion to Bush (e.g., "Bush supports intelligent design")
Those who use ad hominum arguments here are the ignorant ones.
Is that Rads or "Rades"? :-)
I believe the argument is that while it is a philosophical theory, it does not yet reach the level of SCIENTIFIC theory.
Do history teachers only teach one side's position in a war, and just refer to "the enemy"?
Yes! Usually, nowadays, they teach the side of whoever is not the U.S. ...
(Flip answer, I know.) Should they? No. But it's not really an equal comparison. It would sort of be like trying to teach a theory that the Americans fought the Revolutionary War because they wanted to be able to oppress Indians more freely ... sure, it's an interesting theory, it goes against the collusion of historians to dictate history, and you could probably find some historians to back it up ... but it doesn't fit what we know about history.
(Someone will now post evidence supporting that theory, proving I am bad at making counterexamples).
I listed Rasmussen's Los Alamos experiment as a potential falsification of ID, not of Evolution.
My request for a similar credible experiment in progress that might legitimately falsify Evolution has so far gone unanswered.
Lets not confuse the two.
As a Jew I'm not prepared to argue extensively on Christian theology, but from reading that passage from St. Paul to the Ephesians, it does seem like Paul is saying that faith is an avenue to knowing that God loves you, that God exists. Paul does not say that faith allows you to understand God. Because thinking you understand God is blasphemous and anathema to all Western religious traditions.
I think the real Creationist/ID trolls here are most definitely the former. A few strident ones who have such obvious difficulty in spelling and organizing their own "thoughts" are most likely the latter. But even these ones have deliberately chosen to remain ignorant in the face of the most blatant contradictions between their beliefs and reality. To say the least, such a flagrant denial of both self and reality is hardly an inspiring example for holding a rigidly religious worldview.
Your posts as usual are outstanding!!! :-)
Thank you.
You use Faith... but only in things you can see?
Huh. I guess that means you have no faith that people love you, or that you are capable of love.
And BTW, one doesn't need "proof" of a miracle anymore than one needs "proof" of family. A family is what you make it. A miracle is what you make it.
I really think you ought to change your screen name. I think your namesake, if he were able, might sue you for defamation of character.
My mind has no problem comprehending it. Quit projecting.
Thank you for the book titles.
"are you asking why we try to make sense out of things we cannot understand?"
And yes, I AM asking you to be human.
Hey! One out of seventeen isn't bad! Maybe only your foot will go to Hell. :P
ID is the theory that life is too complex to have occurred by random mutation. It only says life was intelligently designed, it does not address who that designer was. Evidence of the complexity of life is presented, as well as information relating to how such complexity could not have arisen by chance.
Creationism says that God created the universe pretty much as it is now. It also says who the Creator is.
Natually, Creationists would favor ID over evolution, because Creationists believe in a Creator. Evolution says "This all happened by random chance."
I doubt that seriously, based upon the comments of the anti-Es in regards to their knowledge of evolution. Why do you think we spend the first few hundred posts batting down creationist strawmen?
Where have you been for the last 2 centuries? You got some reading to do, because the data supporting evolution gathered through the scientific method during this period would fill a public library.
Creationism isn't a theory.
Prove atoms in a 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.