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 I agree that life is a continuum, in defense of Southack, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that life originated from autocatalytic reactions. That's a possibility, yes, and a reasonable one a that, but not one supported by any actual evidence. There is no evidence one way or the other, only hypotheses at this point.
So can most animals. Or least the mammals and birds, anyway. Insects most likely operate in a manner best described as "mechanical". The fact that they can't do so as well as us is beside the point. It's a matter of degree, not "can / can't".
If it comes from a brain alone, then all brains should be able to do all those things.
Most can -- or at least those neural systems which are complex enough to accurately be described as "brains", as opposed to ganglia, etc.
LOL! Good description.
Everything looks like nonsense to the person who fails to understand it.
Standard fare from Evo's since 1859.
Evo's have been producing volumes of DNA evidence since 1859?
Are you really *that* ignorant?
Well, even before that actually... :-Þ
Okay, I guess you are.
What I don't understand is why you're so proud and belligerent about it.
Actually, you'll note something fascinating about the Greeks...
They aren't the central culture anymore. Haven't been for well over 2000 years.
And amazingly, when they were, they were producing Socrates, a philosopher and THEOLOGEN.
The only difference is that he gave up the "many gods" bit for speaking of "the Truth"
Perfection was "God" to him.
You got that right. That's why it's vexing to us scientists to have to explain the same thing time and time again to the same individuals who blindly would replace science with faith in the unknowable.
All organisms (including people) are stimulus-response machines. The more complex the neural net, however, the more varied the responses to any particular stimulus and the greater the ability to handle and integrate multiple stimuli into the possible response(s).
There are dozens in the links of my recent large post. Try reading them.
Thanks for the other link, and for being reasonable. I truly believe that we all argue from our own premises and therefore we always argue in a circle. God tells Moses: "I Am". I am what I am. What we think is what we become. I came full circle from being "damaged" by a fundamental church (the process), back to a knowledge of God that is not found in anyone's "religion". It is by revelation to those who ask.
Already done, although you're wrong about that being a falsification of ID.
Mathematical probability, however, points to the latter option as being unlikely.
ROFL! Okay, this should be amusing: Show us your math. Make sure that your mathematical analysis actual correctly models organic chemistry *and* evolutionary processes, or else your answer will be GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Go for it.
Yeah, faith is so overrated, isn't it?
Prez Bush, you've trivialized the conservative movement by this shocking endorsement.. Its unbecoming of you to chose this dumb televangelist crapola over the integrity of the entire scientific establishment.
Animals can reason. Chimps and bonobos, for example, understand what they look like, and can see themselves in a mirror, something no other animals can do. Moreover, apes are flexible thinkers and flexibility is the key to reason. If one approach to solving a problem doesn't work, they will try others, as humans do. A squirrel will continuously bury and dig up nuts, even in a tropical climate where the food source is unending -- it will not react to changing circumstances by thinking flexibly and changing its ways. Apes and humans do.
LOL! Nice try. No cigar.
BTW, what is a THEOLOGEN?
That is a position you are free to take, but ID does not address that issue.
By the way, evolution does not deal with the beginning of life so the argument against "random chance" is misplaced.
Evolution still makes the claim that all life evolved from the simplest single celled lifeform by random mutation. ID simply says that is not possible, and shows why.
Of course you doubt that, because you want to. It suits your agenda.
Do animals know "good" and "evil"? Moral reasoning is strictly a human function.
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.