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.
Why don't you just accept his science and admit he wasn't a really good guy?
I agree. It's vital to the human condition.
But faith is not an element in science, which relies upon empirical observation.
While I applaud you for your creative spelling, your history is off.
1. Socrates was an opponent of democracy. He supported a dictatorship in Athens and was executed when Athens returned to democracy.
2. Socrates was not a theologian. He believed in the supremacy of one's daimonion which is more or less analagous to one's conscious. In other words, he was a moral relativist who believed that morality should be left up to the judgement of each individual.
3. Democracy lasted a lot longer in Greece than it has anywhere else in the world to date, so I'm not sure what your point about it being a backwater for the last 2000 years has to do with anything.
You know something, you're one thick-headed fellow. You've seen the creationist canards ("evolution violates the 2LoT," "Piltdown Man disproves evolution," "I'll believe evolution when a cat morphs into a dog") and have posted numerous yourself. And yet you insist you are critiquing evolution from a position of knowledge. You don't fool us, and this "believe what you want to believe" crap isn't fooling the lurkers, either.
Whatever you were trying to prove with that list is rendered invalid because I used the word "zealot" for a reason (many of whom are on this very thread). I was NOT referring to anyone who believes in evolution.
Try to read more carefully, OK?
Yes, and that's the problem. "Some unspecified entity doing X with unknown methods and for inscrutable purposes" is not a scientific theory and neither an explanation for X
This is why ID is not science and not because it proposes an intelligent designer: without a falsifiable model of the designer it is practically worthless.
LOL...girl, you are waaaayyy behind. This is a first for me. I avoid these threads like the plague. Don't have a clue why I got snared into this one. I'm about to be outa here.
What started first your blood pumping, or your heart pounding? Never mind it looks like it's not making it's way to the brains of evo's anyway!
Face it ID is just as valid theory as evolution The goo just doesn't cut it anymore.
I responded to your sarcasm and shoud have written: "I disagree."
"In other words, he was a moral relativist who believed that morality should be left up to the judgement of each individual."
Wow. Not in the versions of Plato's dialogues I read. You must have read a pretty different translation.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of Glaucon?
When I was in all those philosophy and ethics courses I took to impress girls, we did the standard posers: Is stealing bad? Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children bad? If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you? There is never any good answers to these kind of questions. It always boils down to "it depends upon the situation."
I really don't think most Christians have a concept of "good" or "evil" beyond that of my dogs. They'll take certain actions or refrain from others because of fear of punishment or desire for reward ("..for I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell") and not out of any innate desire to do good or eschew evil -- because they cannot define those terms either.
ID is not science because there are questions it does not attempt to answer? By that same logic, evolution cannot be science either.
Don't you love sarcasm?
LOL There it is. That shrill vitriol I was mentioning earlier. You have proved my point. Thank you.
If you've been taken aback by some of the anti-Christian hostility in this thread, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Just watch what'll happen if President Bush gets a couple of more Supreme Court appointments in addition to John Roberts. If that happens, a non-leftist court might well reject ACLU-Evolutionist hegemony over public education, turning issues involving ID over to local officials.
When that happens, there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth unlike anything ever seen, both at DU and among the hardcore evolutionists here. The term "fundies" will be mild compared to some of the names conservative Chsristians will be called.
Cosmic ripple (with caramel) placemarker.
I bet you can't wait to burn them-there pointy-headed liberal scientists what think they're smarter than you at the stake. That'll larn 'um.
Caramel with cheap wine sounds awful.
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.