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.
#####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.#####
Case in point.
[I missed post 666 again ping]
Yes (lots). And no. (I don't read NewsMax)
And back to the minority. Why does it matter even if it's only 1%? They're still being silenced by the powerful. Nothing straw about that argument.......and it's not very enlightened of you to make the accusation either.
And I'm sorry that you're embarrassed by your colleagues who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and understand that the left wing agenda on college campuses might just have infiltrated the science department too. But I can't do much about your emotional baggage, now can I?
The left wing elitists rule on University campi, and since you claim you know that first hand, maybe you should investigate how exactly that came about, and how widespread it really is.
I see... So you'd be safe pledging to send me $1000 for every research paper I can cite which finds evidence for the biochemical sources of the earliest life forms?
I mean, you've asserted three times in one post that there is "no" such evidence, so your money should be safe.
Just for the sake of discussion, go ahead and make such a pledge, and then I'll be glad to respond.
Conversely, perhaps you could admit that you're just posting your *presumptions* about whether or not such evidence exists, and that you're posting assertions you aren't actually qualified to make.
I'll have to get back to you later. Have to run now. Husband's orders.
Damn, I wish my wife jumped like that when I called.
Pride isn't the right word, actually. If anything, it's gratitude.
Umm... Okay...
How could it be any other way? If life is so complex that it must be designed, then the ultimate designer must be supernatural. If aliens designed life on earth then who designed them. Again, the end of the line will always end with supernatual. Respectfully, if my logic is off please let me in what way.
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.
That still leaves out the aspect of natural selection.
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.
1) I thought ID supposed an intelligent designer at some point? Or some type of intelligent design ...
2) If there is to be intelligent design, ID theory would not have to say what exactly the intelligence is, but WOULD have to address the fact that if it is not possible --- by the suppositions of ID itself! --- for life to evolve without help in nature, how does the intelligence that is the design come about without a process that is beyond nature --- supernatural.
If ID cannot stand up under its own suppositions, it's not a very good theory. ID theory MUST suppose the supernatural --- something beyond natural laws ...
3) ID does not just simply state evolution is not possible ... it states there is an intelligent design/designer. There is a difference.
To be taken seriously, IDers will need to examine their own theory with as much rigor as they do the theory of evolution ...
Beware...........there are those who frequent these threads who claim to be Christians, but who do not believe in any of the fundamental theology of Christianity.
They use their 'faith' as a "SEE! We can be Christians and not believe the Bible" argument.....
And you and I both know who the author of that kind of lie is.
Guess his ignorance is his strength. Certainly wouldn't be the first creationist to admit it.
Do you find this to be an effective debating technique? Because I don't. This isn't a question of who has the bigger testicles, or who is willing to pony up the most cash on an anonymous on-line board. You can't bully me into agreeing with you
I'm familiar with the arguments -- I've read the relevant literature, although if you'd like to supply more, I'd be happy to read it -- and I continue to believe that there is no evidence to suggest that life came into being through a natural process. That isn't to suggest that it didn't or couldn't happen, but that there isn't evidence to suggest that it did happen. I know that incredibly complex viruses exist. I know that amino acid synthesis happens naturally. But saying that something could happen and did happen are two different things, and scientists investigating the possibility of abiogenesis have not proved that it is even possible.
If you get so upset by responses, why do you insist on these massive info-dumps? If I wanted to I could go copy and paste twenty pages on evolution myself.
I accept that argument.
Can you give any evidence of attempts to scientifically determine when and how creativity in humans began?
It's not a matter of incredulity for me because I accept the Word of God that we are made in HIS image. Our creativity began the moment we were created, because there was no evolution from lower beings. The Bible doesn't give 'wiggle room' on the unique creation of man.
Sorry, I don't know what you consider the deficiencies of Darwin's character, or what you think he believed that is sufficiently odious to be worthy of disassociation. Perhaps you could elaborate?
I've read several biographies of Darwin, and significant portions of his correspondence and notebooks. All of Darwin's friends, and significantly most of his intellectual adversaries, did in fact consider him a "good guy," or a "capital fellow" as they used to say back then.
Darwin certainly did, IMHO, have deficiencies of character, but they were neither extraordinary, nor the ones you (seem) to think he had. An example? He often used his invalidism to escape from professional obligations, and to invoke sympathy and solicitude from his wife. OTOH, at the same time he shirked professional scientific duties, he did serve for years as a local magistrate; created, initially funded and managed, along with the local pastor Brodie Innes, a savings association for the local populace (he was very good with investments); and participated in several other civic works of the type.
People ask him for evidence. But when he gives evidence (explanations, references, offsite links, images, etc) people complain he is spamming. My conclusion is people don't want to debate. Instead, people want to have flamewars.
Indeed it would have. But you assume that it was a million man army. Let's arbitrarily pick a number. Let's say there were 2,000,000 Israelites. A fair guess. More than what Junior thinks. That's two million total. When you take out all the women, children, elderly, and Moses youare left with I would guess around 800,000. Still enormous, but less than a million. Even so they would have overwhelmed the enemy. Considering the number of battles they were in, even if they lost only one thousand men each battle, that would still reduce them by a rather large amount. Consider also the few battles in which they screwed up, meaning the one where God told them not to go, etc.
Not a handful. I am just guessing here. I don't claim this to be fact. I would guess somewhere around 750,000-1,250,000.
Two million people just wandering around for 40 years (or was that 80 years?)... wow, what a trail of camp sites and dung heaps and funeral pyres they must have left behind!
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.