Bush supports 'intelligent design'

MyrtleBeach Online ^ | 02 August 2005 | Ron Hutcheson

[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.

---

[Links inserted by PH:]
Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. President of the National Academy of Sciences.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.

[TAdams8591]

Yoy are comparing apples to oranges there, Phys. Tell me, is intelligent design a possibility???

[Junior]

About half a million tops.

[Junior]

I wouldn't exactly call the mob that killed Socrates to be the leaders of a "free society"

Why not? We're a free society and we put people to death all the time.

[Asphalt]

Ah. I see now. I respond unsatisfactorily to your post, you insult me, I respond, yet somehow in your books I just *slink away*. Appears you never read my reply it might do you good. How about in the future we discuss evolution and ID, and not call each other *little snots*, hmmm?

[Southack]

"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."

Whole threads have been devoted to the topic. For instance: A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]

What the probability math shows is that to correctly *sequence* useful data (e.g. DNA code, computer programming code, letters into words, etc.) of any notable length, you must have (some form of) intelligent intervention or bias.

That's the one thing that you should get out of reading that thread. Past that, the thread has copious areas that act as seductive diversions and digressions.

Of course, since the *math* runs contrary to your belief system, I expect that you will be compelled to resort to full fledged denials, ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, or outright flight. Predictable, but a pity.

That you would counter that thread with math of your own is out of the question. You simply aren't capable, even though you requested that feat from me.

[MacDorcha]

Largely because it was the mob who put him to death. And not because of any noted crime, excepting his outspokeness against Athenian democracy.

The man was not a killer. The man was not a thief. The man was not immoral. All signs point to "unjust death"

[Southack]

Name at least two acceptable methods as I've done above for ID, and name at least one credible scientific lab experiment currently under way to falsify evolution... Southack

"There are dozens in the links of my recent large post. Try reading them." - Ichneumon

I'll take that as a "No," you can't name at least two acceptable methods and at least one credible scientific lab experiment currently under way to falsify evolution.

[Alter Kaker]

When people run away from an invitation to put some money on the line, it becomes clear to all that the person's original claim was an overstated bluff.

On the contrary, when someone on an anonymous online message board, rather than posting an argument or citing sources, instead says "I bet you $1000!" it makes them look like an unserious armchair arguer. To suggest that life began through purely naturalistic mechanisms, you need to do three things:

1. Find evidence that it is possible to produce self-assembling reproducing organisms naturally.
2. Find evidence to suggest that an environment conducive to (1) was present on Earth during the requisite time period.
3. Find evidence to suggest that beyond being possible, that's what actually happened.

I think the discovery of incredibly complicated non-living organisms and the laboratory production of amino acids is incredibly important if that's what you're trying to prove, and I find it impossible to believe that you really consider the Miller experiment to be "irrelevant." Exactly what are you arguing?

As for citations -- the literature is incredibly broad. For starters:
Abkevich, V. I., A. M. Gutin, and E. I. Shakhnovich. 1996. How the first biopolymers could have evolved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America93 (2):839­44.
Ibid. 1997. Computer simulations of prebiotic evolution. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.
Alberti, S. 1997. The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 45 (4):352­8.
Bada, J. L. 1995. Origins of homochirality. Nature 374 (6523):594­5.
Baltscheffsky, H., C. Blomberg, H. Liljenstrom, B. I. Lindahl, and P. Arhem. 1997. On the origin and evolution of life: an introduction. Journal of Theoretical Biology 187 (4):453­9>

Tell me what else you need, but also do provide the evidence you have. What evidence actually suggests that this DID happen -- rather than being just a reasonable possibility?

[Dimensio]

Blaming the Bible, Christianity or his alleged Catholic upbringing for Hitler's madness and genocide is beyond absurd. It's a complete, utter and outright fabrication.

Says someone who blames Darwin for it instead.

[Asphalt]

500,000? Perhaps your math was wrong, perhaps they inhabited a larger area than you first said, perhaps there were only 500,000, or perhaps something supernatural happened. I don't have the foggiest.

[Southack]

"Pigeons, for whatever reason or another, are brought all over the world all the time"

Is there evidence to support that claim?

[Junior]

Largely because it was the mob who put him to death. And not because of any noted crime, excepting his outspokeness against Athenian democracy.

No. He was tried and convicted for corrupting the youth of Athens:

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian Empire to its decline after its defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens was seeking to recover from humiliating defeat, the Athenian public court was induced by three leading public figures to try Socrates for impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens. According to Dr. Will Beldam, he was the first person to question everything and everyone, and apparently it offended the leaders of his time. He was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to drink hemlock, which cost him his life.

According to the version of his defense speech presented in Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded negatively. Socrates, interpreting this as a riddle, set out to find men who were wiser than him. He questioned the men of Athens about their knowledge of good, beauty, and virtue. Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew he knew nothing. The others only falsely thought they had knowledge.

See Trial of Socrates for more detail and background about Socrates' trial and execution.

[Darkwolf377]

OK, let's see if this will post on the right thread:

Oh chill out the whole bunch of you. If you read what I wrote in context you'd get my meaning through my admittedly stupid and crappy phrasing. Creationism is a competing ANSWER for the question of creation. Of course it's not a science-based one--you all seem to have ignored that I began my post by pointing out I don't believe in Creationism--but Creationism is of sufficient popularity that it SHOULD be taught in a science course about evolution if only to show how significant opposition exists.

You knew the point I was making, but you're just as hysterical as the Creationists.

[Junior]

I did some research on Canaan. It's only about 22,000 square kilometers, and it was not all that productive a region agriculturally. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by allowing it to support the same number of people (20) per square kilometer that Egypt did. That gives a figure of only about 440,000, but I rounded off to 500,000.

I think the figures in the Bible are typically off by a factor of 10 to 100. Whether as a result of propaganda, or simply inflating figure to make a better story, I don't know. However, even a cursory look at the physical data shows they cannot be accurate.

[Dimensio]

I would be much happier if he would post links.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Tempestuous]

Extraterestrial can also mean a lot of things. It could be purposeful, as in aliens seeding earth with life. It could also be accident, as in comets, space dust, et.

The bottom line IMHO is that asking these types of questions invigorates the search for answers, not "throwing up the arms in defeat" as some would suggest, which is exactly the purpose of science to begin with.

[Dimensio]

What the probability math shows is that to correctly *sequence* useful data (e.g. DNA code, computer programming code, letters into words, etc.) of any notable length, you must have (some form of) intelligent intervention or bias.

And no one on the evolutionist side had a single response. Oh, wait.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Wow! What an exchange toward the end between Gore3000 and Dan Day. An excellent read and a great thread. Thanks for the reference.

[Alter Kaker]

Is there evidence to support that claim?

Yes. The presence of pigeons in virtually every modern city in the world.

[Tempestuous]

"That is exactly the point. "Intelligent Design" is not a theory nor is it even a hypothesis. It is a throwing up of arms and giving up on searching for the answer. It is a wrapping of the unknown in the aura of unknowable. It is the ether of the our century."

- There are a thousand different theories as to how life on earth arose and sustained itself over the eons and ALL OF THEM are conjecture. No single theory or hypothesis has been proven, so why descriminate over plausible ones? The purpose of science is to find answers to questions, limiting viewpoints hampers scientific discovery. The bottom line is that teaching different views causes young minds to think...which can only be good for science and life on this planet in the long run.