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.

[Dimensio]

So we can't account for evolution but we now it occurred?

I said no such thing. I simply said that we cannot falsify "direction" in the process. The same is true for all processes for which a scientific theory exists.

[JeffAtlanta]

No single theory or hypothesis has been proven, so why descriminate over plausible ones?

Because it makes no sense to teach non-scientific subject matter in science class - it just confuses people.

[Dimensio]

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. There are a number of hypothesis on how the first life forms came to exist. There is only one theory of how life became seperated into diverse species.

No single theory or hypothesis has been proven

Theories and hypothesis can never be proven. Using this as an argument tactic doesn't score you any points.

so why descriminate over plausible ones?

There is no discrimination against plausable theories. The problem is that a group of loons are advancing an explanation that does not meet the criteria of "scientific theory" and calling it science.

When working with science, there is nothing wrong with "discriminating" against non-science, just like there is nothing wrong with "discriminating" against using roast beef when trying to bake a chocolate cake.

[Southack]

Is there evidence to support that claim? - Southack

"Yes. The presence of pigeons in virtually every modern city in the world." - Alter Kaker

Incorrect. The claim was that pigeons were transported, regularly, to every city in the world...not that pigeons were present in every city in the world.

This is not a trivial point. If pigeons are genetically isolated now, or in the past, yet remain identical around the world in city after city, then per your falsification criteria, Evolution is falsified.

For Evolution to have even a *chance* at being viable, you have to show that pigeons are routinely transported to every city in the world...to explain why they are identical around the world (i.e. no genetic "drift").

[JohnnyM]

There were 600,000 Israelites who left Egypt (Ex 12:37). This does not include children and it probably does not include women.

The Lord fed them with Manna from heaven. No need to worry about the land supporting them.

The Lord actually fed them once for a whole month on quail. There was so much quail that it was stacked two cubits deep for a days journey on all sides of their camp. (Numbers 11:31)

JM

[Dimensio]

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.

But why? Opposition not founded in science has no place in a scientific evaluation. You don't analyze a theory based upon how people might find it offensive to their religious sensibilities.

And if you are going to study "creationism", you'd better be ready for the slew of thousands of religious "creation" stories that will need "equal time" in the classroom. Not that I expect rabid Christian creationists to stand for "competing ideas" being taught alongside their religious stories.

[Asphalt]

600,000 men. with women and children well over 1,000,000

[JohnnyM]

I think your math is way off.

Here is some recent info for Israel and population density: booya

The numbers are 290+ per sqkm, the palestinian authority has 550!!!

The land of Canaan could have supported well over 1 million people no problem.

JM

[Doctor Stochastic]

I read all posts on the subject. If you posted a criticism, good, and I will apologize on your linking to such post.

[Tribune7]

OK, I'll start over.

Do random mutation and natural selection adequately account for evolution?

[JohnnyM]

yeah, I said that number probably didnt include women, so 1 million, easy, left Egypt.

JM

[Darkwolf377]

But why? Opposition not founded in science has no place in a scientific evaluation.

Because teaching doesn't happen in a vacuum. Evolution has created one of the greatest revolutions in world history--why would any teacher completely ignore that?

When I say "teach Creationism" I mean merely incorporate the idea into the topic as much as it warrants--a sentence or two here and there in any discussion of it should be enough. To simply present the theory of evolution, one of the most revolutionary ideas ever, without pointing out WHY it's so important is lunacy.

[Southack]

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

Confusing "random" with "undirected process" hardly qualifies as a response.

[Asphalt]

i missed that. yeah

[Tempestuous]

"Theories and hypothesis can never be proven. Using this as an argument tactic doesn't score you any points."

- This is false. When they are proven they become scientific laws...like Newtons 2 law of motion. Being ignorent of science doesnt score you any point either.


"The problem is that a group of loons are advancing an explanation that does not meet the criteria of "scientific theory" and calling it science."

- The notion of God is certainly scientific. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13 / You are going to have to do better than that.

[MamaTexan]

scrolling spam off my comments page

BUMP!

[MamaTexan]

scrolling spam off my comments page

BUMP!

[MamaTexan]

scrolling spam off my comments page

BUMP!

[MamaTexan]

scrolling spam off my comments page

BUMP!

[MamaTexan]

scrolling spam off my comments page

BUMP!