Bush supports 'intelligent design'

MyrtleBeach Online ^ | 02 August 2005 | Ron Hutcheson

[Stultis]

Remember Piltdown Man, Eugenics, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and all that other discarded cr@p?

Don't remember who, but we've recently had antievolution types all over these threads insisting (however falsely) that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hasn't been discarded from textbooks. Moonie/creationist Jonathan Wells argued likewise in Icons.

[From many - one.]

"The Big Bang and Evolution take at least as much faith to believe as Creationism and Intelligent Design do. ..."


They only take faith if you have not studied the science behind them.

[WildHorseCrash]

It's about time scientists found one story and stuck to it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have the demons that are causing this fever driven from me.

Superstitious nonsense. Try blood-letting. It's all the rage in Europe...

[Rudder]

Selective breeding has nothing to do with ID. But selective pressures and their effect on genotype is a basic mechanism of evolution.

[MamaTexan]

Teaching both views is does not hamper science but rather invigorates it. If you don't believe one view or the other then prove it. There is nothing like a little competition over views to stir a debate.

Bravo!

Way too many people on both sides of the issue do not want debate. A debate involves listening to the other sides points, and using logical and rational arguments to counter them.

But since you can't dissect God or recreate the primordial ooze that spawned life, both sides are unable to prove anything, and pushes both sides into the realm of 'theory'.

Some folks will deny anything and everything that won't fit into their own personal box of beliefs instead of realizing the accumulation of ALL knowledge should be the true and honest goal.

[WildHorseCrash]

The Big Bang and Evolution take at least as much faith to believe as Creationism and Intelligent Design do.

Only if you are ignorant of science.

Why do folks get so upset when people feel that exposure to all the theories is recommended?

ID/Creationism isn't a theory, it is religious dogma.

Doesn't science require a full look at all the information/possibilities available?

No, we don't examine the "possibility" that gravity is caused by pixies or angels pushing things around.

If you want to prove one, it seems it would be healthy to try to disprove alternates; how can you do that if you don't even allow a look at the alternates?

You can't prove one thing by disproving another, because they both might be wrong. Besides the scientific evidence proves that the fairy story in Genesis is just that, but it hasn't stopped creationists from believing it.

[ConsentofGoverned]

When water freezes it does not lose mass, it loses density because it's volume expands while it's mass remains constant--

poor choice of words but what about the concept of the unique properties water on earth- as it relates to LIFE..??

[From many - one.]

"...Try blood-letting. It's all the rage in Europe.."

Ah, but were going back to maggots here (wound cleaning) and we're thinking of adding swallowing worms {ulcerative colitis).

[RetroFit]

Always makes me smile when people are so arrogant (and somewhat silly) as to admit that there is still so much that we do not understand about the universe. But, without even pausing for breath exclude anything that can't be related to with the 5 senses or our limited capacity for understanding the physical things that do surround us. The arrogance is astounding.

[qam1]

How refreshing!! Yet, you'll find few that will be willing to concede ANYTHING scientific regarding the ID debate.

There's nothing to concede because there isn't anything scientific regarding ID

For them, it is quite simple: they know what will happen if people actually start THINKING about this stuff.

It's the IDer & Creationist who are afraid of people actually starting to think about this stuff, they like people dumb & stupid because that's how they get away with all their lies.

They'll start questioning what funds it. And then, they'll find that about 80 cents of every science research dollar comes straight from .... the U.S. Gov't.

Case in Point already

That its a flat out lie!!!!!

See the National Science Board's own statistics http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c4/c4s1.htm

Private industry, which provided 68.4 percent ($181.0 billion) of total R&D funding in 2000, pays for most of the nation’s R&D....In 2000, the Federal Government provided the second largest share of R&D funding, 26.3 percent ($69.6 billion), and the other sectors of the economy (i.e., state governments, universities and colleges, and nonprofit institutions) contributed the remaining 5.3 percent ($14.0 billion).

Now tell me how strong is your position if in order to defend it you have to make up lies?

And then, they'll start asking questions, like, what value are we getting for all that expenditure?

Better medicine & vaccines, longer lifespans, better weapons, as well as staying ahead of the Chinese & Indians

And then, they'll start seeing that an awful lot of biologists in major universities really, really love wine and cheese shin digs.

Yeah, I'm sure Hovind, Dembski, Behe, Falwell and all the rest of those shysters are all living in poverty. 

And then, they'll start calling congressman, and say things like, 'maybe they might do more w/ less...'.

And the Chinese & Indian will thank those usefull idiots if they do

And we know that if THAT happens, then the Foundation Priests of Secularism will be forced to compete with, horrors! other Priests.

Yes we know, you burn us at the stake

So, in short, your metaphor is excellent. In the end, it is about breaking a BONA FIDE ECONOMIC MONOPOLY, and G. Bush, is sounding more and more like T. Roosevelt. It is a good day today!

Don't be to excited yet, Look what happened last time you pushed to hard

Quote,

During most of the 20th century, probably the most contentious issue in science teaching has been whether evolution is taught or not taught in U.S. public school classrooms. The latest major dispute in this long-running battle was the Kansas State Board of Education's 1999 decision to delete evolution from the state's science standards. This event received widespread coverage in the press and sparked an outcry in the science community.[11] In addition, most of the public was not happy with the decision; 60 percent of Americans were opposed to the school board's action.[12] Moreover, most Kansans also felt the same way.[13] Thus, it was not too surprising when two board members who had voted for the change were defeated in the next election by candidates who supported the teaching of evolution. Subsequently, the reconstituted Kansas School Board reversed the decision.

The attention received by the Kansas controversy may be responsible for a change in response to the "evolution" question. For the first time, a majority of survey respondents answered true to the statement "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," representing a major change in response to this question[14] and bringing the United States more in line with other industrialized countries in response to this question (Gendall, Smith, and Russell 1995).

[trisham]

It's one thing to disagree but another to insult someone. These threads do get heated and that's why I usually avoid them.

***************

The number of ad hominem attacks on these threads is excessive, I agree. I believe the use of such attacks does nothing more than diminish the user's argument, however. Those who are secure in their position on a subject don't seem to feel the need to resort to insulting another poster.

[ohioWfan]

On Monday, the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Let's hear it for the debate!

Let's hear it for intellectual freedom!

Let's hear it for scientific inquiry!

Let's hear it for actual open-minded discussion in science classes, and the end of philosophical brainwashing by liberal professors and teachers!

Let's hear it for the President who GETS IT!

What are you evolutionists afraid of, anyway? That your lock on the minds of the young might be broken and the truth seep in??

Apparently so......

[jec41]

Eugenics is a find word to attach to the whole debate. Remember the book 'The Bell Curve'?

Yes, I remember. A good investigated work on intelligence. It was banned because it was deemed political incorrect even though it was essentially correct in content. Another point is that the 100 IQ is no longer the norm in the US but has digressed to a norm of 98 in the last 40 years. A interesting study would be placement or the norm for faith based VS other approaches.

[SoFloFreeper]

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.

Well, heaven knows we all need to march in lockstep with these people. sig heil!

[ConsentofGoverned]

Selective breeding has nothing to do with ID.

what - by definition it is ID -an example of manipulation of genetic matter by humans for a goal..The example of agriculture is a (albeit weak )reflection of the much more complex creation of the biosphere master Designer -

[gobucks]

" Yes we know, you burn us at the stake"

Wow. How rational! I'm betting you had two or three EXTRA cups of coffee this morning!!

[RadioAstronomer]

That is all I can ask. :-) Thank you.

I would be curious what you don't agree with however.

[WildHorseCrash]

Not poor choice of words. Poor understanding of science.

There is nothing unique about water on Earth. It is the same as the water that exists everywhere in the universe. Earth just happens to be within the band of distance from the sun and happens to possess the proper atmospheric and geological qualities to permit water to be liquid here. Nothing superstitious or supernatural necessary to explain that.

[ValenB4]

" intelligent design may well be the more powerful influence on biologic diversity with evolution being just a tool much like a computer that is useless without the software."

Yeah, yeah. ID may be this, it may be that. One thing that is isn't - it isn't accepted by those trained in the biological sciences. That's a hard, cold fact of reality. And those so trained are not sitting around reading these shouting matches on FR. Only through coercion upon an unwilling academic field will ID succeed. And that won't happen either.

[gobucks]

" Now tell me how strong is your position if in order to defend it you have to make up lies?"

I wasn't referring to ALL R&D funding. I was referring to your typical bio life science department at a typical university. But, maybe I do indeed have the total budget wrong...

I'll check again. Later...