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.
If he's going to step into it, why doesn't he just support creationism?
BUMP!
BUMP!
BUMP!
BUMP!
BUMP!
Because he doesn't want to offend muslims who believe in a different creator.
?
Theories don't become laws or anything else. This has been covered many times.
Respectfully, you really shouldn't lecture anyone on science if you misunderstand something this basic.
Nope. Teaching Creationism--or should I say, explaining the reasoning behind Creationism--is no more radical than explaining that the JAPANESE thought they had the right to attack Pearl Harbor, to use your example. But it's a bad example. Explaining Creationism is not only logical, but necessary in teaching Evolution, as the questions raised by Creationism can be easily knocked down BY Evolutionary theory. It's all part of the learning process; you don't just say 'Here's Evolution, and I'm not going to tell you all about the huge uproar it caused because that would be giving weight to Creationism." That's retarded.
I'm sorry Hon!
Some goober came along on this thread and posted 600 gazillion gigabytes and PINGED me to it.
I'm on dial-up, so now my comments page takes 5 or 6 full minutes to download!
This is the only way I know of to get it OFF of there....unless you might have another suggestion???
(she said hopefully??)
:)
No, because people are part of the system of evolution ... just as are predators, prey, parents, children, etc. Evolution does not occur in a vaccuum ...
So if you don't know how all life evolved from a common ancestor why would you think it did?
Did I say I think it did? My main argument here is that there is currently no better scientific theory ... I'd LOVE to see a more accurate theory come around, but that would involve the argument actually taking place in the relams of science, and not in rhetorical questions.
That's an interesting illustration. For instance, your claim has strong odds of not being true. I suspect there are times when you do the laundry that socks don't go missing.
Whew! I'm glad I didn't state that it happens every time I do laundry, then!
If one can be skeptical of claims of missing socks, one should certainly be skeptical of broad claims of science.
Great, but if the fact is that socks go missing, do we cover our ears and ignore it, or claim the one producing the evidence is a liberal or a liar when they show evidence of there now being fewer socks?
Anyway, the supernatural can be avoided when discussing socks.
Yes. I usually avoid it.
That's not really the case in questions as to how life came about and what we should do with our own.
And why is that?
Somehow that's just not very comforting to this Christian..
Couldn't you have created a thread in the smokey backroom or the HTML sandbox. This is an ongoing thread.
uh...I know! I assume you have your comments set on "full" meaning you see the full text of the comment with the poster, time, etc. as it appears on the threads. If you go to the top-right corner and click the "brief" link underneath "ping|mail|etc." then you will get your pings as only the title of the thread, poster, time, and post number. If something like that were to happen again, you can switch to this view until you have gotten enough pings to get it off the screen.
You do realize that they have been disproven, don't you?
Oh, and BTW, the there are actaully three laws, not two. (Though some physicists like to think of the first law as a statement about frames of reference rather than a proper law. It's still called his first law, nontheless, and the other two his second and third laws.)
"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.'"
Why not put more minds to the task of thinking about it?
This is the thread I was pinged TO.
Get over it.
Thank you for the help. I appreciate it very much.
Sorry for the interruption!
You did, in post number 271.
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.