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.
So why spam us? I never pinged you. I know you were inconvenienced but show some courtesy.
Get over thinking that your inconveniences entitle you to rude behavior to others not even involved.
So your point is that we should teach all theories, even those held by a tiny fringe, in high-school science class? You are aware there are people who dispute Newton's laws of motion, quantum mechanics, relativity, the use of infinity in mathematics, etc? All of these alternatives should be taught?
And I'm sorry that you're embarrassed by your colleagues who believe that God created the heavens and the earth
Nope, just the ones who think it was done in 6 days, or in other ways that directly conflict with scientific evidence.
Appoints Bolton and expresses a desire for well rounded education within a period of a couple days. Can't fault him for that.
Whoever took the third law, please give it back. Did you honestly think we wouldn't miss it?
We don't even know how much water is on (and within) the planet we inhabit.
"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."
- Listen and listen carefully because you are about to be lectured again. A scientific law is a general statement based on the observed behavior of matter, to which no exceptions are known. There are certainly many known "laws" in science, physics, etc. Here's a list of them for your own amusement. http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/l/li/list_of_laws_in_science.htm
10 posts of one inch text is NOT spam.
SPAM is post #515.
I never pinged you.
How bout that...I never pinged YOU either!
I know you were inconvenienced but show some courtesy.
Exactly what I am doing...showing Jim Rob the courtesy of NOT wasting his bandwidth by posting anther thread.
Get over thinking that your inconveniences entitle you to rude behavior to others not even involved.
Get over thinking your the final authority on *rude* behavior.... I didn't 'involve' you, you 'involved' yourself. Sorry it was so tough for you to spin the mouse wheel a couple of extra times!
I had a problem and dealt with it the best I knew how.
If that's not good enough for you,
get over it.
Placed alongside the fact that "amoeba-to-man" evolution does not qualify as a theory, there is little trouble in concluding that neither should be taught as science.
Posting to another thread wouldn't have wasted any more bandwidth.
99% of scientists say you're wrong.
"No, there are actually only a few theories and fewer backed by evidence. Those "thousands" are all creation stories and all lumped nicely under the label of ID which I do agree is conjecture."
- Then lump evolution right there with it because it is conjecture too.
"P.S. "Origin of life" and "evolution" are not the same thing."
- P.S. Read the rest of the line I wrote.
"No theory is ever proved"
- So gravity can be unproven?
"But until you have evidence or reproducible experiments to validate something, it is not science."
- Your notion is outdated. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
"So, one request to ANYONE wishing to prove a theory of ID. Give me one (1) O-N-E experiment (be specific to all steps) that validates ID. Just one, thats all I'm asking for."
- Take an egg out of your fridge, climb on top of a 3 story building, hold it over the edge and let go. I guarentee you that not only will it drop but that it will also break when it hits the pavement.
I never said laws didn't exist. Laws and theories are two different animals. Theories do not graduate into laws and laws are not superior to theories either.
Actually, laws and theories coexist. There are laws of gravity and there is also the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity makes use of laws.
One more time - theories DO NOT graduate into laws.
If I thought you took the time to survey them all I'd take your assertion seriously. As it is, the words "wishful thinking" seem more apropos. If percentages are what determine scientific merit, what percentage of scientists opposed Galileo in his day?
By definition, theories do not become laws, no matter how much proof there is, because they describe two very different things--a law being a tested and accepted explanation for an action which can be observed, often in the form of a mathematical equation, and a theory being an accepted and tested explanation for a series of related events.
Newton's laws of motion never existed as theories.
" never said laws didn't exist. Laws and theories are two different animals."
- No they are not.
A THEORY is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty.
A LAW or FACT is a theory that has been validated close to certainty.
In other words, theories can progress into laws as their hypothesis are proven to the point of near certainty.
"By definition, theories do not become laws, no matter how much proof there is"
- This is false.
**In addition to the above definitions of hypothesis, theory, fact, and law, below is an example of their appropriate use.
Let's say that I form the hypothesis that fire is hot. I then put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory as it has been verified. If it is verified by many to the point of certainty then it becomes a fact.
Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact.
A Law on the other hand is not a fact, but rather it is something that seems fundamental to the workings of the universe. As we have seen, Laws are subject to revision (as Einstein did to Newton, and Siepmann has done to Einstein6).
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
FACT and LAW are almost identical with one exception, LAWS pertain to fundamental workings of the universe and facts do not. A THEORY can still be tested to produce either one.
"Take an egg out of your fridge, climb on top of a 3 story building, hold it over the edge and let go. I guarantee you that not only will it drop but that it will also break when it hits the pavement."
Oh I see, ya, ID must be right then. HUH? Since gravity is "true" then ID is true?
And yes, a theory is unprovable. It covers too broad a scope to be neatly proved and therefor it is a theory and not a law.
So are you admitting you can't come up with a single experiment?
Spamming a thread is no substitute for a coherent argument. It's the equivalent to yelling louder.
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.