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.
- No they are not.
Yes, in fact they are. As I said before a law is an explanation for a single observable event, which has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. A theory, like a law, is tested and overwhelmingly accepted, but it differs in that it explains a general idea based on a series of related events, such as plate tectonic theory, which can never be a law, because it's not a single event.
A THEORY is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty.
Whoever told you that should not be teaching science
In other words, theories can progress into laws as their hypothesis are proven to the point of near certainty.
No, not at all. Plate Tectonic Theory is as close to a certainty as you will find in geology, yet a law it shall never be.
Here you go, I found a link on google for experimental evidence for ID
http://www.google.com.ar/search?hs=td5&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22experimental+evidence+for+intelligent+design%22&btnG=Search
It is cut and pasted from the linked website. I feel embarrassed for the publication as the website author wouldn't even pass 7th grade science class with those definitions.
"Oh I see, ya, ID must be right then. HUH? Since gravity is "true" then ID is true?"
No, you wanted me to prove ID. I designed an itelligent experiment to test gravity. Just as scientist use intelligece to design genetically altered animals, crops, medicines, etc. We are already using ID many of the things in our world today...why is it such a strech of the imagination that if we can do it...that perhaps another more advanced race or supernatural being could do the same?
Says he, forging another link on his twisted chain of disingenuousness.
Here you go...try a more comprehensive search engine than the politically biased google.
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/experimental%2Bevidence%2Bfor%2Bintelligent%2Bdesign/1/-/1/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/417/top
"Attack of the 'Theories graduate into a Laws' trolls" placemarker
"No, not at all. Plate Tectonic Theory is as close to a certainty as you will find in geology, yet a law it shall never be."
- It is not fundamental to the workings of the universe, therefore your assertion is correct, just stupid, since it doesn't apply to the argument.
Since "evolution" cannot be proven by scientific experimentation at present, only observed through nature. And "Intelligent Design" cannot be observed at present, though proven by our race's own scientific use of genetics. Both will remain theories for the foreseeable future.
The End...I'm not arguing any more about this.
Dude, your numbers are for the modern region with its modern agricultural techniques, not for the region at the end of the Bronze Age 3200 years ago. I have not been able to find population density information for anything prior to the Medieval period myself, but I figure, what with the advent of the steel plow, Medieval agriculture was probably far more productive than Bronze Age agriculture. But I used the Medieval numbers to give y'all the benefit of the doubt.
Almost 900 posts since I was pinged! I am going to skip them, except to say that, if we start teaching that a Judeo-Christian God created life on earth by pointing the Cosmic Finger, I vote that we also teach other creation myths, including my favorite, "turtles all the way down." Also, Gilgamesh.
And, as you know, I'm Catholic!
I just have a fondness for creation myths. Every well educated person should know several.
No kidding, fella. I accounted for the manna by basically allowing for the entire population to survive (and in one post, prosper) prior to reaching Canaan.
You said theories graduate into laws based on scientific acceptance, and I provided an example to illustrate how wrong that is. It applies to the argument and wasn't "stupid."
"Whoever took the third law, please give it back. Did you honestly think we wouldn't miss it?"
- It's called a typo proffesor 2"nd" law... Geeze talk about a hair trigger.
"Nothing in science is ever proven. No theory will ever be proven."
- Right...and there is an actual equation that states if I run at a brick wall, what the probability would be that I'd pass right through. Give me a break. A fact or law is about as close to absolute as you can get...though not 100% since that is not “theoretically” possible. Theoretically true. Practically un-true.
"Intelligent Design lacks the characteristics required for scientific theory. Evolution is a theory, and there's nothing else that it can become. Theories do not "graduate" into some higher state."
- In your opinion...and people thought the world was flat a few hundred years ago... your point means nothing.
"Typical. Proclaim your ignorance as if it were fact, then run away like a coward so you don't have to look at your position being exposed as faulty."
- I've already provided my points and basis for my arguments...you have not refuted any of them...just rehashed the same lame arguments. Grow up and open your mind instead of being dogged by dogma. Its people like you that burned women, convinced they were witches. You can believe anything you want. You can have your own opinions. My opinion is that discounting ID is like someone insisting that the world is flat and throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I’ve heard your lame arguments and in fact agree in some level with evolution as PART of the story…just not the WHOLE story. So believe what you want because I really could care less.
As far as telling me that I’m a coward…well it’s easy to say that on the computer than to directly to my face...the mark of an even greater coward.
Okay, be my guest. Refute it.
"You said theories graduate into laws based on scientific acceptance, and I provided an example to illustrate how wrong that is. It applies to the argument and wasn't "stupid.""
- No I didn't, I said that theory become laws by being tested repeatedly and for which nothing has been proven to refute it, and that the theory has to pertain to some fundamental basis for the universe...otherwise it is just a fact.
Because God is supernatural. The most important answers are to the questions of wheather God exists (He does) and what does He want us to do (Jesus explains that).
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.