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.

[staterightsfirst]

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.

SO VERY VERY WRONG IT MAKES ME CRY

Please, please, learn at least some grade-school science before you think you can discuss things intelligently (pun intended) with scientists.

[Tempestuous]

"Evolution is a theory, and there's nothing else that it can become"

= Wrong again. Evolution is certainly a theory, but it may yet still be proven as fact or part fact. It would require constant observation of a subject over a very long period of time without the presence of the observer known to the observed. By documenting the physiological changes backed up with physical evidence, evolution can be proven as fact...but since it would pertain to the fundamental understanding of how life manages itself in the universe, would most like become law. And since there is nothing of absoluteness in theory it will never be stated as such…just the practical side of the data will win most arguments…like not being able to walk through brick walls.

[ml1954]

Got home and saw this thread had almost 900 responses.

I haven't read them all yet but I almost expect someone has attributed the existence of the universe to ID.

The argument would be it's as plausible an explanation as the Big Bang and that ID should be taught along with the Big Bang theory.

What a slippery slope.

[narby]

I just now found this thread. It got lost in pings from the other crevo thread.

How could Bush be so dumb?

He's just lost the Republicans a million future votes (that's less than 1% of the voters), but that's enough to lose a presidential election.

[antiRepublicrat]

The bottom line IMHO is that asking these types of questions invigorates the search for answers

I completely agree. But a series of questions about an established scientific theory does not in itself constitute an alternate scientific theory that should be taught in a science class.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is certainly a theory, but it may yet still be proven as fact or part fact.

Explain how it could be proven.

It would require constant observation of a subject over a very long period of time without the presence of the observer known to the observed

How would this prove that all life on earth is descended from common ancestry?

[PatrickHenry]

How could Bush be so dumb? He's just lost the Republicans a million future votes (that's less than 1% of the voters), but that's enough to lose a presidential election.

I'm hoping this will be covered in tomorrow's press briefing, and there will be some backtracking.

[Dimensio]

- In your opinion...and people thought the world was flat a few hundred years ago... your point means nothing.

My opinion?

If you disagree and believe that Intelligent Design is actually a scientific theory, then please offer up one hypothetical means by which it could be falsified. Some observation that, if ID is true, should never occur. Just one.

[balrog666]

Fourty years. In case you never realized, crap is biodegradable. There isn't still fourty years worth of poop in the desert.

Never been to a desert, huh? Never seen a coprolite? Never read a book on the subject?

I guess that goes with your spelling.

[Dimensio]

How could Bush be so dumb?

I wouldn't go with 'dumb'. A lot of otherwise intelligent people whose knowledge simply doesn't touch on matters of biology have been swayed by the convincing crap peddled by the ID movement.

But don't expect far-left liberals to see it that way. This statement, for them, will be a Holy Grail of idiocy.

[Tempestuous]

"How would this prove that all life on earth is descended from common ancestry?"

- - At this point there is no way to tell for certain. In each theory, common ancestry cannot be ruled out. In evolution it forms the basis of the whole argument.

Intelligent design leave the possibility open that lesser forms of life were manipulated into more complex ones while evolution doesn't include this but rather states there ONLY is some sort of family tree all the way back to the beginning.

Neither one can explain or test origin, not at least until someone creates COMPLETE life in a laboratory (not random RNA strands)

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Examples of these "contradictions" please?

the Theory of intelligent design may well be the more powerful influence on biologic diversity

What is the "Theory of intelligent design"? What does it predict, how can it be tested and what hypothetical observation would falsify it? If you can't answer all of those questions, then it is -- without question -- not a scientific theory."

contradictions: 1.rna/dna contain information-did rna and dna evolve prior to life if so what produced the information that resulted in a living organism/cell?

2. what record is there for evolution of complex eye structure
we have different eye structure in birds, reptiles, fish and mammals but where is the evolution of the eye from less complex organisms such as worms to the eye that we see in say modern sharks which are basically unchanged over last 300 mil yrs. 3. Name one virus/prion that has produced a positive organ evolution resulting in something other than disease-you state it could happen that way and virus and mrna/mitachromal parts are seen but have they produced a species change - we both know there is no proof of that. It is YOUR HYPOTHESIS stated as fact. My take on an ID theory: 1. Information is created before it is used..information is basis of all life. This information is contained in DNA. Therefore DNA is created to mold a living organism. the goal of this system is to produce a self aware being who can comprehend the designer and ultimately to share some characteristics of the designer. 2. This theory predicts that all life contains DNA that allows it to replicate and form into a life form separate from it's environment with it's own set of physical and genetic characteristics. These Characteristics may be modified by the designer of the information when the organism is not able to fulfill it's function in the created ecosystem. Or the design may become obsolete and the organism will become extinct. 3. To test the theory we need to modify an existing organism to provide a new function in the ecosystem: successful tests : fermentation of Human Insulin via modification of Ecoli genetic code. New information inserted in a manner that may mimic the True designer's methods. What other proof's may we be able to test: Proof of a designer having altered a life form by surrogate (human) Proof for the designer existing and historic interventions would be consistent with major genome changes resulting in fully developed new plant and animal life in very short geologic time scales..less than 1000yrs (time frame may be shorter if you wish).. The final hypothesis : all such changes must produce the ultimate goal of a self aware being able to comprehend the creator. What could tend to falsify on the theory of ID. . 1. no organism can be altered at genetic level by an intelligent agent such as man - showing that ID is not possible -this has been disproved already. 2. All the changes in ecosystem through out history did not result in a self aware species able to comprehend a Designer..also clearly not the case- but it would disprove my ID theory if correct. 3. Life can exist without a designer..We cannot yet produce life from inorganic or even basic organic matter as of yet so we cannot disprove yet the hypothesis that for life to exist there must be a designer to impart information in the genetic matter. so have at it - and may you come to understand that you have already fulfilled a goal of the designer.

[narby]

This statement, for them, will be a Holy Grail of idiocy.

It will. Has anyone lurked over at DU to see how they're playing this?

This will be painful. Because they'll be right for once.

[balrog666]

With that kind of mob, they could have carted away 90% of Egypt. Or with that size army, they could have just stayed and taken over. Anyway, if they left, the entire economy of Egypt would have collapsed and their many enemies would have moved in rapidly.

Since none of that actually happened, perhaps we should be looking for clues of a smaller, tribal-sized exodus.

[Aquinasfan]

Evolution is a strange religion.

[js1138]

I just have a fondness for creation myths. Every well educated person should know several.

I personally believe three different creation myths every morning before breakfast.

[flevit]

a machine (intelligently designed??) picking numbers, is still picking numbers, lose the machine, numbers do not have to be "picked" so there never has to be a "winner"

the universe not only doesn't care if life forms but there never has to be a winner/life. so what is the "machine" that is doing the picking

[Dimensio]

Thanks for keeping creationist responses to Ichneumon's post -- completely ignore the substance and wave it off with a dismissive and insulting comment -- consistent.

[Tempestuous]

"If you disagree and believe that Intelligent Design is actually a scientific theory, then please offer up one hypothetical means by which it could be falsified. Some observation that, if ID is true, should never occur. Just one."

- I don't know if ID is "officially" labeled by the scientific community as a "theory" as of yet. The only proof that we have that it is plausible is the fact that we ourselves have employed it in our own destiny. Providing hypothetical means by which it can be falsified is irrational and doesn't prove anything useful.

Let me ask you a question. If humans create a simple multicultural form of life that can survive on mars, then seed this life on Mars and then manage to destroy ourselves so that no evidence is left as to our existence…and a few million years passes. Now life has evolved on Mars to the point that they are now pondering their own existence. Based on what I just told you, would life on Mars be in existence due to Evolution or due to ID?

That in lies the crux of the whole argument. It is not whether or not life evolves. There is certainly evidence that life does so and has done so in the past. It is whether ALL life “evolved” on Earth. ID simply opens the mind to allow for the scenario I painted above. That we here may or may not be purely accidental.

[balrog666]

This is the only way I know of to get it OFF of there....unless you might have another suggestion???

You could do it on a dead thread instead of this one.