Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."
[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
I don't need credibility - I'm just a secretary. LOL
I'm thankful you don't represent true conservatives.
If most of the country thought that the earth was flat, would that prove anything about the shape of the planet?
I might also point out that ID/creationism DOES NOT search for evidence...it is almost entirely based on jabs at the TOE, and usually a comic book version of that.
I'll answer both.
Of course I disagree with the statement to some extent, since I am at most an agnostic, just barely this side of atheist.
The entire statement from The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church obviously contradicts what you said, since the statement clearly recognizes the legitimacy of science and affirms the validity of science, which indisputably includes evolution. You, on the other hand, attempted to exclude the science of evolution from shaping President Bush's world view.
Can an ape and human reproduce?
What is the most recent "surprise" in the evolutionary line of humans?
He's right because he agrees with you; you are quick to point out the lack of expertise of those who disagree with you, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
The Democrat comment was just a dig.
Don't be so Chicken Little. THE ID movement is not going to hurt the conservative movement, and this comment by Marburger is insignificant.
Does anyone personally know anyone who believes the earth is flat?
Environmental pressures that advantaged certain mutations.
What kind of environmental pressures??? Pollution? Food shortages? Ivy-league college springing up?
Living on the Savannah, there was an evolutionary advantage to walking upright (you could see further) so apes with that mutation had an advantage. Living in such a warm, sunny climate gave an advantage to apes with mutations for less body hair. The presence of many predators meant that apes who clustered together and co-operated had an advantage.
You see where this is going? Bit by bit, little things like that would add up and push a certain group of apes into the human "direction."
Par for the course, here. People are simply attempting to use POLITICAL tactics in a SCIENTIFIC debate (religious tactics as well, but that's another story). Witness the contention that "equal time" be given to ID/creationism, which whilst being politically fair-sounding, is also invalid. Science isn't politics, and has different rules for acceptance.
My wife is among the greatest of apes!
You haven't read much on the subject if you think that. ID looks at the evidence and sees irreducible complexity. It looks at the fossil record and sees upside down tree -- an explosion of life in a small period of time rather than a gradual branching out as Darwin hypothesized. ID merely sees signs of intelligence in the design of nature. No more conclusions. Religion speaks of what we might or might not owe a designer. So ID has religious and philosophical implications -- IMPLICATIONS. But so does Darwinism.
AFAIK, no. At least, not naturally. There are rumors that Chinese scientists created a hybrid human-chimp but that they destroyed the embryo before it was born.
Want to take a shot at answering my original question? If most of the country thought that the earth was flat, would that prove anything about the shape of the planet?
"There in the junk yard is a fully assembled 747 ready to fly. "
When 747s begin to reproduce without assistance, then that analogy might somehow apply to the theory of evolution. Until then, it remains a stupid analogy, demonstrating how ridiculous some of the creationist's ideas are.
To quote Steve Martin (fromThe Man with Two Brains): "Naah, I can't f*ck a gorilla."
You could see farther if you climbed up in a tree.
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.