Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
On August 1, 2005, a group of reporters from Texas met with President Bush in the Roosevelt room for a roundtable interview. The President’s remarks suggest that he believes that both intelligent design and evolution should be taught so that “people are exposed to different schools of thought.” There have been so many articles since his remarks that it’s useful to read the relevant portion of published interview:
“Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?The reporter got it right: there is an ongoing debate over intelligent design vs. evolution, at least in the media and in politics. There is not a debate in the greater scientific community about the validity of evolution. Further, the vast majority of scientists do not consider intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
(Transcript released by the White House and published on August 2, 2005 at WashingtonPost.com)
Dr. John Marburger III, Presidential Science Advisor, tried to dispel the impact of the President’s comments. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Certainly, no one doubts where Marburger stands. One might question whether the President takes Marbuger’s scientific advice seriously, or is simply more concerned about pleasing a portion of the electorate.
Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is “…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world.” It would be better to hear this directly from the President. Likely, the intelligent design advocates will ignore Marburger’s explanation. Like the fabled little Dutch boy, Marburger, stuck his finger in the dike in hopes of saving the day.
Unlike the brave boy, Marburger did not prevent the flood of print and electronic coverage that ensued. From August 2 to the present, Google-News tracked more than 1,800 articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor on intelligent design. That’s about 120 per day since the President’s remarks.
In the days following the interview, major educational and scientific organizations issued statements that criticized the President for considering intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution, for confusing religion with science, and for advocating that intelligent design be taught in schools.
“President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk,” says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. “Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21 st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses.” (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.
Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes,” said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. “If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum.” (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators. (AIBS website)
Science educators are equally dismayed. “The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.” (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.
The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12 th grade teachers, was even harsher. “President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.” (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)
There is a problem here. Obviously, scientists and educators understand that intelligent design has no place in the classroom. Intelligent design is, simply, one of several varieties of creationism that offer religious explanations for the origin and current condition of the natural world. As such, it does not merit being taught alongside evolution as a “school of thought.” There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.
At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.
|
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.
Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America.
Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.
The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations.
Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans. He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do all the work himself there would be no suffering.
Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his brother drove beneath the Earth.
Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten. Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on Big Turtle's back. Occasionally his anger is felt in the form of a volcano.
The Iroquois people hold a great respect for all animals. This is mirrored in their creation myth by the role the animals play. Without the animals' help the Sky Woman may have sunk to the bottom of the sea and earth may not have been created.
Thanks for the ping!
For the record, he was asked point blank if ID is an alternative to evolution, and carefully avoided saying yes.
I think this implies at least two things. He probably personally believes in ID. He thinks ID is part of the conservative movement and should be supported.
I think he's wrong on both counts, but that's just me.
I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms. We all know that, at a minimum, ID differes from "Darwinism" by insisting that random mutations plus selection are not adequate to produce new species.
That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative. I want to know what ID supporters believe, not just what they don't believe. I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses.
Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth? Do they accept the geologists explanation of the geologic column? And so forth.
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
Seems clear enough: ID is the 'reality of God'. The rest is obfuscation.
1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition:2. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]
Source: Top Questions3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?
4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?
5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?
Did you make that one yourself. If so, Cool!
******************
Why pass up an opportunity to cast the President in the role of village idiot? Anyone who disagrees with the author is sadly unable to comprehend his brilliance. No arrogance here.
In my view, there will be three main issues in the upcoming elections: (1) the war; (2) immigration; and (3) maybe this ID/Creationism thing, but in a larger context along with stem-cell research, to fit the MSM allegation that Republicans are anti-science. The economy won't be an issue (it only is when it's bad), but maybe further tax cuts will be an issue.
I think we're doing fine on everything but immigration and the creationism issues. Immigration is by far the larger problem, but maybe the dems can't take advantage of it. So ID/creationism will be a factor. It's our bit of goofiness, like gay marriage is to the dems.
I actually agree with the president here, although I know he didn't really mean what he says. Both evolution and ID SHOULD be properly taught. We should teach students that evolution is the accepted scientific theory explaining biodiversity, that there's a mountainous volume of evidence supporting this theory, and a small portion of this evidence should be presented. We should also teach students that some people, mostly religious people, and mostly Christians, believe that evolution is not capable of explaining biodiversity, that they believe that someone must have designed all the species,that they have absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for this assertion, and that this assertion is completely unscientific. That would be teaching both sides properly, and I have no problem with this
Or as I like to call it: Too-lazy-to-do-useful-work-while-compiling-huge-amounts-of-code time
It looks like a demand to prove a negative.
For me, the best question is number four, which any theory calling itself "scientific" must be capable of answering.
Also, there's the matter of fruitfulness: What other avenues of research does ID suggest? What can we expect to find through ID?
That's absurd. ID/Creationism is way down the list certainly below war, terrorism, energy, taxes, social security, and immigration.
Yeah.
Something occurred to me this morning. In the early to mid nineties, the Republican party made quite a lot of headway, particularly in the hard sciences, because the far-left was perceived as anti-science. Postmodernism was at its zenith in academia, and physicists and chemists read books like "Higher Superstition" and realized that a large part of the left was their enemy. And while a few were also worried by the Religious Right, we were able to argue that the RR was not a substantial threat, and while noisy did not have any real influence in the party.
Fast forward ten years, and we have books like The Republican War Against Science" getting major publicity. Conservative scientists in academia are deserting the GOP or keeping very quiet. And I'd be surprised if 20% of science Ph.Ds vote GOP in 2006/2008.
This is quite funny.
Somehow SETI wants us to believe that searching for signs of intelligence in outer space is science, but that searching for it in the building blocks of living organisms is not.
Sorry, SETI...
The belief in extraterrestrials, and the need to find their existance is no more scientific than the belief/need with regards to intelligent design.
I'm going to steal it wholesale and add it to the Darwin Central section of my website. That is, if you don't mind. Very professionally done.
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.