Oh, are we getting more serious all of a sudden?!
OK, well yes, mankind, overall, is an ID.
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.
Oh, are we getting more serious all of a sudden?!
OK, well yes, mankind, overall, is an ID.
That I posted it. :-(
It must have happened already. Otherwise you would not have deleted your post.
OK, well yes, mankind, overall, is an ID. An an ID created man(kind). Right?
Do I need to go through this step-by-step?
A is the set of all diamonds.
B is the set of all man-made diamonds.
B is a subset of A.
That B is contained in A does not imply that A is contained in B.
Now then,
C is the set of all things.
D is the set of all intelligently designed things.
E is the set of all humanly designed things.
E is contained in D, and D is contained in C.
That item x in E is contained in D does not imply that item y in C is contained in D.
You seem to be the only person on this thread using your peculiar definition of 'philosophy'.
OK, well yes, mankind, overall, is an ID.
Disregard previous. Fat fingers and all that.
An ID created mankind and mankind is an ID, right?
No, that only presents a problem for those who are extrapolating.
The theory itself (ID) does explain some life forms (e.g. pigs that have been gene-spliced to produce human hormones). Evolutionary Theory can't explain those particular laboratory animals.
For animal physiology at the molecular level, I'd refer you to Los Alamos scientist Steen Rasmussen's current abiogenesis experiments (large research grant funded).
I didn't. That was the first post of mine in 4.5 years at FR that was pulled without me pulling it.
Many (if not most) people I worked with over the last few years did vote GOP. They have slowly changed. Had almost any Democrat but Kerry been the candidate, they would have voted Democrat in the last election.
You've just squeezed all the fun things out of being a tool. Darn the intelligent designer anyway, just who does he think he is? God?
Can you explain a bit what you mean by 'sexual selection' vs. 'natural selection'?
I would generally include sexual selection in natural selection. It seems to me that you are using 'natural selection' in the limited sense of 'survival of the fittest'. Am I reading you right?
I don't see how survival of the fittest can cleanly be separated from sexual selection. That some members of a species will not survive to reproduce is going to have an impact on sexual selection options.
Okay, thanks.
Does ID posit a mechanism which prevents changes within a subpopulation of a species from progressing to the point of a change into another species?
You still gave no answer to the question.
What is the purpose in a duck? Or a rock? What distinguishes purpose from somthing with no purpose?
Natural selection and sexual selection got separated in the late 1800s because Victorians were horror struck that female choice was responsible for so much of evolution.
Even the hard-nosed materialists didn't want to admit that human intelligence evolved to attract women.
I disagree. I fully recognize the designer of all transgenic animals. So do you.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/casestudy3.html
Barnyard 101: An Introduction to Transgenic Farm Animals Commentary by Thomas M. Zinnen "We have the ability today to probably transform any cell type," said Carl Pinkert in his opening remarks to the Transgenic Animals in Agriculture conference held August 24-28 in Tahoe City, California.
"But it's not just transfer of the gene, it's gene function that's key," added Pinkert, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He illustrated his point with a cartoon of two mice. The first asks, "How do you like my new genes?" The second replies with mores questions: "They're nice, but are they expressed? Are they regulated properly? Are they altered during inheritance?"
Pinkert noted that now nearly 20 years after the first transgenic animal scientists can answer those questions.
I'm afraid the movers and shakers (like Rove) are asleep and have wide eyes wide shut on this.
What was the purpose of the Indonesian Tsunami?
That appears to be possible. We don't know, however.
We speak of the sun rising, when it really doesn't. And what is the "it" that rains?
Casual use aside, "purpose" does have a teleological connotation, and for the sake of precision should be avoided in a scientific context.
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.