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.
But I think your original question concerned whether the process could be observed. Indeed, it did. But, this mechanism of change seems to lead to "stronger varieties" ... like a self-limiting feature of how much change can occur within a species before it closes down.
Criticism of a theory is valid. But it does not, in and of itself, constitute a competing theory. Nor does it even provide support for a competing theory.
A few IDers will concede that ID is not science. For those who insist that it is, all js1138 is requesting is that they provide some positive evidence to support ID.
Non sequitur. In your quote, I stated: "Lacking any priors,...", after which you go on to disagree for cases in which there are priors and ignore the case of null priors. You did not address the point.
(The more fundamental problem with Intelligent Design theory, which I have not bothered to address, is that there is no rigorous definition given for "intelligence" despite it being a key part of the premise. One can prove anything if one does not define the assumptions...)
If someone can't get simple science right, why should they be trusted to do something more complicated?
It is frightening.
Have the FR "powers that be" ever done a poll on this issue (ID vs. evolution)?. I'm wondering big of a problem it is within the GOP. There's no doubt in my mind the GOP will loose votes it once had if it continues to let ID be an issue.
Indeed. ID is a "theory" when it is used to extrapolate from known facts. Likewise, ID itself is a scientific fact when it is used to correctly explain all transgenic life forms (among other such things).
...And that's what should be taught in science classes.
What? All that is needed is to get a post pulled? That's easy. Has he ever been called a communist? Hah. I doubt it. Well I have and I think that deserves just as much recognition as having your post pulled.
I need some new brooms and wash buckets, but do I get them? Noooo. I have to have a post pulled first.
Hhurrummppff.
Of course. But the status of x tells us nothing about the status of y.
So, then, that humans design things tells us nothing about whether or not there are other things which were designed by a non-human intelligence. You might say that x has no bearing on y. :o)
bobdsmith != creationist. He's just mocking the more absurd creationist fallacies.
It isn't. ID is only invoked when the natural causes surrounding it are believed to be well-known. If the natural causes in effect are not believed to be well-known, ID is not evoked.
However, simply saying "there could, someday be a naturalistic cause found" is simply a cop-out. Science works by hypothesizing using known facts, and what we have is always going to be a work-in-progress, subject to modification.
"If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?"
This is not the ID argument for most ID'ers. There are two types of ID, restricted and general. Restricted simply says that we can detect design in certain circumstances. It says absolutely nothing about how much design exists. This is the general take of the Discovery Institute. I've summarize the main points of how design is distinguished in my blog. General ID says that everything is designed. I have not read much of General ID, but I've heard that this is a good book on the subject. My personal take is that both are true -- it's like a computer. There is the computer itself which was designed, and then within the computer there are individually-designed programs, which may or may not remain the same throughout their running. And, in the case of the world, in addition to deterministic paths you also have agency-directed paths.
"Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?"
Ultimately, no, because you are talking about past events that cannot be recreated. This is the same thing with evolution. When dealing with the _past_, you cannot do an experiment to find out if it really did happen the way you think it did. However, if there were a good model of how such things come about on their own, it would definitely deflate ID.
"If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?"
(a) Why would this matter? First of all, let's change the subject slightly. When people talk about designed forms, they are NOT talking about the biological definition of species, even if they mistakenly use the word "species" as many lay people do. To creationists, a designed form is a created kind of species. To other types of ID'ers, a designed form is more along the lines of a biological innovation, not necessarily a new species even, just a modification that required intervention to obtain. Both groups believe that a great amount of change has occurred within history. 6-day creationists usually put the general boundary (though with specific exceptions) at the family level of creation. Change processes (they are technically evolution processes, though most of them are non-Darwinian) within creation are sufficient for the biodiversity available from that point. ID'ers such as Behe look only at specific biological systems that have no coherent means of getting there on their own. In either case, this greatly reduces the number of extinction events in relationship to _designed_ forms. However, with or without that, the notion of extinction is not counter to the general argument for a designer, because different conditions may require different sets of animal design forms, or, in the 6-day creationist model, design forms go extinct because the fall has caused all creation to go into decline.
"Non sequitur. In your quote, I stated: "Lacking any priors,...", after which you go on to disagree for cases in which there are priors and ignore the case of null priors. You did not address the point."
Transgenic animals have been on Earth for the past two decades. Please explain how that constitutes a dearth of priors or a willful ignorance of null priors.
Although I'm not a proponent of IC, it pretty clearly is positive evidence of ID. IC can be debated on the merits, but it exists as logical criticism of Darwinism that provides evidence of ID.
Regardless of whether one agrees with IC, it can't really be said that IDers have offered no scientific evidence of their position.
Impertinence is not encouraged.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
At least I can say I tried to reason with you. However....
Your Honor, I'd like it noted in the record that this witness is uncooperative and hostile. The witness is dismissed.
What was that all about?
Okay. What is the evidence, then?
No, one couldn't say that. It might be possible for instance, that intelligent design of some sort is the only possible explanation for some life forms.
I can name a few. Can you name others?
So that *anything* (e.g. humans) designs some lifeform may have a great deal of bearing on something else being designed, too (perhaps even by a non-humna intelligence).
IC. Like I said in my post.
There are many reasons to disagree with IC. But it is a coherent arguement provding evidence of ID.
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.