Hey, have you seen that post #337 yet?!
...sigh...
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.
Hey, have you seen that post #337 yet?!
...sigh...
No, we don't. We have the ability to detect if something resembles human design.
Intuitively, we know this, but we haven't really gotten it defined into clear principles.
Indeed, we have an intuition. Dennett calls it the 'design stance', and there's good psychological evidence that faced with living material, we analyze it as if it were designed. That doesn't mean it's right, any more than our intuitions about celestial mechanics must be right. It took a genius and thousands of years of history to understand why the moon orbits the earth and does not crash into it, as our 'intuition' tells us it should.
I suggest the following syntax..
B**e me --u A$$-"?e!
You guys are co-mingling the term "intelligent design" by man with the "intelligent design" origin of species hypothesis.
Why are you doing that? Are you attempting to fool someone, or do you really not understand the difference?
I think this is terrific; everybody is getting a ring side seat to the real-time evidence that RA's "Conjecture" in reply #125 was accurate. It doesn't get any better than that.
BI73 M3 U 4$$H0L3
B7FF R00L2!
Why are you doing that? Are you attempting to fool someone, or do you really not understand the difference?
Both. Neither. What reply do you expect?
The illogical logic is that because man can design things some other smarter designer must have designed man. But they won't admit that's their position. It's the old "man was created in the image of God" thing.
Good post. The flap comes because 1) reporters hate Crawford(abd Bush) and 2) reporters don't know any more about science than the average bear. Remember when ABC had to pull in Jules Bergman(sp) from the boondocks because none of the star network guys knew didldy about rocket science.
From my point of view, Dawkins' notion that genes are involed in a natural selection process is not much different from "vitalism." Just Greek essentialism imposed on vital atoms.
If this is a random pattern you will ruin my evening.
...reporters don't know any more about science than the average bear
Reporters don't know any more about ANYTHING than the average bear. In almost every case where I've seen or read a "journalist's" "report" about something I knew something about they got it very, very wrong.
I think most of what you see and read in MSM that isn't headline stuff was written by college interns or recent grads who just go to the same sources you or I would go to. They just spin it the way they and their bosses want it spinned.
And if numbers, of any kind about anything are involved, there is almost certainly an error, expect in the sports section.
Thanks, I think.
I am authorized to inform you that getting such a post pulled has earned you special credit on your record at Darwin Central.I am authorized to further inform you that you've been awarded the coveted Order of Uranus, and you may wear the Order's official decoration at all formal occasions.RadioAstronomer, in light of his recent meritorious service on FreeRepublic.com whilst engaging an Agent of the Seventh Planet, is hereby promoted to Tortoise of the 4th Degree, Division of the Elect; Classification: Professional Darwinist, Warrior of the 2nd Order. A displayable wall plaque and updated laminated membership card will be send to you under separate cover.
As per Direction from DarwinCentral, Galapagos Islands, Planet Earth.
Recording Secretary, DarwinCentral
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
What bothers me most is that many are such poor observers. What is it about the word "report" that reporters don't get ? They are supposed to tell us what they have seen and heard. They don't do a good job of this.
Trebb:Why are the majority of Model Ts no longer toodling along the roads?
In other words, the god of intelligent design is a tinkering engineer who couldn't get it right the first time.
What bothers me most is that many are such poor observers. What is it about the word "report" that reporters don't get ? They are supposed to tell us what they have seen and heard. They don't do a good job of this.
If I'm not mistaken, they are trained in "journalist" school to be completely "objective" and go "deeper" into the "facts" they "observe/hear". Since this is an impossibility, it is a prescription for imposing their own bias.
Add to that that they are poorly educated in anything other than "social sciences" and there you have it.
In other words, the god of intelligent design is a tinkering engineer who couldn't get it right the first time.
Or the, someone help me here, billionth(?) time. And still working on it unless you think human beings are the final product.
Some believe thinking about this drove Nietzsche crazy. I guess the ID'ers found a different route.
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.