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.
I posted this before I ran across your post #337.
Sorry.
Intelligent design: bad theology, bad philosophy, bad science, just plain bad in every respect.
Intelligent design: bad theology, bad philosophy, bad science, just plain bad in every respect.
Intelligent design = the opiate of those who cannot accept they cannot know the unknowable, at least not in this life.
"In the modern synthesis, "evolution" means a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool. This change may be caused by a number of different mechanisms: natural selection, genetic drift or changes in population structure (gene flow)."
We know this is no longer true and to pretend it is is rather Luddite, no?
Actually, your statement is what is Luddite.
Only to an irrational man or woman. That would be you. Dawkins, as much as I dislike the man, at least has the intellectual honesty to recognize the truth.
Which part of my statement was inaccurate. Be specific.
1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?Next time I repeat my questions, I will continue to maintain that they haven't been answered.Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition:
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 Questions
A creationist responds: The argument IDers have advanced is that some organic systems are irreducibly complex, and as such are highly unlikely to have evolved incrementally through evolution. So they would argue that incremental changes through evolution are not a satisfactory answer to how specific irreducibly complex systems might have evolved.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?Gumlegs says: It looks like a demand to prove a negative.general_re comments: Perhaps, but then again, that's the claim they're making, that some things are too complex to have arisen naturally. They've effectively taken the task of proving a negative upon themselves, and I'm personally quite willing to let them chase that particular butterfly.
3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?
A creationist responds: Purpose. Things are designed/created for a reason and a purpose, just as a watch is created with a reason and a purpose. This is very elementary and could be considered vague, but there ya go.4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?My reply: And how does one see "purpose" in a duck? Or an ape? Or a rock? What distinguishes "purpose" from something that has no purpose?
Another creationist says: There are two types of ID, restricted and general. [There's more, but it's incomprehensible]
A creationist responds: Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of EVOLUTION?5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?Another creationist responds: Yes! A new kind of animal emerging/evolving from an existing kind. i.e. An Ape gives birth to a human or something clearly not an Ape.
Another responds: Ultimately, no, because you are talking about past events that cannot be recreated. This is the same thing with evolution.
A creationist responds: Why are the majority of Model Ts no longer toodling along the roads?Another responds: Why would this matter? ...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.
A flat-earther asks:
"If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation? "
I explain the IDers concept of irreducible complexity and why it suggests that classical evolution is flawed.
Unable to comprehend the difference between "irreducible complexity" and complexity in general, the flat-earther imagines his question has not been answered and dismisses the idea before he even understands it.
Well then you're either not looking, or you've set your bar too high.
Name one post...
Better yet, explain in evolutionary terms how a 2-chamber heart could evolve into a 3 chamber heart with reverse flow.
I mean, I'm not even a proponent of IC, so I don't think I've set the bar high...Just looking for an intelligent rebuttal of it that demonstrates real understanding. Maybe you can cite a post or offer something more than "we've already discussed it?"
We should mention here that one is not allowed to inquire about purpose where none is obvious. Who are WE to question the Designer?
Why CAN'T we question the designer? I mean, who's he supposed to be, God?
Of course not. God forbid! I mean, we ID "researchers" are just another secular think tank, ya know. But ... don't get carried away, because a lot of us ID guys are touchy about blasphemy.
</contradictions are okay when combating evil mode>
I am no fan of Dawkins, but he could tell them a thing or two about what "objectivity" means.
No, the god of intelligent design knows more than the evolutionist ever will. Or do you think that someday they WILL develop a computer who will produce a theory of everything.?
Show me the self-limiting mechanism. Every population on earth is undergoing constant change. Where is the limitation?
The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate.The Quixotic Message.
For boneheads like you, I have to post this every six months or so:
Along with the Intelligent Designertm there is the Cosmic Clerktm. It is the Clerk's function to keep track of how many times in the past your ancestral line has undergone mutations. This is a purely mechanical task, because the Clerk merely has to follow the Designer around and keep accurate records. Even the primitive, naturalistic mind should be able to understand.
And when some creature's ancestors have used up their alloted number of mutations, no more are permitted. It's really very simple. Why do you Satanic eeeevooo- loouuu-shunists have so much trouble with this concept? When the designed-in allowance of mutations is used up, that's it. Radiation has no effect. Chemicals in the environment have no effect. Lateral transfers from a virus have no effect. The creature's "kind" is fixed. Forever.
These threads are moving pretty fast, and I'm moving pretty slow due to some antihistamines.
400
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.