Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House
SETI Institute ^ | August 2005 | Edna DeVore

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 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)

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.

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; bush; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; id; makeitstop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 821-829 next last
To: dread78645
It's a spark plug for a Ford Model-T.

It was encased in a geological formation dated at 500,000 years. If A Model-T spark plug can make it into the mix that easy, well . . . shucks. Talk Origins spins it as if creationists are willing to palm off recent technology as an ancient technology. They seem unwilling to acknowledge that such recent technology was found embedded in 500,000 year old rocks.

Evolutionism as science? Sure! Nothing but! /s

401 posted on 08/18/2005 6:36:43 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; All

Fester refers to the Coso Artifact. Google it to find out more..


402 posted on 08/18/2005 6:40:47 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; balrog666; VadeRetro
I am authorized to further inform you that you've been awarded the coveted Order of Uranus . . .

A status to be worn with pride, no doubt.

403 posted on 08/18/2005 6:43:29 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Here's a nice one.
404 posted on 08/18/2005 6:49:43 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

YEC INTREP - a PhD mind is such a terrible thing to waste


405 posted on 08/18/2005 6:50:56 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

the "im feeling lucky" non the less


406 posted on 08/18/2005 6:51:32 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Or do you think that someday they WILL develop a computer who will produce a theory of everything.?

Who's "they"?

407 posted on 08/18/2005 6:52:23 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
For those who insist that it is, all js1138 is requesting is that they provide some positive evidence to support ID. And Dembski's explanatory filter does not count because... ?
408 posted on 08/18/2005 6:55:15 PM PDT by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Why, computer scientists. Have to find out that cat first. Been waiting for seventy years.


409 posted on 08/18/2005 6:55:34 PM PDT by RobbyS (chirho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820
And Dembski's explanatory filter does not count because

it doesn't filter and it doesn't explain

410 posted on 08/18/2005 6:56:37 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820
First of all, why? Is not criticism of a theory not in and of itself valid? Do we _have_ to hold on to invalid theories until we have an agreed upon one to take its place?

Sorry for the late response.

The history of science is in fact one of holding on to theories until a better explanatory theory arises. Planetary orbits were believed to be circular for centuries despite massive evidence to the contrary. Circularity did not fit the data, but it satisfied the requirement of perfection attributed to the creator.

This is really and interesting example, because many planetary orbits could be drawn by a compass on a sheet of paper, and the true orbits would fall within the thickness of the pencil line. this is really how revisions to theory work. The newer, better theory gives a more accurate picture, but seldom changes the way we visualize reality.

Same with Newton and Einstein. Most non-mathematicians cannot visualize the difference between a Newtonian orbit and a relativistic one.

And so it is with evolution. the extensions and modifications of evolution theory since Darwin have not changed any visible part of the description given by Darwin of the process or of the history.

411 posted on 08/18/2005 6:57:47 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

From what I've read about this, the "nail and washer" wording was ascribed to the spark plug itself, not something outside of it. Talk Origins says otherwise. Anyway, I find it interesting how much confusion resulted from this find. I happen to believe it is a Model-T spark plug. What I find remarkable is that, if it had never been opened up, evolutionists would have declared the entity as 500,000 years old. But then, direct observation has never been our best friend in terms of science, right?


412 posted on 08/18/2005 7:00:34 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820
Right now, they would only add criticisms of Darwinism. In the future, as it becomes debated and more established, they would probably add the design detection concepts outlined by Dembski and others.

I think we can all afford to wait until Demski and others have a design detection algorithm that actually detects design.

As long as we don't hold our breath.

413 posted on 08/18/2005 7:01:40 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I've worked with computers for 30 years and have done some very sophisticated work with them. 30 years ago I used to think computers might be able to emulate human intelligence. I now find that idea amusing. So don't worry about anything coming out of computer tech anymore. Wall Street isn't paying attention anymore either, if you want further evidence.
414 posted on 08/18/2005 7:03:12 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
What I find remarkable is that, if it had never been opened up, evolutionists would have declared the entity as 500,000 years old

You assume so, but there is good reason that this would not be the case:

As noted earlier, the alleged strata where the Coso Artifact was found is unknown since all three discoverers had separately searched for geodes all morning before consolidating their collections in a single sack. Even if the exact location was discovered, the artifact was an oxide nodule freely laying on the surface, so the strata where the item was discovered is irrelevant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

415 posted on 08/18/2005 7:06:07 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I'd like to add: There seems to be little confusion that the entity found embedded in that rock was the product of intelligent design. But somehow science is confused when biological entities performing duties far more complicated than a spark plug happen to be present in multiple forms throughout multiple generations.


416 posted on 08/18/2005 7:07:49 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Chameleon
I explain the IDers concept of irreducible complexity and why it suggests that classical evolution is flawed.

Except that it's a concept from Fantasyland since no examples are know to exist, particularly because every foolish guess that Behe has made has already been refuted.

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.

And the Creationist retard imagines that the non-agument he has posted hasn't been refuted a thousand times already.

417 posted on 08/18/2005 7:08:13 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Festival of the "RA's #125"
418 posted on 08/18/2005 7:08:45 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

I am well aware the artifact was not found embedded in strata. I'd like to know how geology would date the thing if it had never been opened. What do you think?


419 posted on 08/18/2005 7:09:38 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820

We really need a way to separate the true scientific evolutionsists from the faithvolutionists who revert back to a philosophical debate every time things like the explantory filter or irreducible complexity are brought up.

I mean, I don't even subscribe to the ID stuff.

But I'd think that out of intellectual curiosity they'd at least try to reconcile their understanding of evolution with challenges such as "how under evolution could a 3 chamber heart with back flow develop from a 2 chamber heart?"

I've issued that challenge like 5 times now without any acknowledgement from the faithvolutionists here. You'd think that such a basic question about how fish might have evolved into amphibians would be answered with ease.

I guess anything that challenges the notion that they're oh-so-much more scientific than the IDers is best ignored.


420 posted on 08/18/2005 7:11:39 PM PDT by Chameleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 821-829 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson