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.
Second with regards to irreducible complexity - I do agree that something is hard to define as irreducible, especially in light of potential evolution towards one function that got co opted, etc.
Have you ever taken Calculus?
You're contradicting yourself. In your #243 you agreed that "That item x in E is contained in D does not imply that item y in C is contained in D" was correct. Now you are saying that x does in fact have a bearing on y. That is illogical.
I suggest that you have not objectively examined the evidence, then.
For the uninformed, ala moi, perhaps you could explain what is errant about the definition, and how Dawkins fits into this, if you have the time and inclination. Thanks.
Exactly.
Only with prior knowledge that the animals were indeed bioengineered. If you came across such an animal in the wild, you'd have no way of knowing that it had been 'intelligently designed'.
And just as trivial as teaching an earth science class that all man-made diamonds are man-made.
After repeated attempts by others to explain the flaw in this bit of logic, you humorously point out its absurdity perfectly. Bravo! :o)
Because it was my question originally, I will end the suspense and provide the answer. The duck was made by the Designer with parts that were left over from the platypus. The Designer is very tidy that way.
Q. Why is a duck?
A. Because ice cream has no bones.
(If this sounds familiar to anyone, then I know where you were in the fall of 1986. ;o)
Are you claiming that I've said that, or that you've simply inferred such a co-mingling (perhaps incorrectly)?
Show me the post and the quote that caused you to say your above claim, please.
Oh, and keep in mind when responding that Man *has* created new life forms (e.g. some transgenic lab animals).
Except, of course, that ID explains the origins of such transgenic life forms as laboratory pigs that have been gene-spliced to produce hormones for commercial sale.
...And that it explains Artificial Intelligence...and computer viri...and self-replicating machines.
All things that other theories can't do.
Because Dembski's a charlatan that real mathematicians consider to be a joke? Check out posts over the last two days on the Panda'sThumb. . Ol' Bill's getting mauled. I particularly liked the story about his presentation to the Neis Bohr Institute
Not, not illogical, but rather evidence that your analogy was flawed and unable to be properly extrapolated.
Are some life forms only explainable via intelligent design?
Yes (e.g. some transgenic lab animals).
That's not what is typically meant by the phrase, "intelligent design," at least not in the context of the evolution wars.
This has been explained to him, many times.
Know how some southerners are still fighting the war that everyone else thought ended in 1865?
Incorrect. The animal's and its decendents' modified DNA will almost always show the intelligent intervention...presuming that we are smart enough to know how to read the DNA code.
Finding a pig in the wild that produces human growth hormone, for instance, should set off alarm bells that this animal escaped from a lab (read: ID). Read the DNA and see if the DNA insertion was perfectly clean or a "random" hatchet job. Ditto for finding conclusive evidence of irreducable complexity (if such evidence exists).
Incorrect. If you fail to teach gemologists that man-made diamonds are in fact, made by Man, then you will eventually raise a generation or two of gemologists who will permit the collapse of the diamond market from their ignorance.
Thus, your suggestion to not teach such "trivial" things is ill-advised.
Teach the basics.
And I'll repeat yet again, that x is humanly designed does not imply that y was designed by a non-human intelligence. Insofar as you limit yourself to the statement "humanly designed objects are intelligently designed", it is trivial. And you cannot logically bridge the gap between x and y.
Oh my goodness, science differs from "typical" wisdom on the street! Who woulda thunk it...
...Which is to say, it doesn't matter what is typically meant. What matters are facts.
Is it a fact that Man is intelligent? Yes.
Is it a fact that Man has created some new, transgenic life forms? Again, yes.
Does this mean that intelligent design has been proven to be responsible for creating some life forms? Yes.
Does that leave open the possibility that other life forms could likewise have been created from some form of intelligent design? Yes. That possibility exists, scientifically.
Thus, those who claim that ID is unscientific are, at best, incorrect...and at worst misleading.
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.