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 don't claim to be a theologian, philosopher, or scientist; I'm impressed that you have mastered all three subjects. Try to conceive a time before time or a universe without bounds, and when you get the picture firmly in your head, let me know.
The premis of science is simply that a natural explanation can be found for any observable phenomenon. This is not going to change.
DNA is nothing like computer programming code.
Unfortunately for the ID community, when you actually analyze DNA for oddball stuff, you find evidence for common descent.
But keep on a happy face. Entire DNA sequences will eventually be available, and you can use them to find Bible Codes, or whatever you want.
Believe it, I do understand. Try every time you bring up SETI, you get the obligatory question about UFOs. Sigh. (I am with ya my friend)
Question.
Do you also then purport that the folks looking for gravity waves or a new particle in an accelerator are not doing science as well?
But ponder this Torie. Evolutionists tell me that homo sapiens has been around about 500,000 years. The universe is about 15,000,000,000 years old according to science. In that very, relatively speaking, short period of time on the third rock homo sapiens are, by intelligent design, changing allele frequencies at their whim. My point is thus, scoffing at an intelligent agent doing the same some time way back in the past is Luddite.
And you know that I'm not an advocate for either ID or ToE. I believe God did it all and the why and wherefore of mechanisms He uses is up to Him.
What AI field are you in? out of interest.
This claim has no evidence, whether humans can intelligently design life or not.
The fact that humans can intelligently design life does not provide evidence that humans themselves are intelligently designed. We could be intelligently designed regardless of whether we can ourselves intelligently design life.
So the fact that we can intelligently design life provides no evidence whatsoever towards the claim that we are intelligently designed.
Equally noone claims that intelligent design cannot be used to build stars (because certainly with enough technology a human designer could build a star - it is simply a task of rearranging matter - it is easier than designing life). But the fact that human designers could build a star does not in any way provide any inkling of evidence that stars in the universe today have been Intelligently Designed.
Intelligent designers with sufficient technology can re-arrange matter however they want, and by doing so can replicate anything that already exists.
In fact even if humans could not intelligently design life, it would still be the case that some type of Intelligent Designer with abilities beyond that of humans could theoretically do so.
So that humans can intelligently design life really does not provide evidence that life is intelligently designed. As life could be intelligently designed even if humans could not do it. So the fact that we can do it does not change anything.
I know I am repeating myself a lot here, but I feel it better to repeat myself on one post than repeat myself over the course of several.
Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant that evolution should be taught as you say, do you disagree with me on how ID should be taught? Simply put, evolution is science, ID is not. Evidence for evolution exists, and there is a lot of it, even if in the minds of some people, this is a different type of evidence (scientists do not make a distinction between the type of evidence found for evolution and that found for other sciences.) No evidence whatsoever exists for ID. If I am wrong, please present some. Arguments from irreducible complexity, specified complexity and all the other ID arguments have already been dealt with. Please also note that Biblical or religious references have no standing as evidence in the scientific community.
In terms of importance for the well-being of our country, I certainly agree with you. The whole evo/crevo debate is extremely unimportant. However, we both know how liberals and the media behave. If they see creationism/ID as a club that they can use to beat conservatives with and diminish our chances of winning elections, they will put the truly important issues on the back burner, and focus on relatively unimportant, but potentially damaging, issues like this debate.
How bizarre is that? Who would've thought that there would be 1,310 google hits for the phrase "ice cream has no bones"! LOL.
I see ID as a net plus for conservatives in rallying the troops against the global warming / evolution / atheist crowd. But it's a side issue.
Maybe RA can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that SETI suffers from precisely the same problem as ID. SETI searches for extraterrestrial radio signals and attempts to determine if they have an intelligent origin. However, it seems to me that the only thing that can really be done is to rule out any known natural processes as the origin of the signals, which is a far cry from showing that the signals have an intelligent origin. Similarly, ID attempts to show that certain features of life have an intelligent origin. However, again, all that can be done is to rule out known natural processes as the origin of these features, which is again a far cry from demonstrating an intelligent origin. If ID is not scientific (and it isn't) then SETI also is not scientific. Of course, SETI does benefit the cause of science, as was pointed out earlier, just by gathering data that can be used by astronomers. ID has no such redeeming feature.
Innocuous on the surface, but in substance loaded with presumption. On the whole it leaves falsifiability out of the question, assumes limits of, and for, "natural" and "observable," and asserts no possibility of change. I suppose even within a small box like that there is plenty for science to do, but I am happy to know science is inclined to think bigger. As long as your premise is the one under which evolutionists operate, I can understand why the evidence always fits, and always will.
SETI is cheap, gathers useful data, and has a high stakes payoff, if successful. Actually, this is one situation where negative results are interesting by themselves.
"Festival of the Narcissistic Troll who wouldn't Die" placemarker
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.