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.
What is a kind? What operational definition would you use to determine whether given organism A and organism B, that the two organisms belong to the same kind?
I agree.
But Kolmogorov computer information theory for IC is the smallest possible amount of **code** to create any given stage.
For biologists, IC is the minimum number of simultaneous **events** required to reach a sustainable stage.
These are two slightly different things. The minimum number of events, for instance, may easily be comprised of a non-minimal DNA code set.
Also, don't forget that when we talk about "survival of the fittest" that mere survival is not all there is to it. An organism that survives longer than all other organisms of its species, but fails to reproduce would be considered unfit. Sexual selection most certainly falls under the heading of natural selection. An organism that successfully survives but fails to mate is equivalent, in evolutionary terms, to an organism that dies before being born; it has contributed nothing to the genome of future generations of that organism.
Correctly labeling facts is by design transparent, thank you very much, and to whom it lends support is beyond my caring.
Is mankind creating new transgenic life forms in the lab? Yes.
Is mankind intelligent at some level? Yes.
Does that mean that humans who practice genetic engineering are designing new life forms? Yes.
To argue otherwise is to claim that genetic engineering isn't intelligent design...a Quixotic and doomed quest should you attempt it.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Surely you Darwinists have more substance to add to this debate than mere juvenile bon mots.
I can't. Science as you know it and define it always presumes natural causes.
...And that sort of thinking would lead to an erroneous conclusion were it to be applied to find the origin of a laboratory transgenic GM animal that was found out in the wild (blame PETA for releasing the guinnea pigs in a wild-eyed left-wing raid on a science lab).
Where does this requirement for simultaneous events come from? It is neither necessary nor useful.
You are trying to play semantic games with strict concepts. Kolmogorov complexity in the abstract has nothing to do with "code" -- that is silly pedestrian understanding nonsense -- and applies to ANY SYSTEM. Repeat: ANY SYSTEM. Renaming process/algorithmic steps "events" does not magically change this fact. A transaction is a transaction is a transaction. What part of "fully general" did you not understand?
There are an infinite number of viable and survivable transition pathways between any two system states in biology, or any other system. That is what the math says. If you want to assert that biological systems operate under special rules that can violate basic mathematical theorems be my guest, but I think it is safe to assume such pathways exist even if you and I have never heard of them.
All this really has demonstrated is that you don't fathom the "fully general" aspect of Kolmogorov complexity as applied to systems; you keep trying to assert that it only applies to toy cases that you are familiar with.
Now, here's a place where the materialistic evolutionary theory has to reach out and touch the non-material. Example: A man lives on the earth imparting values, inspiring actions, influencing decisions of others - yet, he personally contributes nothing to the genome of future generations. Yet, his words, actions, ideas greatly influence the way that others contribute to said genome. Are his non-material words, actions, ideas influences on "natural selection"?
Are these very significant factors beyond the purview of materialistic science?
"Where does this requirement for simultaneous events come from?" - tortoise
By definition, some stages of some entities (animated and non-animated) require multiple simultaneous changes from their prior state in order for their new state to exist, survive, and be replicated.
This fact is as apparent in the abiogenesis stage for biology (among others) as it is for the self-replicating machine stage of automation.
If half of a wing is insufficient in certain cases for flight, then both wings must be simultaneously added for the aircraft entity to work in said cases. For machines, software, biology, and other fields there are levels that are typically called "stages" that are irreducibly complex...meaning that more than one change must be made from the prior state for the new state to be functional.
That's incorrect. Kolmogorov complexity has everything to do with code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
In computer science, algorithmic information theory is a field of study which attempts to define the complexity (aka descriptive complexity, Kolmogorov complexity, Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, or algorithmic entropy) of a string as the length of the shortest binary program which outputs that string. Strings that can be produced by short programs are considered to be not very complex. This notion is surprisingly deep and can be used to state and prove impossibility results akin to Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Turing's halting problem.
Because the universe is intelligently designed and full of intelligent people who are not only curious but also interested in self-preservation. Evolutionism is not responsible for discovering how biology works. Science is. Evolution merely meanders onto the scene after the fact, and creates stories based upon unobserved, unrecorded history.
"Pardon me, Science. Do mind if I try on a piece of the beautiful mantle of yours? I'm feeling like a wizard today."
"But suspecting that it can be dealt with, and actually being able to personally deal with it are entirely different things."
My not being able to personally deal with it and a biologist trained in the appropriate field not being able to deal with it are entirely different things
"This isn't some far flung example. It's a basic tenet of how fish evolved into amphibians.
That may be true, but do you know that a biologist has not or will not successfully address the example? I suggest that we search the documentation and/or question a few biologists before we conclude that it can't be addressed.
Could you give an example of one portion of evolution of which evos seem to be uninformed?
"An example from this thread would be two eyes vs. the 2->3 chamber heart. One is easily explainable through incremental evolution. One is not. Failing to understand this difference does not suggest a strong grasp of the subject."
You are mistaking your belief that it is not easily explained for the absolute inability for it to be easily explained.
"I think it is revealing that so many evolutionists cannot personally explain how a 2->3 chamber heart could possibly develop under evolutionary theory.
It is unreasonable to require that every possible threat to gradualism be known to every proponent of evolution. Not all of us know every biological change that has taken place over the eons. Nor does the fact that I am limited in my knowledge make my comments about things I do know less valid. My lack of knowledge of some parts of evolution has no bearing on the study of evolution.
An honest person who cannot explain this must acknowledge they do not personally understand how some of the basic premises of evolution are possible.
Who has made the claim that they know everything? I suspect no one has.
Sorry, the link doesn't work and I can't seem to make it work. Address is www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
See post #619.
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.