Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House

SETI Institute ^ | August 2005 | Edna DeVore

[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.

[balrog666]

Trolls have no life placemarker.

[js1138]

OK, I read your article, but don't get your point. Every time a reputable article mentions something is unknown, some people see God in the gaps.

The only thing I am absolutely certain of is that when gaps are filled with data, you will not be back to admit it.

[Southack]

"OK, I read your article, but don't get your point. Every time a reputable article mentions something is unknown, some people see God in the gaps."

It's not necessarily "God in the gaps."

It's just an example of DNA code skipping. That's what you requested from me, remember?!

I'm not surprised that you dismiss that physical evidence, either.

[js1138]

I haven't dismissed anything. You have shown me an example of a puzzle. The actual history of these creatures is unknown, as the article clearly points out. You have imagined a history that supports your point of view and I imagine a history that supports mine.

In a postmodernist world our imaginings would have equal validity. But your point of view has a long history of decline. No one with your point of view would have predicted the transitional fossils that have been found, much less the ones that will be found in the future. No one with your point of view would have predicted feathered dinosaurs, or any of the fifty or so pre-humans. Nor would you predict any any aditional intermediate finds.

[narby]

On the contrary, there is nothing misleading about factually stating that intelligent design is responsible for creating numerous transgenic lab animals

The proper term for such lab work is "Genetic Engineering". A quick Google search demonstrates this because no link on the first page deals with laboratory work, except in reference to the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy.

We'll keep going over and over and over this. I'm sure the lurkers will appreciate it. And we'll simultaneously demonstrate the mindset of ID proponents.

At some point we'll get to the "are too", "are not", "are too" stage where we'll both look like idiots. Which will do wonders for your credibility while I'm not worried about mine.

[js1138]

Some of us will look flustered. The idiots will look like flustered idiots.

Some people are capable of reading a routine article outlining some unsolved puzzle, and interpreting it as the downfall of evolution.

[longshadow]

Trolls have no life placemarker.

Yes, but is a Noodly Appendage Irreducibly Complex?

[AndrewC]

The actual history of these creatures is unknown,

May we remind you of this fact anytime a phylogeny is placed as evidence?

[PatrickHenry]

Sometimes, a Noodly Appendage is just a noodle.

[js1138]

You can remind me all you want. I am not concerned by the weight or direction of the evidence.

Gaps will always be with us, and you will always have a home in them.

[longshadow]

Sometimes, a Noodly Appendage is just a noodle.

Only a complete nihilist can deny the Divinity of His Noodly Appendage! I hope you enjoy your eternity in a dark and pasta-free Hell!

[AndrewC]

I am not concerned by the weight or direction of the evidence.

At least you are honest there.

[Southack]

"The proper term for such lab work is "Genetic Engineering"."

You insist upon using the term "genetic engineering" as being responsible for the origin of GM animals, yet you simultaneously have difficulty agreeing or publicly disagreeing with the notion that genetic engineering is or is not intelligent design.

Which is it? Is GE a form of ID or not, per you? State your view for the record.

[PatrickHenry]

Just quit waving your Noodly Appendage around so much.

[Southack]

"I haven't dismissed anything. You have shown me an example of a puzzle. The actual history of these creatures is unknown, as the article clearly points out. You have imagined a history that supports your point of view and I imagine a history that supports mine."

Rubbish. You asked for an example of DNA code-skipping. I gave you one example.

I told you before I gave you that example that you would dismiss it and all other examples (at first) of DNA code skipping species, and that's what you did.

If you want more examples of DNA code skipping (which you'll no doubt dismiss as well), then just ask.

But you are going through a lot of hoops over a comment that I made inside parenthesis to give a gratuitous example of another point entirely.

[js1138]

I read the article. The authors did not characterize it as code skipping. the actual history is unknown. We both read into it what we want.

I merely point out that gaps tend to get filled.

[Southack]

"I merely point out that gaps tend to get filled."

Fair enough. Science does make progress, after all!

[ohhhh]

[...Onion have a much better understanding of modern science than your average creationist.]

As a Christian conservative, science most certainly does indeed disprove evolution over and over and only close minded people deny this truth. There are at least three imutalble laws of science that evolution contradicts;
1: The 2nd law of thermodynamics stated plainly says that as matter gets older it atrophies and becomes chaotic and eventually dies or degenerates. This law alone contradicts evolution and serves to disprove all the junk science put up by those who don't belive God created the universe and all things therein.
2: Evolution states that men are evolving from a lower life form into a higher life form with each successive generation of people, yet those who study genetics know that the human species are devolving as the genetic code of successive generations are weakened {atrophied} and therefore make all species subject to more disease as time goes on. If the theory of evolution were correct, then all species of living beings would become stronger as successive generations continue and would evolve into higher life forms; which they do not and have never done. Your eyes and your mind should be on alert to the fact that species of life are disappearing with time and are devolving with each generation.
3: Evolution also states and requires that all life came from NOTHING and somehow mutated and evolved into higher forms of life and species ,ergo, a tadpole grew feet and lungs and walked out of the water and changed into various other life forms, a process in science known as transmutation of species. This has never happened and there is not one shread of science which supports such an outrageous claim, so many species have disappeared from the face of the earth and never MUTATED into a higher life form.
It would seem that the theory of evolution fits more into the lie of Satan in the garden that Eve would be as god when she ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Right Wing Professor]

I teach therodynamics at the graduate level at a Research-I university. I'm also a named reviewer for the thermodynamics chapters of the highest selling college level textbook on physical chemistry. And I want you to know that what you wrote above is utter and complete BS. There is no clnflict between thermodynamics and evolution, and the only people who think there is are pig-ignorant of both.

Evolution states that men are evolving from a lower life form into a higher life form with each successive generation of people, yet those who study genetics know that the human species are devolving as the genetic code of successive generations are weakened {atrophied} and therefore make all species subject to more disease as time goes on

Gosh, now you're two-for-two. Evolution says no such thing.

a tadpole grew feet and lungs and walked out of the water and changed into various other life forms

Tadpoles do grow feet and lungs, you moron. They turn into frogs.

Good grief!

[narby]

Which is it? Is GE a form of ID or not, per you? State your view for the record.

In my previous example, a Honda engine is an example of intelligent design. So is Genetic Engineering. But it is a distortion to use the term "Intelligent Design" and expect someone to think of either genetic engineering or Honda engines.

When you conflate the term "Intelligent Design" with "Genetic Engineering", it lends weight to the ID species origin hypothesis that it does not deserve. A lurker draws a false parallel in that Genetic Engineering is valid, so the ID origin hypothesis must be as well.

Either you're unaware of how your word play affects the lurker, in which case you're an accidental propagandist. Or you're aware of it, in which case you're just a regular propagandist. But your deliberate conflating of the terms, and arguing about the issue, demonstrate that your a propagandist nonetheless.