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 Presidents 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 its 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 Presidents 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 Marbugers 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 Presidents 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 Marburgers 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. Thats about 120 per day since the Presidents 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 Americas 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 worlds 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 nations K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nations leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the presidents 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 Bushs misinformed comments on intelligent design signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The presidents 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. Theres 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. Its 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. Lets 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, dont belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, lets not leave science behind either.
You have seen the Author's original code?
"One common error in ID debates is that the mere existence of an intelligent design is extrapolated into a "perfect" Designer...even though the evidence appears to show quite the contrary."
It certainly shows a malicious designer, which would make it far from perfect.
The code in living things show evidence that the only priority is reproductive success.
Gee, I wonder where we got that idea? (See RWP's post #8.)
Now you're just babbling. Usually, the best thing to do in these situations is to refrain from posting. It follows from the adage: "it is better to keep silent and let people think your an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
your = you're
For many, many programs.
Once more you read something that isn't there (typical for you). I never called you stupid. I said you were willfully ignorant and lacked basic critical thinking skills. Of course, the post to which I reply simply reinforces the latter belief.
What specific code showed you that? You've got me curious.
Aye. Please note that I didn't limit my criticism to just one side of the ID debate.
Now calling me willfully ignorant is like the pot calling the kettle ....
So I am willfully ignorant and you are willingly ignorant.
Ah, the old "I know you are, but what am I" retort. Pee Wee Herman would be proud.
OK, thanks for explaining...but allow me to make a small change to your original claim (that perked my curiosity):
"The code in [external behavior of] living things show evidence that the only priority is reproductive success."
When you originally said that the DNA code showed something, you caught my attention. Your above elaboration, however, indicates that you simply wrote "code" when you meant "behavior," which is no great sin...it just carries different weight.
The DNA code, if it is a program as you assert, is responsible for the external behavior of living things.
In things having complex brains, it is nmot directly responsible for specific behavior, but it is responsible for the way in which animals learn and adapt. It is responsible for the learning capabilituies of animals, the kind of things they learn easily; it is responsible for the emotional responses of animals, which are crucial in learning.
Even if that is or is not the case, you weren't witnessing DNA instructions telling you something, but rather, external behavior telling you that thing.
It would be worthy news indeed if you identified specific biological instructions that **enumerated** a behavioral goal in code, rather than simply observing the external behavior itself and inferring a goal.
Somewhat akin to the difference in seeing the actual code of MS Windows versus observing that a new version of MS Windows has a user registration goal.
Yes but you didn't say word, you said "programming word". What's one of those?
DNA instructions result in brains, do they not?
Brains are not blank slates. The brains of many creatures are hard wired for survival behaviors. The more complex brains are hard wired for the efficient learning of survival behaviors. Take a look at kittens or puppies at play.
What of these recent attempts at studying and making use of crocodile blood due to its resistence to infection? Is it ultimately a "blood" issue that makes the difference between life and death?
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.