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.
Life strives to reproduce, which was an accepted part of earlier evolution theory. Moving that part of the theory into being undirected (not a neutral position) defies logic, since all life forms have reproductive strategies. Philosophy, not better science caused the shift. Bring science instruction back to a neutral position & it makes the instruction more useful. Implanting preconceived answers to unknowns stifles proper scientific query.
2. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation?
This question is an exercise in circular logic, since "natural causes" could be directed or undirected. Select either directed or undirected, again, you've wandered out of neutral territory. If you'd prefer the simple answer to your question, it's not.
How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?
I don't know if it can be done, anymore than any other theorist can conclusively demonstrate that something has to have arisen "naturally".
3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?
Somehow it all manages to work? lol Science still has a long, long way to go. Like small children, we're still in the phase of naming things we discover & trying to figure out where many of them fit into the big puzzle. We will only get past that phase if or after we are able to find the source of the forces.
4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?
Not currently, no. Potentially in the future, maybe, but I don't know.
5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?
Ninety percent? I'd have to think it's a higher percentage. Species seem to die off faster than they emerge.
I was misunderstanding your argument. I was thinking that you were reading something into the term "significant" than what I meant, so I apologize for my non-responsive answer. I would agree that potentially the type of factors you point out could have an indirect effect on the future genome of a population, so my point that an organism that dies without reproducing contributes identically to the genome as an organism that dies before birth was overly simplistic, especially with regard to humans. To a reasonably decent approximation, however, especially in non-human species, the organism that survives but doesn't reproduce and the organism that dies before birth do contribute identically to the future genome.
Holly Golightly??
"Moon river...."
Can you provide an example of an untestable postulate of theoretical physics?
You've seen through my thin disguise.
Yeah, cuz I jumped the shark. LOL I don't mind getting called on something like that, though it can be done without getting brutal about it.
Yeah, cuz I jumped the shark. LOL I don't mind getting called on something like that, though it can be done without getting brutal about it.
Breakfast at Tiffany's was on cable this morning. I couldn't watch because I had to go to work.
How about $50 to go to the powder room?
It's been years since I've seen the movie & I'm afraid I don't remember much about it. I am nothing like the character & couldn't identify with her.
My first name is kind of a novelty, so when I come across people with the same name *that* is what mostly sticks with me. Yes, I know, pretty shallow.... Hmmm, I guess I'm not all that different from her after all. lol
I suppose you are right in regard to what they "contribute" to the genome - but, perhaps even more importantly in some cases (or all cases), is the "influence" on the genome of a particular organism. What if some one-of-a-kind, non-reproducing "frankenstein mutation" kills an entire population? This is not a far-fetched possibility and likely occurs frequently.
This is just one example of possible evolutionary influences that will NEVER be measurable. There are gazillions more. This leads to my opinion that the "mechanisms(s) of change" must, of a necessity include so many "UNKNOWABLE" factors that it is pure balderdash to suggest that we can be "certain" about any "line of descent" of species that are "pre-historic".
The problem with this is that the original population (the parent population) that the 4 other subspecies evolved from, varied even though it had no subspecies to interbreed with. This means that limit 2) is not a limit or there is something else that limits daughter populations like 'D' but not parent populations like 'C'.
OK - if I understand your point correctly - I say that the same limitations are operating in all of these groups and subgroups. Population 'D' is subject to the same limits, and likewise has similar variability, up to the limits that population 'C' had (after all, 'D' came from individuals in 'C').
'A' and 'D' will certainly experience variation, but, only within the boundaries of what the original template allows.
It seems to me now (and this is proof of my slow mind) that we are merely discussing the often-discussed (often-argued) MAIN POINT of evolution (as I understand it), "that small changes within species can bring about new species".
I would say that even within the realm of possible mutations, the variation of mutations are limited by what is originally there. It seems too obvious to me (and that may be proof that I'm not seeing the picture clearly) that there is some finite limit to the variations that can occur. It seems to me that evolution (and its proponents) has to be open to the proposition that "anything is possible" in terms of how far-reaching the incremental changes can go.
There is no such limit. In what physical form would such a limit be found?
Since some folks like to compare DNA to a computer program, let's explore that route. If The genome represents the possible space for holding the program, how do you imagind there is a limitation. The human genome is shorter that that of many "lesser" critters. Length of the genome is not closelu correlated with any reasonable measure of complexity.
Second, if the genome needs more space for a longer program, it's no problem. Chromosomes acquire additional elements all the time. Even the chromosome count changes occasionally, although this is rare in animals. Horses, for example, include breeding individuals having different chromosome counts.
There simply isn't any physical place to postulate a limitation on change, nor any reason to assume that one measure of complexity -- say intelligence -- requires a more complex DNA program. Humans are probably simpler, since most of our learning takes place after birth, rather than through biological evolution. Less stuff needs to be coded in DNA.
If you imagine that the number of genes is fixed, and that evolution operate only by twiddling with variations in this fixed number, you would be wrong. This is not a matter of speculation.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Mutations occur in individuals. They do not spread like diseases. If a mutation is lethal to the individual, that individual dies without leaving offspring. This cannot affect the population as a whole.
If you are suggesting that a single super-deranged individual could murder all members of his species, that's a tall order.
Er, my suggestion was that the individual kill all the members of a "population", not of an entire species - though - (perhaps your answer to THIS FOLLOWING SCENARIO might really help me to understand this evolution business):
When a new species is emerging, is there a single individual that can be defined as the first of the species?
If so, then a "single super-deranged individual could murder all members of his species" with probably very little problem if it comes about near the "emerging" point of the species.
If there is not "a single individual that can be defined as the first of the species" then the explanation of how the species emerges will likely help me to understand the concepts better. (It is entirely likely that this has already been said to me, but, that I obviously don't understand enough to preclude me from asking here now.)
No. this impossible. Only populations can be thought of as a species.
I cannot think of a case in biology where a species would emerge a result of a single mutation, even if that mutation spread throughout the population. Remember, the only way a mutation can spread is if individuals are descended from the individual where it firs occurred. After a mutation occurs, the presence of that allele in children is no longer considered a mutation.
You might recall a recent news article claiming a huge percentage of the Chinese population is descended from Genghis Khan. Such a claim might be made on the basis of finding a rare allele in a population that has a strong tradition of keeping genealogical records.
But such point mutations are not going to confer reproductive isolation.(How could they?)
It generally takes thousands of genetic changes in populations that are isolated for some other, non-biological reason for speciation to occur.
I understand you are only using this as an analogy, but, my thoughts regarding the "limits" within this analogous system:
... the limit is not a matter of quantity ("this much and no more") it's more a function of quality ("oil and water don't mix"). In the computer program example, more code can be added - but, the new code is subject to "quality-control"...ie. the code must contain proper SYNTAX and it must follow proper LOGIC before it "works". The syntax and logic are limiting factors that are inherent to the system - they are limits to the code which may be expressed.
My point is that the "computer language" of the genome WITHOUT DOUBT has rules which govern the effective addition of code.
These would not be the only limits to variation. Obviously, we have discussed "female choice" or "instinctive behaviors" that may operate through entire populations. And of course there are physical dissimilarities within populations that may make it difficult (impossible?) for traits to be "passed around".
Oh yeah, these types of things like behaviours and physical features are "hardware" limitations - perhaps the modified code is bug-free, but, the the processor isn't "designed" to handle it.
DNA does not have syntax in the sense of computer code having syntax. Obviously, alleles are beneficial, neutral or harmful, but the program doesn't crash because of syntax.
The quality control is called natural selection. In the case of single-celled organisms, bad mutations just go into the food bin for other individuals. In sexually reproducing organisms, including humans, millions, even billions of germ cells are produced for every one that conceives and lives to reproduce.
There obvious limits to change in a single generation, but we are not discussing single generations. Evolution, even punctuated equilibrium, considers thousands of generations to be quick. Millions of generations would be more typical for speciation. Some of the so-called overnight changes in the fossil record cover several million years.
I might just add that many instances of defective sperm are visible under the microscope, without knowing exactly what went wrong with the syntax. Nature is wasteful with individuals.
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.