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.
When my mind gets to this point of incomprehensibility, I say, "what is the point of trying to understand a process with, practically, no limits?" This seems like the "god did it" explanation that gets met with so much derision. Essentially you are saying "millions of years did it". No, I believe you have to look at the limits to change in a single generation- these limits operate all along the way of descent to prevent the "big changes".
You are free to believe whatever you wish, but your inability to comprehend evolution doesn't change reality, any more than my inability to follow the math of quantum theory changes reality.
If you have a chile, or ever have one, I ask you to define the point at which the child learns language. Do you believe small changes accumulate to become differences of kind?
A couple points:
...define the point at which the child learns language.
Certainly, learning language is a process, with "software","hardware", and "training" requirements. An individual's mastery must develop via "training input", but, the "ability" must be present AT FIRST. The child must already have in place the ability to receive and process input.
Do you believe small changes accumulate to become differences of kind?
This seems unrelated to the language development issue. The accumulating "changes" in language learning do not change the child's physical being. No, I don't believe this example or the ring species examples (which started my mental meanderings) show evidence of accumulating small changes becoming "differences of kind".
My analogy of evolution, as developed the past few days:
Uncle Joe who lives in California gets dropped off in front of your house on the east coast. You see the car pull up and he gets out with a suitcase that has a collection of stickers from different states, some of which have dates on them. You develop a travelogue of his journey from California based on the sticker collection.
You may get the sequence of stops along the journey correct, but, it is highly unlikely, since you can't really be sure if he travelled all the way by car or by which route or if he flew across country. (The inability to determine his mode of transportation makes the travelogue practically impossible.) The stickers may have nothing to do with this particular journey.
...your inability to comprehend evolution doesn't change reality
Yes, reality is unchanged by my inabilities - but, who can fault my inabilities? If anyone says that they comprehend evolution, with its myriad of possible travelogues, I'd look at them cynically.
First, there is no logical difference between hardware and software, either in computers or in humans (or animals). In animal brains, learning is most definitely a physical change. You can see it under a suitable microscope. Learning changes the physical connections between neurons.
Second, language does require a suitable brain structure, but then that has no relevance to the discussion. Evolution also has to work with what is available for modifiction. Humans are not going to evolve feathers. If they do, get back to me and I will admit biology doesn't really know anything.
>>The stickers may have nothing to do with this particular journey.<<
True, and the story has no relevance. If you wish to believe that some omnipotent trickster diddles in DNA, placing false markers at will, that is cerrtainly a possibility. But it's a fairy tail with no Scientific merit or Biblical authority. Scientology makes as much sense.
In a universe in which DNA has no actual lineage, and false markers are placed by space aliens or deities, you cannot have science, because anything can happen without cuse or trace.
This is an interesting point, thanks for making it. I do have familiarity with neuro-developmental theories/therapies, and have practiced such with my speech delayed son. (I thought it interesting that you had used the language learning example.)
I'll give you that the difference between hardware and software for processing input may be fuzzy - but, I was also thinking "input hardware", like our physical senses which would be more distinct from "processing software".
Evolution also has to work with what is available for modifiction.
Well, we agree on this. Our departure seems to be on understanding the "what is available". Here, I suppose is where my belief on the inherent limits to variation applies - much as you stated that "Humans are not going to evolve feathers."
...false markers...
I don't say that the markers are inherently false or deceptive(just as the stickers are not false or deceptive - they just ARE) they may however be falsely interpreted due to unknown/unknowable factors.
Are you saying that everything regarding genetic variation is understood and there are no significant questions left to be answered?
Good heavens, no. But I'd say 150 years without a contradicting fact makes a good trend line.
There are always controversies at the fringe of understanding, and, I suppose, always the possibility that the findings will point away from "random" variation.
I just doubt it, and if it isn't "random" it will follow known laws of chemistry and physics.
I concur. At least insofar as we are talking about changes beginning at some point in the middle of the process and continuing to the present.
I suppose the matter of the "beginning of life" may not "follow known laws of chemistry and physics"- but, that is not a question that evolution purports to address, correct?
Evolution assumes life.
There are people studying chemical evolution, hoping to figure how life could have started, but this is a branch of biochemistry, not evolution.
A professor in Boulder here saves all the letters from the crackpots. When each new letter comes in, he writes a brief reply, "Thanks for writing, but, I'm not the expert in this field. May I humbly refer you to this person, who is" and then he gives the name and address of another crackpot who wrote him before. :-)
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.