Posted on 08/19/2005 1:02:07 PM PDT by SmithL
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.
Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said.
Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.
Bush recently told a group of Texas reporters that intelligent design and evolution should both be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
That comment sparked criticism from opponents, including Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who called Bush "anti-science."
Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.
Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.
"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith.
Yes, Gould looked at the fossil record and saw NO good evidence of macro-evolution (especially with the Cambrian explosion). Again, why did he come to that conclusion? You still haven't explained why he did that. By the way, I need to go now because of another project. Freep mail me when you can come up with a good reason that explains Gould's actions.
Or suppose it is a family of Christians who don't want their children taught evolution. Your entitled to your opinion. Mine remains "the complete absenence of faith in school is baffling when one considers the influence (both good and bad) of faith on science, history, literature, law, and even the #1 school subject self-estem / self-centeredness."
Wrong. Rather, natural explanations are the only scientific explanations for the origin of species.
Why have a beef with science being science? If you want supernatural or metaphysical explanations, look to religion or philosophy instead.
Yeah, let's take everything out of science classes that no one has ever observed. Like for instance photosynthesis (nope, the actual hypothesised chemical reactions have not been observed, only the effects) krebs cycle, sub-atomic particle theory, most meteorology, thermodynamics (no system both truly closed and discretely observable exists, plus the theory is really only statistical in the end), etc, etc, etc.
We'll still be left with "facts" such as "the sky is blue" and "the grass is green" (but just with no explanation of why).
The difference being, evolution is science, and religion isn't.
Frist is now 0-2 with me.
Let's make it easy:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
NEW Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
NEW Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions. There really is evidence out there.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Yes, transitional fossils exist.
Fossil whale with legs. Land animal to whale transitional fossil.
Feathered Dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx. Reptile-to- bird transitional fossil.
Archaeopteryx: FAQS . A true transitional fossil
All About Archaeopteryx.
Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution. For those who claim there isn't any evidence.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.
Get rid of Avogadro's Number. I mean really, who has ever counted 6.022 x 1023 atoms of Carbon-12 anyway?
You forgot to address any issue.
I don't agree with the esteemed straw man from Harvard that the constructions of science are absurd, or that the claims and promises are extravagant, or that the scientific community has toleration for the unsubstantiated.
The constructions are based upon natural and quantifiable phenomenon. And they enable one to better observe and predict the universe. This is hardly absurd.
The claims and promises of science have led to modern medicine, understanding of Molecular Biology, getting man on the moon, improving food crops, and the elimination of small pox. I don't know who claimed that science would do better, but they must have wanted grant money.
Scientists test claims, therefore that which is unsubstantiated isn't science. It is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Now compare that with the constructions of theology (such as the Trinity which Thomas Jefferson rejected as absurd), the claims and promises of religions (promise them everything, but only after they die and only is some far off land of make believe), and the toleration (and often enforcement) of totally unsubstantiated dogma.
Suppose you've got a family who doesn't want their kid taught physics, or chemistry, or history, or English. Doesn't matter - if you want your children to be intellectually incompetent, that is your choice, and remove your children from public schools. The wrong path to take is to force your mysticism on everybody else.
You can lie all you want to about Gould. Where is the actual quote from him?
Wrong to you. Natural explanations are the only natural explanations for the origin of species. Science requires no necessity for a natural explanation. Such a statement would be one that belongs in metaphysics. Good science would accept the possibility of non-natural causes that were beyond it competence to study even while seeks natural ones. Do not mistake research methodology with ontological truth
Look at that. Real evidence that approximately 0 creationists will read, and then tomorrow they will proclaim that no evidence exists. Lovely.
We're used to it. If they wanted to actually start looking at evidence and thinking about it, then they wouldn't be creationists. Can't have that, can we?
Too true.
Trying to teach a pig to sing wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Ah, the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.
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.