Posted on 12/26/2005 8:37:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Questioned about the national debate over ''intelligent design,'' [Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush last week said he's more interested in seeing some evolution of the science standards that Florida public school students must meet.
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
Nationally, the discussion over whether to teach intelligent design -- a concept that says life is too complex to have occurred without the involvement of a higher force -- in public school classes heated up after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that it smacked of creationism and was a violation of church and state separation. (President Bush appointed Jones to the federal bench in 2004.)
Jones, in his decision, wrote that the concept of intelligent design ''cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,'' according to a Knight Ridder News Service report published Wednesday in The Miami Herald. [PH here: For a more reliable source than the Herald, here's the judge's opinion (big pdf file).]
In Florida, education officials and science teachers will be reviewing the state's science curriculum in 2007 or 2008, after the governor has left office, and ''it is possible that people would make an effort to include [intelligent design] in the debate,'' Gov. Bush told The Watchdog Report on Wednesday. ''My personal belief is we ought to look at whether our standards are high first,'' he said.
SCIENCE FIRST
``The more important point is science itself and how important it is, and we right now have adequate standards that may need to be raised. But worse: Students are not given the course work necessary to do well with those standards.''
Bush, after meeting with Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick and city commissioners concerning the community's widespread power outages after hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, also noted that the federal ruling came in a case that involves Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.
''It is one school district in Pennsylvania,'' he said.
POINT OF VIEW
The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don't think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.''
He's hoping to get the job modeling for Gummi Bats.
Ah, the American Taliban chimes in once again.
The faith or the education in the material.
I don't know how I missed this earlier.
According to the bible; bats are birds (they are not, they are placental mammals that give live birth and suckle their young), grasshoppers, locusts, and beetles only have four legs (they have six, which is why they are classified as being insects), hares chew their cud (they do no such thing; they chew their poop) - the list goes on and on.
When it comes to science, the bible is a mess. This is one (very big) reason that so many folks shudder at the thought of it being used as a science book.
Now those would sell! Ozzie Osbourne could do the commercials.
Why not include chapter 9, which states that Noah lived to the ripe old age of 950?
Now, Gummi Bats would be good eatin', so it's more critical than ever that they only have two legs in order to avoid being discredited on this thread....
Actually, whether they have two legs or four is irrelevant, seeing as bats are actually birds (according to the bible, anyways).
VadeRetro: "At least two bad premises in one short sentence.You sort of have to trust your mind, even though you know you can't. ..
"Sort of have to"??? "Even though you know YOU CAN'T" ????
Now that is some admission! :)
VadeRetro: "I can live with the idea that my individual mind was not designed by an anthropomorphic sentient designer, much less an all-powerful one..."
So I see. LOL
But things are much more complicated than the natural man can perceive. :)
2. cosmic fine-tuning
This is plausible if the multi-verse hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, otherwise it is irrelevant
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
That is irrelevant already. The only way this claim has any meaning is if this particular planet, in this particular solar system, in this particular galaxy was the 'target'. There are billions of galaxies which contain billions of stars, a high percentage of which, could possibly support life. If only one planet of the billions possible supported life, that is where we would be.
4. rapidity of life's origin
The beginning of life is only considered rapid when held to the contrived probability calculations that completely ignore initial conditions. This is again not an indication of intelligent design. Many of the necessary chemicals necessary for life are found in space.
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
What does this mean? Oil forms from organics.
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
It has not been shown that complexity only derives from intelligence, in fact complexity has not been consistently defined in this area.
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period)
This one isn't even close. The Cambrian explosion was hardly an explosion, it was ~50 million years long. It was phyla, body styles, not species that is the focus in that time. Not all phyla started then, some occurred before, some after. The majority of phyla of the time resembled worms, including vertebrates (ourselves). There is more morphological difference between worm-like chordata and mammals than between two related phyla. The list of diagnostic morphological features that define chordata are 1) pharyngeal slits 2) dorsal nerve cord 3) notochord 4) post-anal tail. Some of these features are only evident in embryonic development in apes (and other vertebrates).
The explosion was not an explosion.
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
Horizontal branches?
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
The frequency and placement of cetartiodactyl fossil transitionals is as close to perfect as we can expect. In some cases the fossils are of sister species rather than parent/daughter species, but the lineage is still indicative of a well defined transition between an atiodactyl and a cetacean. The claim that there are no transitional fossils is a typical creationist 'faint hope' defense.
10. fossil record reversal
Geologically evidenced stratigraphic fold, not fossil reversal.
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
The designer caused massive volcanic eruptions and collisions with large chunks of extraterrestrial rocks and ice?
12. rapid recovery from mass extinctions (mainly through appearance of new species)
This one is more easily explained by evolution than by some designer, unless the designer worked really really slowly and liked waiting millions of years in between interventions.
13. duration of time windows for different species
What does this even mean?
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
What does this mean?
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
Explained very well in Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. Think 'kin selection'.
16. speciation and extinction rates
This is a repetition.
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
Recent origin? 200,000 years for Homo sapien sapien is recent? A line of fossils showing a stepwise change in morphology going back 6 million years is recent?
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
How is this evidence of a designer?
19. molecular clock rates (which show humanity's recent origin)
I'm not sure which rates are being suggested here. I hope it isn't 'last common ancestor', since those do not show a recent origin. Molecular studies also show human common descent with other apes.
And that's my fallback position should a board-certified batologist with proven credentials appear and declare my Gummi Bat's fingers as actually toes.
I want to know what the infallible scientific instruction at Leviticus 11:21 was talking about. We know it wasn't a fruit bat, because we've already been instructed that those guys are actually birds.
Does it matter? I prefer that you judge my posts by their content, not by my credentials -- or lack thereof. That's how I judge everyone around here. Besides, I don't like to provide personal information on the internet.
Anyone can claim credentials, but their postings often contradict such claims. And for those few whose posts are consistent with their claimed credentials, there are always those who reject their information due to anti-intellectual leanings.
All I do is post my own thinking, or I provide information (always with a source) that I believe to be reliable. Judge it on the merits. I've never claimed to have any expertise, and you should assume that I have no academic scientific credentials at all.
I know which group I would rather have stood over me if I was rushed into hospital after a car crash - give me paddles charged to 330 joules rather than something from Matthew any day of the week.
"Oh, I thought you meant Americans ate them. I wouldn't think so."
Human beings live all over the world.
There are several theories of evolution. Which one are you talking about? Please define your terms.
Evolution is only a theory just as Gravity is only a Theory.
Now, which theory of Gravity do you believe?
I don't think there is a need to teach grade school students speculation.
High academia? Perhaps, but not grade school students. There is no way to proprly test speculative information.
What exactly does 'missing link' mean? What do you expect to see in a 'missing link'?
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.