Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Jeb] Bush: Science comes before intelligent design [Jeb gets the message]
Miami Herald ^ | 26 December 2005 | Daniel A. Ricker

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.''


"The Watchdog Report" mentioned in the article is Ricker's own newsletter. He's the author of the article. Apparently the interview with Jeb was deemed important enough that the Miami Herald agreed to run it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: crevolist; doubletalk; jebbush; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 501-507 next last
To: Free Baptist

The science standards that Governor bush is speaking about do not require the first single mention of Darwin's material. Men can take us to the farthest reaches of the universe with science that doesn't quote Darwin one time




It's all interrelated though. On the one hand you have the junk science of Darwinism, and on the other, you have the junk science of a universe billions of years old that started with a big bang.


241 posted on 12/26/2005 7:14:38 PM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
Are you really naive enough to believe that referencing charlatans like Behe, Dembski, and Johnson somehow lend credibility to completely bogus pseudo science or are you just a troll trying to make conservatives look like a bunch of ignorant idiots?
242 posted on 12/26/2005 7:15:11 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
1. transcendent creation event where all matter, energy, spacetime began (Big Bang)

How does this suggest design? Design is not the default fall back hypothesis.

"Fair. It is NOT the default but is it that you simply dismiss the use of “transcendent creation event?” After all, transcendent does imply that the meaning or definition of the event lies beyond the ordinary range of perception, does it not? Further, do we know everything about the beginning? Scientifically speaking we most assuredly do not.

I don't really care about the word transcendent. What I object to is the IDist contention that if we can not currently explain something fully, then we must accept ID as the only possible explanation. That is why I mentioned it as the default. If IDists want us to accept that it is the result of ID, they have to develop an hypothesis, collect evidence for such and show their work. All that they do now is attempt to show Cosmology incorrect, based on a 'feeling' that it looks designed.

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.

"How is this irrelevant already? The fine tuning is specific to our planet and we have heard many times the specificity involved in its precision related to its distance from the Sun, the rotation speed, and other like facts. Its too precise to be relegated to mere chance, a chance which to be achieved would be on an order we could not possibly calculate. That is fine tuning, is it not?

This presupposes that this particular planet is the only planet Humans could possibly exist on. Note that I said planet, not conditions. This is not easy to explain, at least for me, but I'll give it a try. To do so I'll have to use a bit of an analogy. We have several billion unremarkable silver balls out of which we will chose one for special treatment - it will have a blue spot on it. We randomly place the balls into a box that contains a wooden floor with indentations only large enough to keep the balls from rolling once captured by the indentation. A marksman a hundred metres away takes a shot at the box of balls with a paint ball gun loaded with blue paint.

Now in your scenario, we would have to go over to the box and pick a specific ball to be the 'chosen one' before the marksman takes his shot. For this particular ball to get hit by the paint ball in my made up little example would be remarkable. The odds for it would be microscopic.

In a more realistic scenario, considering we now know many stars have planets, we would not pick a single specific ball to be the 'chosen one' but make the ball that was actually hit the 'chosen one'.

In other words, the reason our planet has the right conditions for life is because the conditions occurred first, and the life (us) resulted from those conditions.

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.

"How do you know this? We have a thing called the Cambrian Explosion where much appeared in a small space of time relatively speaking…why is it that rapidity of life can not be considered in the same way? I am curious to this and I may be understanding it wrong.

I had assumed the author was referring specifically to abiogenesis. The probability calculations I have seen that purport to disprove abiogenesis make a lot of bad assumptions and ignore probable initial conditions. If more realistic initial conditions are used in the calculation the probability changes dramatically. This is another case where IDists use the default of ID.

5. lack of inorganic kerogen

What does this mean? Oil forms from organics.

"You’re willing to say that all oil has formed from this? Or am I missing your question here? I confess I don’t fully know what the lack of inorganic kerogen would mean completely.

No, I just do not understand what the manner of oil development has to do with proof of ID.

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.

"It at least does suggest that chance evolution would be all that much harder or are you going to say that it does not?

Evolution is not really 'chance'. What 'variation' occurs in the genome at any given time may be pseudo-random, but the various types of selection are not random in any sense of the word. IDists use apparent complexity as an indication of design. They make an unwarranted assumption that only intelligences can produce what appears to be design. Before they can use complexity as a measure of a designer, they have to show, unequivocally, that complexity is exclusive to intelligence. As it stands, we've seen nature produce complexity that 'looks' designed.

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. The explosion was not an explosion.

"It was formerly less that 14 million years long and only recently has come into contention of being 40 million years in length beginning at 570 mil yrs ago to 530 mil yrs ago. In the great scheme of things relative to the period of time evolution claims to have proceeded, from one form to another, this is still a very rapid developing period. Moreover, why did it not continue on the same pace? Is it not a fair question?

This is a fair question, but remember the author is trying to show these points are evidence of design. I am simply pointing out problems with his assumptions.

Those that promote the Cambrian explosion as an indication of ID make the divergence out to be much faster and more dramatic than it was. It has been known for a long time, as shown by the fossil evidence after an extinction event, and by extant organisms when ecological niches are emptied of native organisms that life differentiates rapidly to fill the empty niches. At the time of the Cambrian, the majority of the earth was empty. Life had the largest number of empty niches to fill in the Earth's history.

Evolution has never proceeded at a constant rate; even Darwin knew this.

8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record

Horizontal branches?

"The fossil record is vast, is it not? Does not the record have layer upon layer and in each layer we have many things? Yet some exist in places there is conflicting evidence asto what should and should not be there. In fairness we do not know it in total yet. In so much as we are still looking at what the record contains with a degree of certainty does it not have areas where some fossils should be but are not? Is this, perhaps, what he refers to?

Indeed, there are many holes in the fossil record and it would be nice to have more, but the sparseness of the fossil record is expected. As far as I know there are no areas where there is conflicting data. There are a number of fossil groups that there is disagreement as to where they should be placed in the phylogenic tree, but they do not conflict with other fossil groups.

I really have no idea what horizontal branches in the fossil record means.

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.

"But…not perfect…right? So, Possible, could be a term used here? Take a look at the following and let me know what you thing Click here

The transition in fossils in a number of lines, including those of the cetartiodactyls, show much more than just 'possible' connections. If those fossils just showed one or two transitional features, there would be room for doubt. In the case of whales, we have a continuous line of fossils that show 1) an elongation of the head, 2) movement of the head/neck joint from the lower rear to rear position, 3) movement of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, 4) change in the ear from above water use to below water use, 5) change in leg length from long to short in the front, and gone in the back, 6) change in back leg/pelvis connection from connected to unconnected, 7) change in spine from rigid to flexible. There are a few more shared features that I won't bother to list, I think this is enough for a start.

There are a number of errors in the link you provided but this post is not the venue to address them.

11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions

The designer caused massive volcanic eruptions and collisions with large chunks of extraterrestrial rocks and ice?

"A designed nature that runs its course can possibly have volcanoes…or can it not? Are you saying on this instance that you then believe in a creator and that He or she was wrong to have done this? Or maybe HAD to do this?

I just do not understand how extinctions which were caused by unforeseeable catastrophes are arguments for ID. A supernatural creator could indeed cause them, but ID claims to be a supernatural free zone, so it doesn't mesh.

13. duration of time windows for different species

What does this even mean?

"I took it to mean the period of time species existed and disappeared.

I don't follow how this relates to evidence for ID. I'm not even sure what a 'time window' is in this context.

14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis

What does this mean?

"1. Well, here is the definition of symbiosys: Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. 2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.

Yes, but how does the frequency, extent and repetition provide evidence of ID over evolution? 15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism

Explained very well in Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. Think 'kin selection'.

"I will see if I can find this and read it.

17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)

Recent origin? 200,000 years for Homo sapiens sapiens is recent? A line of fossils showing a stepwise change in morphology going back 6 million years is recent?

"Of course I would have to accept that the evolutionist version of creation of the species is the measure here. This is your presumption.

For the arguments made by the author the ages are a given. A young earth is not part of his argument as far as I can tell.

18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)

How is this evidence of a designer?

"Would they not have to be Present for a designer to use?

Biodeposits are an inevitable result of evolution. There is no need to assume a designer.

243 posted on 12/26/2005 7:20:47 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Can you imagine if God said "Job, do you know the molecular structure of H2O, or why hydrogen and oxygen atoms attract and form... ?"

If you can imagine a God who created the molecular structure of H2O, why would you imagine he would keep it a secret from Job?

244 posted on 12/26/2005 7:21:56 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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 [i.e., evolution] 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.''

245 posted on 12/26/2005 7:22:04 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Once again from your post #40

Nowhere else can I find such entertaining interaction involving large numbers of conservatives who are either: (a) truly educated and intelligent people; or (b) truly un-educated people with no rational capacity whatsoever. It's fascinating.

Nice try,but please interact and expalain to us your qualifications to determine who is of "rational capacity"

Or why should you not be taken as a troll from DU trying to stir up trouble on a daily basis?

246 posted on 12/26/2005 7:23:43 PM PST by carlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
The Theory of Evoilution is chock full of stuff that we now know not to be true

Please give us an example. You say it's chock full and all I ask one example. That shouldn't be too hard should it?

247 posted on 12/26/2005 7:23:51 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda

So Jeb is a Darwinist. Unbelievable.


248 posted on 12/26/2005 7:23:57 PM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Nonsense.

How so?

249 posted on 12/26/2005 7:25:28 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: darkocean
The normal English term for 'mutation' is 'birth defect'.

Let me guess. You get your science from X-Men comic books?

250 posted on 12/26/2005 7:27:52 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
"Fried squirrel with biscuits and gravy" placemark

Tastes like chicken!

251 posted on 12/26/2005 7:29:03 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: carlr

To quote him from his last month's tag line: "Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus."


252 posted on 12/26/2005 7:32:10 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Are you really naive enough to believe that referencing charlatans like Behe, Dembski, and Johnson somehow lend credibility to completely bogus pseudo science or are you just a troll trying to make conservatives look like a bunch of ignorant idiots?

This is amazing to me. I have never seen a subject on Freerepublic where one group of conservatives claims the other group of conservatives are a bunch of idiots for daring to challenge the "norm." Your OPINION so far is of zero credibility itself. Your bull-in-a-china-shop tactic is ridiculous. What? I am supposed to feel "guilty" of some crime against conservatives because of you? What kind of idiotic logic is this that I ought to simply bend to your wishes? Its pathetic that you and others (including some on the side of Intelligent Design) can only give the left what they want...infighting that divides and helps them. I don't think you or anyone else is Godless for believing in evolution...it is not my place. I don't see you as some enemy though by your own words you make me out to be one. I serve our nation flying aircraft in the USAF so people like you can act like a jackass. I hope you're happy doing this because you have the chance to make people look at what you're saying but instead you push people away and build walls that need not be there. On the left you can't disagree with abortion on demand or you’re out. What you did here in this post is exactly the same I could care less if you claim intellectual supremacy on the issue.

253 posted on 12/26/2005 7:33:42 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
If you can imagine a God who created the molecular structure of H2O, why would you imagine he would keep it a secret from Job?

Maybe it was beyond Job's ability to understand? Maybe it was not time for 'atomic secrets' to be revealed? I can think of many, many reasons why God would choose NOT to reveal the information to Job. The real question is why can't you?

254 posted on 12/26/2005 7:35:49 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: darkocean; knowledgeforfreedom
"The other poster mentioned that several kinds of common mutations appear to prevent certain kinds of diseases. What's actually happening is that the people die off from the mutations before they can catch the diseaaases. I'd just as soon not be saved in that manner myself.

That is ridiculous.

Until recently, those that had two copies of the 'sickle cell' allele died. Those that had one copy of the 'sickle cell' allele generally survived malaria. Those that had no 'sickle cell' allele generally died from malaria. Having one copy is an advantage, having two is not. For a person to have two copies, both parents would have to have the allele. Since gametes are the random selection of one of two alleles at any given locus, there is only about a .25 probability of a child ending up with two 'sickle cell' genes.

255 posted on 12/26/2005 7:36:52 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
There are tremendous, huge areas in the theory of evolution that are untestable and amount to "hand waving" by scientists. I have to go look at some real estate with a friend right now, but I'll try to explain this a little later tonight.

Yoohoo! Are you back yet? I really would like to see an explanation of one, just one of your untestable, tremendous, huge areas in the theory of evolution.

256 posted on 12/26/2005 7:38:43 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"So Jeb is a Darwinist. Unbelievable."

Reread my post more carefully this time.

I was quoting Jeb Bush, who said: "I don't think it [i.e., evolution] should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you.

So, he does not believe evolutionio dogma should be part of the science curriculum. I guess because he's intelligent enough to recognize that evolution is all speculation and zero speciation.

257 posted on 12/26/2005 7:38:53 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: balch3
I guess Jeb really doesn't want to be president, with his continuous backstabbing of conservatives.

Maybe Jeb doesn't believe that science classes should be subjected to PC checks to ensure that they don't contradict somebody's dogma.

How exactly is that "backstabbing conservatives"?

258 posted on 12/26/2005 7:39:51 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
Perhaps I can help. The debate is not a conservative one, or even a political one.

It's the very old debate between science and religion when the two clash. It's a debate that is as least 600 years old, and it's not going be resolved in our lifetime and surely not here at FR.

The debate doesn't divide conservatives unless they want it to. The same debate can and does occur among liberals.

The debate has nothing to do with politics.

259 posted on 12/26/2005 7:41:04 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

He knows, he's just trying to pull my chain.


260 posted on 12/26/2005 7:41:04 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 501-507 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson