[Jeb] Bush: Science comes before intelligent design [Jeb gets the message]

Miami Herald ^ | 26 December 2005 | Daniel A. Ricker

[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.

[dmz]

LOL. I would never presume to speak for Patrick, but why do you think that all IDers/creationists are b) and all evolutionists are a)?

My experience is that both sides of the debate have their fair share of category b folks.

[Thatcherite]

Am I mistaken, or have geneticists ruled out that humanity can be traced back to three couples?--

Certainly on a biblical timescale human genetic diversity is far too great to be traced back to 3 couples c 4200 years ago. The problem with the rest of the biological world is even greater, of course.

[b_sharp]

Kudos. Excellent post.

[b_sharp]

"But it is also incumbent upon us to reject false findings that are only intented to destroy a religion, a people and its culture.

Do you have some conclusive evidence that the findings are false? How about evidence EVILUTION has the purpose of destroying your religion?

[b_sharp]

"Whatever little I know is enough to know that the ToE is all speculation put forth by charlatans and various assorted fakes and frauds.

So, you are happy basing your opinion on your ignorance. If that is the case then your opinion is worthless.

"Now, how much do you know of my profession or my fluency in foreign languages?

non-sequitur and irrelevant.

[b_sharp]

Thanks Q2.

I thought of including your point about the difficulty in categorization but decided being lazy was more important.

The point about the other kingdoms is important (I should have included it), but the concept of 'goals' is far more important to the understanding of the importance (or lack thereof) of a putative explosion.

[Coyoteman]

"Your question shows that you know very little about the Theory of Evolution."

Whatever little I know is enough to know that the ToE is all speculation put forth by charlatans and various assorted fakes and frauds.

Now, how much do you know of my profession or my fluency in foreign languages?

I would guess you know little about science; a few weeks ago you had to have it explained to you that mtDNA is not a mountain in Washington.

You admitted at the time "Geography is not my forte, btw, and a whole other subjects."

Y I wonder how you got such a scholar on evolution all of a sudden.

[b_sharp]

I'm quite happy to be included in the 'b' category. In my highly regarded opinion, knowledge and intelligence is highly overrated.

[b_sharp]

He may be talking about the last common ancestor (LUCA)which at last calculation was ~3500 years ago. IMS

[Thatcherite]

He may be talking about the last common ancestor (LUCA)which at last calculation was ~3500 years ago. IMS

Ah, right. What he may not realise is that LUCA's certainly cannot be sole ancestors. The genetic evidence indicates otherwise. There were numerous other people alive at the time who contributed to the modern gene-pool. It is just that the LUCA is the most recent person who contributed to the DNA of *everyone* alive today. The LUCA is in any case a retrospective coronation. When the LUCA was alive there was almost nothing whatever significant about that person that would have set them apart from their contemporaries. If a modern epidemic wiped out 99% of the human race, for example, than the LUCA's identity would almost certainly change to a more recent person. I am sure you know this, but it is worth pointing out for the lurkers.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[b_sharp]

I've been party to a number of arguments where the LUCA was taken by creationists to mean that only one man was alive at the time (Compounded by our penchant for calling them Adam and mtEve). Misunderstanding the concept is fairly common (and convenient).



Good explanation by the way.

[streetpreacher]

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.

THE 10.000 YEAR-OLD HOMO ERECTUS These two skulls, discovered on October 10, 1967, in the Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia, were named Kow Swamp I and Kow Swamp V.

Alan Thorne and Philip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent of Homo erectus . The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be 10.000 years old. Evolutionist did not wish to accept the fact that Homo erectus , which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500.000 years before modern man, was a human race which lived 10.000 years ago.

Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.199

Homo erectus AND THE ABORIGINES The Turkana Boy skeleton shown at the side is the best preserved example of Homo erectus that has so far been discovered. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old-fossil and people of our day. The Australian aboriginal skeleton above particularly resembles Turkana Boy. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features.

[Coyoteman]

Concerning the Kow Swamp skeletons see: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/KowS.html

For more on the erectus finds see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#erectus

[b_sharp]

Turkana Boy was 1.6m tall and had a brain size of 880cc. It was estimated that he would be 1.8m tall and his brain size would have been 910cc at maturity. Homo spaiens sapiens brain size is about 1350cm. The Homo erectus spinal column is only half the diameter of Homo sapiens sapiens, indicating poorer motor control.

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens are hardly the same.

The mechanics of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are superior to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children with larger brains. From here

If this site of yours has so many errors in so few lines, should it really be trusted? Doubtful.

BTW, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are very dissimilar in morphology despite sharing the 'modern' label and readily differentiated.

[Ken H]

Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking in terms of three surviving couples being the only source for all subsequent humanity. Setting aside the redneck jokes, it seems to me that such a situation would result in a genetic nightmare. And as you pointed out, the problem would be even worse for a single pair of animals. Would such lines even be viable?

[b_sharp]

"Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking in terms of three surviving couples being the only source for all subsequent humanity. Setting aside the redneck jokes, it seems to me that such a situation would result in a genetic nightmare. And as you pointed out, the problem would be even worse for a single pair of animals. Would such lines even be viable?

That would be a severe bottleneck more than likely resulting in extinction. In small populations, the members suffer what is termed the 'founder effect' where recessive genes fix in the population (heterozygous alleles become homozygous alleles) due to drift and can become the only allele in the genome (monomorphism) leading to what has been termed a mutational meltdown. If many deleterious genes fix in the population the chance of extinction increases.(Check Muller's ratchet)

[Paige]

My we are rude when one is questioned on their inability to give a well documented answer to questions put forth.

What I have asked does goes hand in hand. Furthermore, by all means answer the questions instead of attacking someone.

Oh and I have been posting here off and on for over a year. I don't have the time to post consistently and I find it surprising a Conservative would attack someone as you did? Interesting ...very interesting but do answer the questions (if you can) without insulting someone. Thanks so much. :)

[Paige]

Indian legends? They worshipped the spirt(S)(all type of g-ds). Is this all you have other than man's findings? Honestly if this is what you are going to use as an explanation of evolution please do not insult my intelligence. Thanks :)

[Dimensio]

Honestly if this is what you are going to use as an explanation of evolution please do not insult my intelligence.

How was that being presented as an "explanation of evolution"?