Posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry
When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."
[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
No it does not BEGIN there. When I say it "sees signs of intelligence" that means it is looking at the same stuff the Darwinist is looking at, only interpreting the data differently. You are beginning with the ASSUMPTION that ID begins with an assumption. Each individual scientist has assumptions. If ID scientists are corrupted by assuptions then so are Darwinist scientists. Beginning assumptions, even when they do exist, are irrelevant. The data is what is relevant. ID scientists just draw different conclusions from the same data. It's the conclusion that is making Darwinists mad, which puts their motive in suspect much more than the ID scientists. Darwinists say that ID scientists should not be allowed to debate if they are going to draw different conclusions. That's what they are realling saying, because the data used to prove each theory is exactly the same.
Two "probablys" and a "not sure". Thanks.
From physiology and genetics of the various ape species.
Viewed through an objective eye unclouded by human predjudices, if you disected a human, gorilla and chimp and ran genetics tests on them you'd have to conclude that they were closely-related.
You have the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Only a fool would deny that the reason things fall to earth, and not elsewhere, is that we're in the center of the universe.
What's your point? I'll be the first to admit that the evidence for evolution is not 100% complete. Any honest scientist will say the same (I'm not a scientist, BTW).
However, there is no other theory that better fits the existing evidence. In fact, there is no other scientific theory, period. If you can come up with a theory that better fits the evidence, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
I would be quite surprised if even Australopithecus were close enough to any other apes to interbreed. Very strictly speaking, we are hominids more so than apes (though the former is a subset of the latter) and rather far removed from the others from an evolutionary standpoint. We are about as far removed from the other apes as they are from the monkeys - both in antiquity of divergence and in degree of genomic variation. To an extent, it's a semantics argument, but it's worth noting I think.
We're not as closely-related to dogs as we are to other apes.
Are you making the argument that human DNA is closer to dog DNA than it is to Chimp DNA?
Junk science on the same page ...
I agree. I think mlc is under the impression that I'm claiming that humans and other apes are very closely related. I'm not. I'm only saying that we're closer to other apes than to any other species.
I'm sorry - I had forgotten you are an atheist. That's why creationism doesn't apply to you.
________
Absolutely LOL at this one (the post not the poster)
Turned around, it suits you to a t as well...
I'm sorry, I had forgotten that you are a creationist. That's why evolution doesn't apply to you.
Either construction is nonsense.
Same Creator - closely related.
Huh?
Yeah, but Mike was first :) Not too Often I run into another nuclear weapon enthusiast. For me it's about the conquest of the human mind and will over an insurmountable problem. I also love that the Trinity shot was hardly in the books when Edward Teller was already thinking about the "super".
You know, when you have to explain humor, it's just not that funny. Pretty clear that you've not evolved far enough to recognize it.
Your comment to modernman was absurd. It's absurdity is made manifest by turning it around on you.
I can safely say I've read no crevo threads with someone as completely in-the-dark about evolution as you appear to be (although I begin to think you're just playing it that way).
I tend to agree. At first, I thought her questions were honest, but I'm starting to think that they're not.
Outstanding!
Oh, OK. Well I certainly have no dispute with that!
Worth repeating!
Yes, it’s no big secret that the liberals use Darwinism as a ‘world view’ as opposed to conservatives… like, the President (it is no secret where his world view comes from and the liberals hate it…)
In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.
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.