Intelligent Denials: Bush's science adviser defends evolution!

The American Prospect, ^ | 22 February 2005 | Chris Mooney

[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.

[Oztrich Boy]

If only some "conservatives" would stop calling "socialism" everything they personally find emotionally disturbing.

[Oztrich Boy]

Do you know what speciation means?

Some guy needs to write a book which explains it.

[WindOracle]

The war upon God, the secular movement, does go hand in hand with socialism, so I can see why some would view this as such. Secularism is necessary for a socialist society. However, the particular threat of evolutionary theory is disarmed if people do not buy into the LIE that evolution and creationism are exclusive to each other. Only if people buy into that lie can the secularists post what supposedly proves scientifically God does not exist.

[mlc9852]

Speciation - another aspect of science which biologists can't agree on.

[WindOracle]

"The harmony of natural law... reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an insignificant reflection." - Albert Einstein

[dartuser]

... nobody who really understands evolution will have a problem with understanding ...

You gave it all away with that one ...

Until a person believes in evolution, they just dont understand it yet ...

I hate it when that happens.

[dartuser]

Didn't you see the article about the scientists who created a "new species" of fox? ... Yeah, these foxes are black and white, and they wag their tales at humans ...

They took a whole bunch of foxes, bred more foxes, got foxes as an output ... then claim they have a new species (or at least that was the caption on the picture).

A new species of fox?

[Long Cut]

Actually, if you read a lot of these threads, those who profess disbelief in the TOE have little to no understanding of it at all, and very little grasp of science, the scientific method, or the nature of the evidence.

Creationist websites and shills love this kind of passive ignorance, in fact they count on it...it helps to sell videos and books.

[mlc9852]

So is it a fox or not?

[dartuser]

Oh but you dont understand what speciation is ... so your opinion is discounted a priori (/sarcasm off) ...

[WindOracle]

actually what I think he was trying to say by that was that those who do understand evolution fully will understand where I am coming from, and that many proponents of evolution who do not fully understand evolution may not. I have encountered many people who supported evolution, but insisted despite my arguments that science DID disprove God. These are generally militant atheists. And they did NOT have a true understanding of how evolution worked or the significance of it.

I kinda hope he did not mean it the way you interpreted it, and will not make that assumption, as I prefer to make nice assumptions about people rather than bad ones.

[AntiGuv]

a priori placemarker

[mlc9852]

If biologists disagree, who am I to say I understand it? But of course, you being all-knowing, have not problem with it. I envy you. sarcasm off

[dartuser]

Started with a fox, used only foxes ... soooo .......

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I don't know how you can say this is 200 years old:

Chapter Summaries: Branches of Science

Design Hypothesis

|

Cosmology

|

Physics

|

Astronomy

|

Biochemistry

|

Biology

|

Consiousness

Chapter 9: The Evidence of Biological Information

The six-feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Cambridge-educated Stephen Meyer demonstrated that no hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means.

On the contrary, he said that whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function, this kind of information is always the product of intelligence. "Books, computer codes, and DNA all have these two properties," he said. "We know books and computer codes are designed by intelligence, and the presence of this type of information in DNA also implies an intelligent source.

In addition, Meyer said the Cambrian explosion's dazzling array of new life forms, which suddenly appeared fully formed in the fossil record, with no prior transitions, would have required the infusion of massive amounts of new biological information. "Information is the hallmark of mind," said Meyer. "And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own -- a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative."

[mlc9852]

...it evolved into a human???

[WindOracle]

LOL.. now that is a good point!

Reminds me of a story ya might like.

One day a scientist told God "God, we have figured out all your secrets, we can do anything you can, we do not need you any more".
God asked him if he could make a human, and the scientist responded that he could. God asked him if he could make a human from DUST, and the scientist said he could.
God says "Show me", and so the scientist bends over and begins to scoop up a handful of dust, when God stops him. "Ah, ah, ah... make your own dust"

[xm177e2]

From the Answers in Genesis (Creationist) website, on a page where they recommend against creationists using some of the really stupid arguments.

LOL. You are too nice to them.

[Dimensio]

Would there be anything I could say to change your opinion about evolution? I wouldn't think so.

Demonstrate that it is impossible without appealing to logical fallacies or scientific inaccuracies.

[WindOracle]

"However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct. "

I can find nothing illogical in this idea whatsoever, it seems quite rational. but if anyone DOES see anything illogical about it, I would like to know what it is. Seems to me that if I have a large herd of any particular animal, then seperate a small part of them into a different cage, expose them over eons to much different stimulus and environment, as well as possible chemicals and radiation, and possible inbreeding due to isolation... enough mutation will take place to develop a new species seperate and unbreedable to the original species. Originally such mutations may be looked upon as birth defects.. but some birth defects, if the carrier of that gene breeds, become permanent changes in the DNA itself, and the first step to a new species.