Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

[Amelia]

Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

(08-02) WASHINGTON, (AP) --

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.

[Bravus]

I think there are actually very few people who have a problem with intelligent design being taught in school over all. What they have a problem with is it being taught in science class. Whether you believe it is correct or not, it is clear that Intelligent Design is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific one. As such, it has a place in religion courses and in philosophy courses, but it is out of place in science courses.

[Planey]

So I guess the SETI program is a metaphysical program and not a scientific one. As such, I hope it does not qualify for any government scientific funding.

Graeme

[Bravus]

Hmm, not so much: if a radio signal from an alien species comes in, for example, it will be evidence that can be tested and analysed. What would constitute 'evidence' that the universe was intelligently designed? Any particular piece of the universe can be seen as designed either by random processes of evolution or by intentional processes of a designer, but there's nothing specific in the object itself that decides between the two explanations. It has to be a faith choice, and therefore is metaphysical. Rerun transmissions of the alien equivalent of 'I Love Lucy', on the other hand, are highly unlikely to have arisen by random processes...

Please note, once again, that I'm not saying metaphysical teachings are valueless or should be excluded: it's merely a domain distinction that means they're not part of science, and shouldn't be taught as such. If science teachers make metaphysical pronouncements based on evolution that is equally inappropriate in science class.

[Dr. Shane]

Intelligent design is based on scientific observation. The scientists that embrace it are in the minority but do form a scientific opinion that is not theological. Based on scientific observation they can come to no other conclusion than that of intelligent design. Observation is the basis of science. There are actually scientists that have embraced evolution for years - some have even been authors of textbooks - that have come to believe in intelligent design based on their scientific observation.

Now to make the leap from intelligent design to "In the beginning was the Word... all things were made through Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." obviously goes outside the realm of science and into theology.

Darwin himself had problems with the evolution of the eye. He believed as science advanced it would become explained. Over 150 years later it still hasn't been. In fact with the advancing science, DNA has converted a number of evolutionists to believe in intelligent design.

Intelligence design simply raises the question, based on scientific observation, on whether or not there is a limit on what science can explain. If scientists took water and anylized it and then a Man came and turned it into wine and they anylized that, would it be wrong for them to teach that science could not offer an explnation for the transformation of the water into wine without considering some sort of extraordinary action having taken place? Those that embrace intelligent design believe that there are a lot of "water-into-wine" observations that cannot be explained. (I.e. eyes and DNA)

It is dishonest for the scientific community to teach evolution as an accepted fact without teaching that there is a minority group of scientists that disagree on the conclusions of observations. Science cannot answer all our questions. It can only speculate on some. That is what should be taught.

[Bravus]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

[Dr. Shane]

Darwin knew everything Nilsson knows. Yet he still considered the evolution of the human eye "absurd in the highest degree". Darwin speculated how the eye might have evolved but still considered it an aburd possibility. He thought as science advanced it would be better explained. Evolutionists like, Nilsson are still using the same speculative ideas Darwin listed in 1872.

Here is an article that puts the issue in a good perspective.

Debate over the origin of life between Evolutionists and Creationists.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

No humans observed the creation or evolution of the universe in its entirety. There would be no possible way to repeat the creation of the universe so all beliefs as to how the earth was created are technically theories, because they are not, by definition, scientific.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Of course we cannot forget this classic.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Nilsson fails to grasp the idea of sin when he states, "If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design." The Spirit of Prophecy tells us in heaven we will see things with our eyes that we now need microscopes and telescopes to see. Sin has had an incredible impact on our sight as well as all of creation.

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Any particular piece of the universe can be seen as designed either by random processes of evolution or by intentional processes of a designer

---

So if we see a wonderfully intricate. incredibly complicated system such as the biosphere on this earth, it is obviously designed by 'the random processes of evolution'. But if we find some electromagnetic radiation that appears to have some modicum of arrangement in it, then this is obviously 'the intelligent process of a designer.'

It is now all amazingly clear.

Graeme

[Bravus]

<img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[bevin]

Intelligent Design does NOT solve the SDA dilemma, because the Intelligent Design supports BELIEVE IN A BILLIONS-OF-YEARS-OLD Earth!

Quote:

---

It is dishonest for the scientific community to teach evolution as an accepted fact without teaching that there is a minority group of scientists that disagree on the conclusions of observations.

---

They don't - they teach that no credible alternative has been proposed. This is true. Short term creationism simply does not fit the available data. ALL scientific theories are examined by experiments, and all experiments are repeated and examined by others.

All the short term creationists have to do is

1 - explain the phenomona I listed in the origins forum, and more

2 - come up with a single experiment that the evolution contradicts evolution.

They have been unable to do either.

Eyes HAVE BEEN largely explained. Eyes are NOT the huge hurdle you have been led to believe by your lying sources...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Quote:

---

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, [:"red"]eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.[/] The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

---

And here-in lies the really nasty twist. Many public creationist advocates are either (a) liars, or ( incredibly self-deluded. They keep repeatings arguments that have been thoroughly discredited, so that they and their desperate supporters have something - however flimsy - to cling to.

Wake up and STUDY BOTH SIDES THOROUGHLY. The result is a real shock for christians who do so.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Why shouldn't Intelligent Design be taught in science classes? Don't science classes properly include discussion of the philosophies of science? Historically, the scientific method was devised by scientists of ages past who all believed in Creation, who were able to postulate that natural laws were realiable and could be counted on to produce the same experimental results when repeated, because they assumed that the Creator was in charge of His creation. Faith in natural order was predicated on faith in the Creator of natural order.

The purely naturalistic approach, which in essense ammounts to denying anything miraculous, ulitmately is forced to conclude that: "In the beginning was nothing, which suddenly exploded." Intelligent Design can do better than that.

As for the mind-damaging idea that faith and science should be compartmentalized, so that we teach science in one class, and any theory of origins that includes the idea of a Creator in a different class, we need to face up to this inescapable truth: If God exists, then He is a part of reality. Therefore no one can be a really competent, honest, and responsible scientist if he arbitrarily insists on ignoring a part of reality.

[Tom Wetmore]

This comment from the current Borowitz Report - "Elsewhere, President Bush said today that the theory of "intelligent design" explains the creation of life on Earth but not his Social Security plan."

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Intelligent Design does NOT solve the SDA dilemma

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I believe this thread is about Intelligent design and not the SDA dilemma.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Many public creationist advocates are either (a) liars, or ( incredibly self-deluded.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Maybe it is just me, but these seems to be inflamatory, emotionally charged language.

[Dr. Shane]

This is the issue with the development of eyes. Charles Darwin himself considered the evolution of the eye to be "absurd in the highest degree". After making that statement Darwin went on to suggest posabilities for the eye's evolution. Those are the same possabilities being put forth today. Darwin expected that as science advanced the mystery would unravel. However evolutionists today are still making the same speculations about it as Darwin did. So if Darwin considered it "absurd in the highest degree" knowing what he knew, and science has not come up with any more explanations regarding it, than it is still "absurd in the highest degree".

It is a mistake to claim Christians use the development of the eye to discount evoluition. Christians simply point out that it was Darwin himself that pointed to the eye as a problem with the theory.

Darwin also stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." More and more scientists are now coming to belive that DNA is so complex that it could not have evolved and thus breaks Darwin's theory of evolution.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, BACK ON TOPIC

"Press Baits Bush on Intelligent Design, Then Fuels Debate over his Response."

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This story, while ludicrously biased, contains a sign of hope: it is a measure of the elite establishment's fear that the Darwinian grip on culture is slipping. In the elite's frantic attempt to protect their shrinking scientific turf, they must insist on a "scientific consensus"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Amelia]

Bush Praised for Defending Free Speech on Theory of Life's Origin

By Jim Brown

August 5, 200

(AgapePress) - President Bush is being praised for stating that public school students should be exposed to different schools of thought on the subject of the origins of life.

Earlier this week, the president told reporters that schools should feel free to include alternative theories to Darwinism, such as intelligent design, in their science curriculum. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas," he told reporters, "and the answer is yes."

And while Bush did not reveal his personal views on evolution, his comments drew the ire of several critics, among them liberal Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But Dr. John West with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says the president should be praised for defending free speech on evolution.

"We'd encourage the president to help defend the right of scientists who are employed by the federal government," West says, "that they have the right to criticize Darwin's theory just like the president has articulated, [and] that people have the right to study the different views."

Intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. West's group is the nation's leading think tank supporting research on the theory of intelligent design. He points out that President Bush was merely echoing the sentiments of 70 to 80 percent of Americans, who when polled have said they want students to learn all the facts about Darwinian theory.

"There are only a tiny minority of people who don't believe that, who don't believe in free speech on evolution," he explains. "Unfortunately, they happen to be in some of the places of power. And so it's very good and we're very pleased that President Bush has come out on the side of academic freedom on evolution -- not on the side of censorship."

West says the Discovery Institute opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design in schools, but supports requiring students to know about scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. State science standards in three states -- Ohio, New Mexico, and Minnesota -- require students to know such information.

[Amelia]

Critics Skewer Bush for Lending Credibility to Intelligent Design in Schools

By Jody Brown

August 4, 2005

(AgapePress) - While on the surface not as controversial as the war on terror, the push for same-sex "marriage," or the debate surrounding his first-ever nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Bush's comments earlier this week regarding the teaching of intelligent design have generated both praise and criticism.

Speaking with a group of Texas newspaper reporters on Monday, the president made it clear that he believes intelligent design -- the view that an intelligent, unseen force is behind creation -- should be taught right alongside the theory of evolution. Both sides of the issue, stated the president, should be properly taught.

"Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

The White House and many other observers point out the president's response is not really front-page news. They note that President Bush, even when he was governor of Texas, felt strongly that school boards should be allowed to decide whether to teach other theories on the origin of life besides that espoused by Darwin. But his remarks this week did not stop his critics from taking advantage of the opportunity.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts told The Washington Post that the president's remarks are "further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party." And noting Bush's Ivy League background, the liberal lawmaker added: "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

And the executive director Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn, called the president's comments "irresponsible," suggesting they demonstrate a "low level of understanding of science." The president, Lynn stated, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint."

Even one conservative senator -- Republican Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania -- has put himself at odds with President Bush on the subject. Santorum says intelligent design lacks scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes. In an interview with National Public Radio today (Thursday), the senator said that he feels there are "holes" in the theory of evolution and that schools should deal with those in a fair and scientific say.

He's Not Alone

But President Bush has his backers as well. One of them is a Michigan-based law firm that is representing a Pennsylvania school district that has been sued for mentioning the theory of intelligent design in ninth-grade biology classes. The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor is applauding the president for his remarks.

The Law Center's Richard Thompson says evolution advocates would have people believe the debate is science versus religion. But that is not the case, Thompson says; it is science versus science.

"Credible scientists are looking at the same observable facts and concluding that complex biological systems are best explained by intelligent design, not undirected chance," the attorney explains. "The same scientists who object to intelligent design being mentioned in public schools, seem to have no problems discussing the Big Bang theory -- despite its religious overtones."

And besides, notes a Law Center press release, recent national polls indicate a majority of Americans say they would like to see intelligent design -- along with alternate theories -- taught alongside evolution in their children's schools.

Gary Bauer of American Values says the president's "rather innocuous" statement has "America's academic elites ... foaming at the mouth." Bush's support for the teaching of intelligent design, he says, has earned the Chief Executive "contemptuous reactions" -- even though it is a belief shared by most Americans.

However, Bauer believes it would have been a different story had the president come out in favor of such radical ideas as "alternative families" or homosexual marriage. "For that," he says, "President Bush would have been hailed [in the media] as a brave and courageous leader."

[Bravus]

Interesting relevant document: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dgeelan/Devolution.pdf