President Bush Endorses Intelligent Design?

[tmontana 0]

I know that the debate has been discussed several times here but i'm still amazed at what comes out of this President's mouth.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/231_president_bush_endorses_intell_8_3_2005.asp

___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[Nightingale 0]

Sure. "Both sides should be properly taught."

The theory of evolution should be taught in science classes, where it belongs, in the proper context, along with the other scientific theories, such as string theory and relativity.

The ideas of the bible, creationism and intelligent design should be taught in social studies, sociology, religious studies, or history classes, in the proper context, along with other religious teachings and mythology, such as Islam's Koran and Hindu's Vedas.

Course, I don't think that was exactly what Bush meant...

[Zenister 0]

stop making sense.. you'll never get elected to public office that way...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

As long as he's endorsing it, I wish he'd apply some of that "Intelligent Design" to his foreign policy.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

As long as he's endorsing it, I wish he'd apply some of that "Intelligent Design" to his foreign policy.

Now that's funny...

illegible usually

[Tyrion 0]

I do wish they would teach evolution as theory though and not fact. It's far from proven.

Intelligent design IS another very valid theory, with much scientific backup, but people never hear or read about that side of things, they merely dismiss it as religious babble.

The way i see it, there's 2 options. Either there is a God and he created the universe, or there is no God and the universe created itself (evolution). If science had disproved God then the first option would have been done away with a long time ago, but it hasn't and can't, so why teach evolution as fact? It has so many holes in it's theory, even all the top scientists will say so.

The philosophy behind science should also be taught in schools, but unfortunately it isn't so many people just take whatever "science" says as fact, but the real fact is that "science" chagnes it's standpoint and opinion on stuff all the time, and really doesn't know much for sure at all.

I have looked into both theories myself, and both theories hold alot of water depending on the pre-suppositions you come at them with. (and there's always pre-suppositions assumed whether we like it or not.... the biggest of those being, "Is there a God").

[billvon 3,076]

>I do wish they would teach evolution as theory though and not
>fact. It's far from proven.

We know that species evolve. We have seen new species evolve within our lifetimes. Any biologist who does not believe evolution works in a very real way cannot be competent at his job; he would be at a massive disadvantage. He'd be about as hireable as an airline pilot who believed the earth was flat. ("I can't fly to Beijing! I'll fall off the edge!")

>Intelligent design IS another very valid theory . . .

Intelligent design is indeed a theory, but it is a religious, not a scientific, one. If God did it, it gets taught in a religion class. If nature did it, it gets taught in a science class. If man did it, it gets taught in a history class. That's pretty simple. It would surely make no sense to teach the glory and the passion of a nuclear reactor in a religion class.

>The way i see it, there's 2 options. Either there is a God and he
>created the universe, or there is no God and the universe created
>itself (evolution). If science had disproved God then the first option
> would have been done away with a long time ago, but it hasn't and
>can't . . .

By definition. Science does indeed disprove parts of the bible (i.e. the Genesis literal interpretation, the Noah story, the idea that you can see the entire earth from a tall mountain) but it cannot disprove faith, since faith is something you believe without proof.

But science doesn't work that way. What is taught in science is what can be proved, and what theories can be shown to best fit the facts. It is not influenced by what you want to believe without proof.

>It has so many holes in it's theory, even all the top scientists will say so.

Uh, no. There are a very small group of scientists behind the latest creationism effort (i.e. ID.) Their claims have all been debunked.

>The philosophy behind science should also be taught in schools, but
> unfortunately it isn't so many people just take whatever "science"
> says as fact, but the real fact is that "science" chagnes it's
> standpoint and opinion on stuff all the time, and really doesn't know
> much for sure at all.

Science knows quite a bit, and is learning more all the time. The idea that "well, nothing really works like science says it does, so the world could have been a ball chewed by a puppy as much as it could have condensed from a protosolar disk" is invalid.

>I have looked into both theories myself, and both theories hold alot
> of water depending on the pre-suppositions you come at them with.

Of course. But "holds water", "seems right to me", "supports my belief system," "reinforces my faith," "proves we're not godless," "glorifies God" or whatever rationale you want to use is simply not the same as "scientifically valid." And what we should teach in science classes should be scientifically valid.

[tmontana 0]

I do wish people would understand the difference between a scientific theory and the everyday use of it.
Some other scientific theories besides evolution include the theories of:

heliocentrism - the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System.

Plate Tectonics - the theory that the surface of the Earth is broken into large plates.

Should we also teach the alternatives to those theories?


Intelligent design is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory. I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis since no amount of evidence could prove it wrong.

Also, i still don't under why people think that they can't still believe in God and accept the theory of evolution, they don't necessarily contradict each other.

___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Also, i still don't under why people think that they can't still believe in God and accept the theory of evolution, they don't necessarily contradict each other.

that's exactly what I and a few others have been saying from time to time on here.

(edited to add: Consider that not even Pope John Paul II himself had a problem with evolution.)

What's ironic is that the fundamentalist Christians and the fundamentalist atheists (yes, they're out there, and on this forum sometimes) have come to the same conclusion:
That one (science or religion) contradicts & entirely displaces the other: you gotta believe in ONLY one and REJECT the other!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

The way i see it, there's 2 options. Either there is a God and he created the universe, or there is no God and the universe created itself (evolution).

Or a third option: There is a God and God created life with the capacity to change & adapt in response to environmental changes. Just as God in his wisdom created other systems that work & interact so well in the universe. It would seem to me that such a model would give glory to God as much as any other.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Why shouldn't they teach it? After all the church has advanced such great scientific 'theory' that placed the Earth at the center of the universe.

Hey, being ignorant didn't stop Bush from advancing up the ranks....so how bad can it be teaching fiction as fact?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Tyrion 0]

>We know that species evolve. We have seen new species evolve within our lifetimes. Any biologist who does not believe evolution works in a very real way cannot be competent at his job; he would be at a massive disadvantage. He'd be about as hireable as an airline pilot who believed the earth was flat. ("I can't fly to Beijing! I'll fall off the edge!")

Creationists have no problem with microevolution, it's macroevolution that the problem lies with. Macroevolution had not been observed, cannot be measured, and is largely speculative. This is why I disagree to it being taught as fact.

Microevolution is common sense, and can be observed and measured.

>Intelligent design is indeed a theory, but it is a religious, not a scientific, one. If God did it, it gets taught in a religion class. If nature did it, it gets taught in a science class. If man did it, it gets taught in a history class. That's pretty simple. It would surely make no sense to teach the glory and the passion of a nuclear reactor in a religion class.

You divorce science from religion like the two are not related somehow. I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. You're saying God can't exist within the realms of science, which is rediculous if there is a God. It's like it just gets chucked in the relgious nut bin if the word God is even mentioned.

>Science does indeed disprove parts of the bible (i.e. the Genesis literal interpretation

Depends on your presuppositions.

>the Noah story

Depends on your presuppositions. There's more credence for a world-wide flood than you probably realize or have researched. Presuppositions are everything.

>the idea that you can see the entire earth from a tall mountain

Not sure where that one comes from, mind showing me from the bible? (www.biblegateway.com)

>but it cannot disprove faith, since faith is something you believe without proof.

What proof is needed? Something phsyical.... tangible... observed or measured.... like macroevolution?

Belief that macroevolution is fact is faith, because it cannot be reproduced, measured, observed... its just a theory.

>But science doesn't work that way. What is taught in science is what can be proved, and what theories can be shown to best fit the facts. It is not influenced by what you want to believe without proof.

That's bulldust. Macroevolution (and you may notice i'm drawing the distinction now between the two types, because they are both different) cannot be proved as you just said "What is taught in science is what can be proved", it is merely as you said "what theories can be shown to best fit the facts". Take God out of the equation, and macroevolution fits SOME facts.

(This next sentence is not a personal attack!) By the way those two statements of yours contradicted... which is it? Science is something that can be proved? Or, science is a theory which fits some of the facts? Because one does not equal the other.

>Uh, no. There are a very small group of scientists behind the latest creationism effort (i.e. ID.) Their claims have all been debunked.
There more scientists than you think, and all their claims have certainly not been debunked. Take a poke around this site http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and read some of the material. They have a really good magazine with interesting reading, that is, if you have an open mind and willingness to consider a differing point of view... many can't handle it because it flies in the face of what they've been taught all these years, that macroevolution is fact, etc.

>Science knows quite a bit, and is learning more all the time. The idea that "well, nothing really works like science says it does, so the world could have been a ball chewed by a puppy as much as it could have condensed from a protosolar disk" is invalid.

I know science knows quite a bit, but teaching things as fact when they are theory is the bit that bugs me.

>Of course. But "holds water", "seems right to me", "supports my belief system," "reinforces my faith," "proves we're not godless," "glorifies God" or whatever rationale you want to use is simply not the same as "scientifically valid." And what we should teach in science classes should be scientifically valid.

"holds water" is what I meant by "scientifically valid", please don't try to stereotype me as some religious nutter. Neither has more validity than the other. If you had extensively studied both sides, you might see this. What you and most everyone else has seen is only what they are fed in schools and universities though.

Edit: For typos.

[Tyrion 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, i still don't under why people think that they can't still believe in God and accept the theory of evolution, they don't necessarily contradict each other.

that's exactly what I and a few others have been saying from time to time on here.

(edited to add: Consider that not even Pope John Paul II himself had a problem with evolution.)

What's ironic is that the fundamentalist Christians and the fundamentalist atheists (yes, they're out there, and on this forum sometimes) have come to the same conclusion:
That one (science or religion) contradicts & entirely displaces the other: you gotta believe in ONLY one and REJECT the other!

Some may not have a problem with God using creation, but Christians should. If you're a Christian "Theistic Evolution" basically blows away all biblical authority, on which Christianity is founded. Most Roman Catcholics (like the pope) wouldn't have a problem with it because they've been adding stuff to the bible for hundreds of years anyway....

[tbrown 26]

Quote

As long as he's endorsing it, I wish he'd apply some of that "Intelligent Design" to his foreign policy.

This a president who lies awake at night because he hears the cries of the stem cells.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Intelligent design IS another very valid theory, with much scientific backup, but people never hear or read about that side of things, they merely dismiss it as religious babble.

Penn and Teller covered the topic quite well on Showtime. And yeah, since it has as much evidence to support it as any other conspiracy theory (ie, none), it's bullshit.

Evolution can be tested and demonstrated. The fossil record is quite telling, unless in your world Earth is only 6000 years old and those artifacts were planted by God. Nice dodge, but nothing supports that fantasty.

The closest attempt to an argument for creationism (forget the phony intelligent design marketing) is that the odds are so small. I can use the same approach to PROVE that no one ever wins the lottery - some of those games have odds of 100 million to 1. It only has to happen once in billions of years on (likely) billions of potential planets. On all the failed outcomes, no one exists to ponder the odds.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

I do wish they would teach evolution as theory though and not fact. It's far from proven.

Intelligent design IS another very valid theory, with much scientific backup, but people never hear or read about that side of things, they merely dismiss it as religious babble.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

... The fossil record is quite telling, unless in your world Earth is only 6000 years old and those artifacts were planted by God. Nice dodge, but nothing supports that fantasty.

Ahh but you don't understand. The fossil record exactly supports the flood. When God started the floods the smallest animals were the first to die. Hence they are found in the lowest layers. Honestly .

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Lindsey 0]

Creationists have no problem with microevolution, it's macroevolution that the problem lies with. Macroevolution had not been observed, cannot be measured, and is largely speculative. This is why I disagree to it being taught as fact.

I think that creationists came up with a way of dividing evolution into two "kinds" of evolution for the sake of holding onto some shred of hope that their creationist theory is valid. Evolution is evolution. There is no qualitative difference between what you call microevolution and macroevolution.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Course, I don't think that was exactly what Bush meant...

That's a biased assumption. How do you know that? The questions from that reporter were desperately attempting to twist what Bush actually said. You quoted it exactly. He never said that Intelligent Design should be taught along side Evolution and with equal "scientific" emphasis.

[Channman 2]

Maybe its because evolution is presented as fact in the class room by many teachers and not as a theory for which it is.

[wmw999 2,545]

Please read up on "theory." The specifics of gravity is also a theory, but we use it every time we make a jump.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Maybe its because evolution is presented as fact in the class room by many teachers and not as a theory for which it is.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Please read up on "theory." The specifics of gravity is also a theory, but we use it every time we make a jump.

Wendy W.

Ahhh but thats where your wrong.

This "gravity" thing is merely a theory. Where's representation for the 'Earth Sucks' theory which is just as valid as the whole 'Gravity' thing.

Sure, on a microcosmic scale one could say that 'gravity' exists, as it has been shown too in lab experiments. However, no one has been able to prove on a macrocosmic scale that the Earth is not sucking. Experiments on the moon have shown that there is far LESS of this gravity stuff available. This is because, quite obviously, more people enjoy seeing the Moon in the sky, so it does not suck quite as much.

Please, get your science straight before attempting to join in a discussion dealing with such complex concepts as gravity, evolution, and god, sucks.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Please read up on "theory." The specifics of gravity is also a theory, but we use it every time we make a jump.

Wendy W.

Ahhh but thats where your wrong.

This "gravity" thing is merely a theory. Where's representation for the 'Earth Sucks' theory which is just as valid as the whole 'Gravity' thing.

Sure, on a microcosmic scale one could say that 'gravity' exists, as it has been shown too in lab experiments. However, no one has been able to prove on a macrocosmic scale that the Earth is not sucking. Experiments on the moon have shown that there is far LESS of this gravity stuff available. This is because, quite obviously, more people enjoy seeing the Moon in the sky, so it does not suck quite as much.

Please, get your science straight before attempting to join in a discussion dealing with such complex concepts as gravity, evolution, and god, sucks.

Yeah wendy....get your science straight....lol

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[crwtom 0]

Quote

The way i see it, there's 2 options. Either there is a God and he created the universe, or there is no God and the universe created itself (evolution). If science had disproved God then the first option would have been done away with a long time ago, but it hasn't and can't, so why teach evolution as fact? It has so many holes in it's theory, even all the top scientists will say so.

I can't believe there are still people out there entering this type of debate and committing the most elementary logical fallacies .

As I posted somewhere earlier I am a firm believer that the universe was created by in the Marxomosian Trinity in exacyly 723.45 days and was the result of a lost bet of them with a distant uncle of theirs. Nobody could prove me wrong. Therefore my theory must be taught in schools as a valid alternatve !

Quote

It has so many holes in it's theory, even all the top scientists will say so.

All biologists working at half-way respectable research institutions base their knowledge on evolution. This is really 101 stuff, taught in every introductory biology class of univeristies. Take that away and you can forget about modern biology altogther.

Quote

The philosophy behind science should also be taught in schools, but unfortunately it isn't so many people just take whatever "science" says as fact, but the real fact is that "science" chagnes it's standpoint and opinion on stuff all the time, and really doesn't know much for sure at all.

Here I actually do agree very much. Science is a continuing struggle for better undertanding the world we live in, and conceptualizing, predicting und causally explaining the things we (reproducably) measure in it - by anything from a rigorous experiment to just looking at it. Continuously scientists produce new experimental data that needs to be fit into old concepts - if it doesn't the concept has to be revised or expanded. Sometimes, even without new data, people find better and more efficient ways to explain and summarize into one theory past experiments, very often by destroying "hidden" invalid preconceptions in the old theories (eg the absoluteness of time preceeding special relativity).

Religion could not be more different. It rigidly puts one book (one of many, and one that is almost entirely uncorroborated) as the only truth and the end of all wisdom into place. Any questioning and hypothesis testing --- a day-by-day routine in science --- is deemed as blasphemie and people have been burned on the stake for it.

It also offers absolutely no better understanding of the world around you. If you invent some mysterious entity XYZ and shovel all that you don't know into the box "Becasue XYZ wants it so" you haven't done any explaination. For example,
Q:"Why does a stone drop to the ground"
A:"Because XYZ wants it to be on the ground";
Q:"Why does it rain from the clouds"
A:"Because XYZ makes it rain from there"
Q:"How does the engine of my car work?"
A:"Through XYZ's wisdom, which is incomprehensible to mortals.
Q:"Why do we exist?"
A:"Because XYZ created us"
Not only do these answer not give any explaination - they actually try to intimidate and threaten with punishment if you try to ask further.

Yes, one should teach more the way science works and how that is different fom the way religion works.

Quote

(and there's always pre-suppositions assumed whether we like it or not.... the biggest of those being, "Is there a God").

You can only (dis)prove a question that in itself is well defined. There is no definition of any reasonable rigor of what this "God" thing is supposed to be. Hence the entire question is pointless.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true