Good to see the President on the Intelligent Design bandwagon

The Coffee Shop
1

Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

(AP) Tuesday, August 2, 2005 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.”

That the Christian nut-jobs, who want to impose their scientifically unsupported beliefs thru the public school system, are no using the rationale that students “ought to be exposed to different ideas” is both laughable & disturbing at the same time.

2

So you don’t think students should be exposed to different views?

3

Do you have a scan-bot that tracks slowtwitch so that any time a religious thread pops up you can immediately respond?

I have no problem teaching different views–however Intelligent Design/Creationism should not be taught in science classes alongside Evolution, but in religious-philosophy classes.

There is a difference between a proven fact (Evolution) and a belief (Creationism).

4

Obviously, Bush must be an expert on the subject if he knows which theories have scientific validity. I wonder where he got his biology degree.

5

It is nice to know that evolution is now a proven fact. I hope you publish soon. I am sure a Nobel prize awaits your work! By the way, my understanding is that the discussion had to do with the origin of life for which evolution provides no answer.

6

you are correct that origin of life and evolution are two different things. it is incorrect, however, to say that intelligent design is only about origin of life. the premise behind intelligent design is that there are things and processes that are too complex to be explained by evolution; but rather, there must be an intelligent designer that created these higher organisms and processes. i.d. is meant to counter directly evolutionary theory.

7

You are confusing the two. Evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community as a fact: organisms do evolve. I’ll be glad to argue this all day long.

Intelligent Design is what the true believers have had to fall back on as yes, evolution does not (yet) explain the exact orgin of life.

That being said, which do you think is most likely true: that the world is 5-6k years old & God created in a week (to quote Bill Maher), or that it is millions of years old, and that there is a scientific explanation for the beginning of rudimentary life which then evolved?

Of course if you are a Mormon or a Scientologist, you have a completely different set of beliefs, which just coincidently coincide with Christianity in that they cannot be proven.

8

Ah, ok. So somehow it is published and agreed upon that evolution is the de facto consensus and standard that has been established as “the answer”.

Congratulations. You’re the first person I know who has categorically stated this as the outright answer.

9

**“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.” **

It should be taught. Not in a Science class based on scientific method (inquiry), but definately in a philosophy or philosophy of science class. The Scientific method does have some rather significant limitations … we should not let those imitations govern everything. Those limitations may form the parameters of the actual science classroom.

Let’s not get all bent out of shape based on a generic statement made by the president.

Are you saying people should not be exposed to different ideas? =)

There are teachers (and scientists as well, some quite well known ones) that mix their philosophy and their science together so well that the recipients of their information cannot tell the difference between the two. It’s quite a significant problem, IMO.

Edit: i.d. is meant to counter directly evolutionary theory.

Or to suggest that there is an intelligent designer behind or using evolution. ID is not so quickly minimized. IMO, it is intentionally vague. That’s also it’s problem.

ID simply says, that there is some type of intelligence out there that is responsible for the complexity and order of everything we see. Whether it is accomplsihed through miracles or naturalistic pathways, the designer is still there. That’s what ID says.

Behe’s “irreducibly complex” definitions should not be used to define ID.

10

of course evolution is the consensus and scientific standard. you’ve got it just right. now, of course we both realize that consensus and standard doesn’t mean infallible or established beyond all doubt right? well, i realize that anyways…

11

“I am sure a Nobel prize awaits your work!”

Mopdahl, unlike Bush, doesn’t claim to know anything that is contrary to the consensus of opinion about biologists. So he won’t qualify for a Nobel. But Bush apparently thinks he has some new scientific evidence, so I’ll be very interested to learn more about it and to see if he might qualify for the prize.

“By the way, my understanding is that the discussion had to do with the origin of life for which evolution provides no answer.”

On the matter of the initial origin of the first life, evolutionary theory is comparatively speculative–just as historians (or prehistorians) tend to be much more speculative when it comes to the origins of civilization. That doesn’t invalidate history, and it doesn’t invalidate evolution. But what’s really interesting is that Bush regards Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. That means he must have some new explanation of the origin of the Designer, presumably backed by scientific evidence. I’ll be eager to learn more!

12

Does:

Evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community as a fact

equal:

“the answer”

?

I think moppy is correctly stating that evolution is the leading scientific theory, which means it is prevailing scientific thought till it is disproved. I’m sure you’ve seen this a number of times now, but I really don’t think moppy was overstepping the bounds in his statement (at least the one I’m referencing, I won’t speak to his other statements):

In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

13

You may be correct on ID. I confess that I have a very limited understanding of the theory. However, while evolution explains much about biological change over time and is the currently accepted standard (I accept it as well), it fails quite remarkably if used to explain the origin of life. It is in explaining the origin of life where I think ID gains some traction.

14

Well said.

*It is in explaining the origin of life where I think ID gains some traction. *

Ok, but do you think it should be taught in a scientific course–somebody already mentioned it, but the blurring of lines b/t generally accepted scienific theory (or fact as I’ll refer to it when speaking about evolution) and a religious belief is troubling to me.

Orgins of civilization is a good one: I used to work offshore as a commercial diver, mainly working for PEMEX out of Ciudad del Carmen in Campeche Mexico. We were on down time one afternoon, watching the Mexican riggers on a platform–instead of scaffolding & safety, there were planks tied to ropes tied every which way–incredibly risky–basically we were watching, waiting for someone to fall (yes, I know it was macabre, but they were averaging about one work related accident per day so wtf), when the older diver next to me turned to me and said “No way those fuckers built their pyramids”. Funny at the time but true; there are parts of civilization that nobody (yet) understands, however I personally don’t feel that just because one religious group has an unproven theory as to how/why it happened, that belief should be taught in public schools, at least under the guise of science.

15

Next up - magic will be taught as an alternative to physics…

16

Good comedy.

Careful, you don’t want to insult Magicians for Christ.

17

I am not confusing the two and you are far too loose with your language. The theory of evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community not as fact but as the best theory in explaining biological development over time. It is not a fact and your offer to argue with me about it will not make it so. Moreover, with respect to the theory of evolution and its potential for being correct, you and I are in violent agreement. Nevertheless, as I mentioned in a reply to someone else, the theory of evolution is a spectacular failure when it comes to explaining the origin of life. ID tends to gain some traction at this point. Now, I do not equate ID with Genesis and my limited understanding is that it is not supposed to be (however if you read Genesis as an allegory for creation, the order of things seems to be largely correct). I think ID gains traction in its ability to postulate a theory for the origin of life which then can either be worked into the theory of evolution or stand in stark contrast to it. By this I mean that one can postulate that the designer, after the act of creation, put in place the mechanism for change (evolution) thereby ensuring that life has the opportunity to adapt and thus continue over the vast expanse of time. In other words, evolution was part of the design. Or one can postulate that the designer simply created life as it stands today some 10 to 15K years ago. This latter theory I find unacceptable and quite clearly refuted by the archeological record. Thus, I would support including the former in a science class but would reject teaching the latter.

18

Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

“Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years.”

Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn’t know that you’d gone to so much trouble. That’s good. You believe the world’s 12,000 years old?

“That’s right.”

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

“Uh-huh.”

Dinosaurs.

You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you’d think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus… with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin’: ‘What a big fucking lizard, Lord!’ But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus’s paw and the big lizard became his friend.

"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.

“And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord.”

Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.

He said, “Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith.”

Thank God I’m strapped in right now here man.

I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude.

You believe that?

“uh huh.”

Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God… might be… fuckin’ with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:

“Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha.”

“I am God, I am a prankster.”

“I am killing Me.”

You know, You die and go to St. Peter…

“Did you believe in dinosaurs?”

“Well, yeah. There was fossils everywhere”

Thuh

“Aaaaaaarhhh!”

“You fuckin idiot.”

“Flying lizards, you’re a moron. God was fuckin’ with you!”

“It seemed so plausible, ahhhh!”

“Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!”

You ever noticed how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved? Ya ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet.

“I believe God created me in one day”

Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.

19

Our posts seem to be missing each other. I do think that certain ID theories / creation theories can be taught in a science class. It is the attempt to explain that which we now can not that is at the heart of scientific inquiry. Develop a theory or theories (1) Big Bang, (2) Divine Creator, (3) Super Intelligence, (4) Aliens … whatever you can postulate. Then, one by one, examine the record and see if support can be found. What argues in favor … and what argues against. To me the origin of life is wide open … have at it. Maybe smarter people than me will figure it out. Why limit what can be taught, discussed, explored because of some fear that we might be teaching or (horror of all horrors) be seen as supporting a relgious idea.

20

It is nice to know that evolution is now a proven fact. I hope you publish soon. I am sure a Nobel prize awaits your work! By the way, my understanding is that the discussion had to do with the origin of life for which evolution provides no answer.
If the discussion had to do with the origin of life, why was evolution being discussed?