Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught


PDA






rick_reno
August 2, 2005, 10:00 AM
and some other news about his upcoming agenda...including "immigration reform"

Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

Tuesday, August 2, 2005

(08-02) 04:05 PDT 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.


On other topics during the group interview, the president:


_Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a CIA officer's identity, but he stood behind Rove. "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said.


_Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.


_Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.


Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mzmtg
August 2, 2005, 10:24 AM
ID is not science and should not be taught as such.

Zundfolge
August 2, 2005, 10:30 AM
ID is not science and should not be taught as such.
Intelligent Design is as scientific as evolution ... some magic pixiedust causing primordial ooze to become life that violates the second law of thermodynamics by evolving into a more complex lifeform (and then each successive life form transmutating into a higher level of life like some sort of crazy communion wafer) Yeah, that's real scientific :rolleyes:

At least Intelligent Design doesn't violate the laws of physics ... and there is no requirement for Intelligent Design to be taught as Judeo/Christian Creationism ... all Intelligent Design Theory states is that there was an intelligent designer behind the creation and development of life.

Evolution is a THEORY so is Intelligent Design ... I see no reason why we should teach one unproven theory as fact over any other unproven theory. I say we teach both ... and more importantly we teach them both as theory.

Ransom
August 2, 2005, 10:32 AM
Evolution is a THEORY so is Intelligent Design ... I see no reason why we should teach one unproven theory as fact over any other unproven theory. I say we teach both ... and more importantly we teach them both as theory.

Someone doesnt know what "theory" means in scientific context. Evolution and ID are very different. Evolution can be studied and tested. ID cannot. ID is a hypothesis, not a theory. Evolution has a scientific leg up on ID whether you like it or not.

CannibalCrowley
August 2, 2005, 10:37 AM
ROTFLMFAO

If it was "intelligent" design then who designed the designer?

We were designed by spaghetti monsters! (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/dear_kansas_why_stop.html)

mzmtg
August 2, 2005, 10:38 AM
ID just an extension of the tired old "watchmaker" argument. It's internally inconsistent and therefore should not be considered.

RavenVT100
August 2, 2005, 10:47 AM
Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Let me explain something to you about that. First off, don't confuse it with Claude Shannon's work on entropy--it's a different model that has the same name and is in no way applicable to what we're talking about here.

The second law of thermodynamics and associated work was developed for the engineering of steam turbines and other machines whose engineering involves heat transfer. It is more of a mathematical model than anything else, and as such is poorly applicable to biology, although it does apply and I'll explain why in a second. It can be verbally explained in certain ways. Maxwell's explanation is thus:

Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature.
Mathematically, entropy is defined as

S = Q/T

where Q is the heat content of our system and T is the temperature. Differentiation obviously yields

dS = dQ/T

The second law, therefore, states the following:

dS >= 0.

That's it. In a closed system, entropy is always going to be increasing.

But guess what? When creationists claim that abiogenesis and evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, they're forgetting that the Earth is not a closed system. The Second Law doesn't apply to Earth's biology at all, since we're receiving megajoules of energy per day from the Sun. And coincidentally, life on Earth uses it directly, and most of the energy that our bodies use (and even our cars) can be traced back to the sun.

Creationism does not belong in a science curriculum because it is unscientific. It belongs in a theology discussion, not a scientific one.

CAnnoneer
August 2, 2005, 10:53 AM
As a professional scientist, I say:

There can be NO compromise on this issue, and only one outcome. ID is a Trojan horse that the religious zealots want to insert in the bastion of objective scientific inquiry at the grass roots level of the next generation of researchers. It is the equivalent of intellectual poison. :barf:

There are NO alternative explanations that can hold any water. If anyone wants to challenge science, let them become scientists and use legitimate objective inquiry methods to PROVE their point. But, I guess they wouldn't because they would then come to the same conclusions as us.

After such intellectual barf, can ANYBODY doubt that:

1) Bush and co are idiotic zealots
2) Bush and co are BAD for America?

dev_null
August 2, 2005, 10:55 AM
Equal time for opposing views.

If the ID people -- 99.99% of whom are Christians -- want equal time, that's fine. I also want to see equal time for all of the following:


Navajo Creation Theory
Hopi Creation Theory
Lakota Creation Theory
Egyptian Creation Theory (Ptah)
Egyptian Creation Theory (Osiris)
Sumerian Creation Theory
Chinese Creation Theory
Hindu Creation Theory
Japanese Creation Theory
Buddhism (all is illusion) Theory
Phlogiston Theory
Astrology
ESP
Giant Fuzzy Things From Space (aka Scientology)
Cthulhu
Godzilla
Pixies
Kappa, Tengu and Tanuki
Anansi
etc, etc

Daniel T
August 2, 2005, 10:55 AM
Intelligent Design is as scientific as evolution ... some magic pixiedust causing primordial ooze to become life that violates the second law of thermodynamics by evolving into a more complex lifeform (and then each successive life form transmutating into a higher level of life like some sort of crazy communion wafer) Yeah, that's real scientific

Honestly, when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you shouldn't bother posting.

Why don't you get back to us when you figure out what the Scientific Method actually is and how it applies to both evolution and ID.

Edit: Actually, you know what? How about you don't. This thread has no reason to exist on this board.

dave3006
August 2, 2005, 11:08 AM
It takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in ID.

The watchmaker example IS valid.

If evolution is true, then I can put a pile of M1 Garand parts on the floor of my garage and when I come back in 100 years, I will have a national match M1 Garand.

P.S. No one created God. He has always existed. Just because our puny little minds can't comprehend that fact, does not make it untrue.

rick_reno
August 2, 2005, 11:14 AM
I'm waiting for Bush and Co. to tell us why the chicken crossed the road.

Seriously, he needs a 1 on 1 with Karl so he can be told he doesn't have to pander to the religious folks anymore. He can go back to the coke sniffing/heavy drinking rich playboy he was before Karl got ahold of him.

Janitor
August 2, 2005, 11:14 AM
"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."
I once heard it proposed that the human race came from feces left by giant space exploring cockroaches. Would that be evolution or intelligent design? Guess it doesn't really matter. But it does meet the presidents criteria for what should be taught.

It's a different idea. And one with no less evidence than traditional ID theories.

Brett Bellmore
August 2, 2005, 11:15 AM
Anybody who's aquainted with engineering principles AND biology, understands that intelligent design theory would be taken by any "God" with a room temperature IQ as an insult. There are so many ghastly mistakes in the human body, patched with baroque work arounds... Like having this wonderful neurological mechanism for "painting" over holes in our visual field with whatever is around the hole, so we don't notice it, to make up for the fact that the nerves connected to the retina travel across it's FRONT, and then head towards the brain through a gaping hole in the retina.

But, sure, they should talk about ID theory; In the same chapter as Lysenkoism.

Johnnybgood
August 2, 2005, 11:16 AM
and throught the natural evolution of those who do not wish to believe that there is a God, because then they would have to admit that they are sinners and wrong, they turned it into a Theory but teach it in schools as if it were fact.

Hawkmoon
August 2, 2005, 11:19 AM
Equal time for opposing views.

If the ID people -- 99.99% of whom are Christians -- want equal time, that's fine. I also want to see equal time for all of the following:

* Navajo Creation Theory
* Hopi Creation Theory
* Lakota Creation Theory
* Egyptian Creation Theory (Ptah)
* Egyptian Creation Theory (Osiris)
* Sumerian Creation Theory
* Chinese Creation Theory
* Hindu Creation Theory
* Japanese Creation Theory
* Buddhism (all is illusion) Theory
* Phlogiston Theory
* Astrology
* ESP
* Giant Fuzzy Things From Space (aka Scientology)
* Cthulhu
* Godzilla
* Pixies
* Kappa, Tengu and Tanuki
* Anansi
* etc, etc
Excellent point. If the ID proponants would agree to teach all of the theories of creation (small 'C'), giving equal emphasis to each, and if they would agree to teach them in the context of theology or philosophy or history, I would agree. To teach it as science is, IMHO, not correct.

And this is from someone who accepts completely the existence of a Universal Intelligence, but doesn't have a clue what He/She/It/Them is/are.

CannibalCrowley
August 2, 2005, 11:23 AM
P.S. No one created God. He has always existed. Just because our puny little minds can't comprehend that fact, does not make it untrue. Ha, that reminds me of "it's turtles all the way down" (isn't that Pratchett?).

Evolution started out as a hypothesis and throught the natural evolution of those who do not wish to believe that there is a God, because then they would have to admit that they are sinners and wrong, they turned it into a Theory but teach it in schools as if it were fact.
First off it's clear that you don't know anything about the scientific method. Secondly, there are many religious people who believe in evolution; one can't say the same about ID.

Don Gwinn
August 2, 2005, 11:23 AM
You know, this thread was humming right along and then somebody just HAD to drag out the tired old anti-Giant Space Cockroach Feces biases. I will not hear GSCF Theory slandered in this small-minded and irrational manner! This thread is CLOSED!

mzmtg
August 2, 2005, 11:24 AM
The watchmaker example IS valid.



This explains it better than I can:

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!