1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

Discussion in 'Legal' started by rick_reno, Aug 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    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.
  2. mzmtg

    mzmtg member

    ID is not science and should not be taught as such.
  3. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. Ransom

    Ransom Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. CannibalCrowley

    CannibalCrowley Well-Known Member

  6. mzmtg

    mzmtg member

    ID just an extension of the tired old "watchmaker" argument. It's internally inconsistent and therefore should not be considered.
  7. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Well-Known Member

    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:
    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.
  8. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Well-Known Member

    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?
  9. dev_null

    dev_null Well-Known Member

    And this is gun related how?

    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
  10. Daniel T

    Daniel T Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. dave3006

    dave3006 member

    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.
  12. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    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.
  13. Janitor

    Janitor Senior Member

    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.
  14. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. Johnnybgood

    Johnnybgood Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. CannibalCrowley

    CannibalCrowley Well-Known Member

    Ha, that reminds me of "it's turtles all the way down" (isn't that Pratchett?).

    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.
  18. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    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!
  19. mzmtg

    mzmtg member

    This explains it better than I can:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page