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

[Arnold_Philips]

Oh yeh you're just not aware of what the alternative theories are. Creationism science has come along way and is making evolution look more and more foolish an idea every day. What is even more amazing is how the Bible's account is becoming more and more obviously proven through science. Since it is unlikely that someone, probably Moses, who wrote Genesis could have known so much back in those days the claim that God must have told him what to write gets more and more credible. Of course God knew that all of this would be proven out as well, and also knew that there will always be those with hard hearts unwilling to believe in him, no matter how much evidence he gave us and how many people he showed himself to who have testified.

I'm very aware of the witless machinations of the creationist groups. They want myths taught in science classes around the nation simply because they don't understand that the Bible wasn't meant to be a newspaper.

Evolution is not seriously debated anywhere outside Sunday schools, where ignorance of the subject is merely reinforced.

 

[reverend B]

croc has decided that intellectual revelation is superseded by divine revelation, and that is certainly a defensible position. however, the schools are dedicated to the former, the church to the latter.
i do not understand why we Christians are dependent on the schools for teaching what Jesus told US is our responsibility to teach. the great commission and all. i happen to agree with both ideas, that there is a a very intelligent designer that has used to tools for that design that we are able to get glimpses of through the use of science.
croc, there is noone who believes the bible verbatim as an inerrant transcription. noone. if they did, you would either be a slave or have one, and you would have stoned to death an incurably unruly child. i am assuming these are not the case. where the line is drawn in scripture must be revealed to you by prayerful study of the Scriptures, and that is simply not a function of the schools. certainly not of the science department. nor is it a function of the clergy telling you what is so. the bereans did not accept Paul's teaching at face value without studying what he had said for themselves. the reformation occurred to reject the idea that only clergy and tradition could inform the rank and file's faith.
let us do our job as Christians and evangelize, and not ask government to do our job for us. they bungle so many simple chores, and as Christians, we can not afford to have this one bungled.

 

[Smidlee]

Didn't the polls showed that over 70% wanted to have ID taught along with TOE? Of course this poll could have been set up yet it makes sense that a politician not going to ignore over 70% of the people. If evolution is so strong scientific as many loves to claim (which I don't see it for I see science as an whole againest Darwinism) then ID shouldn't be a threat.

In the end all Darwinism vs ID is good for is to debate and hopefully get more students involved in science. For example, you don't have to know anything about origins to learn genetics,DNA or to be a doctor,etc.

 

[notto]

It makes no sense for schools to keep teaching something that runs contrary to the religious beliefs of many of the students and at the same time serves no purpose in science. Absolutely nothing is based on the theory of evolution it is just standing out there all on its own affecting nothing and there is no reason to keep teaching it. Biology does not depends on it, physics do not depend on it, medicine does not depend on it, absolutely nothing depends on it.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/187_white_house_science_advisorb_3_5_2004.asp

During an on-line colloquy about science policy in the Bush administration conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 5, John H. Marburger III, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, was asked about the Bush administration's scientific credibility in light of the president's reported skepticism about evolution. He replied, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology," adding, "Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history."

 

[revolutio]

Didn't the polls showed that over 70% wanted to have ID taught along with TOE? Of course this poll could have been set up yet it makes sense that a politician not going to ignore over 70% of the people. If evolution is so strong scientific as many loves to claim (which I don't see it for I see science as an whole againest Darwinism) then ID shouldn't be a threat.

The problem is though, that ID is not a threat in any scientific sort of way. It seems to only ask, hey what if evolution isn't true? This is fine, you can do that without calling it ID. In fact, most science classes I have been in have stressed the fallibility of viewing scientific results as conclusive and final. If this is pointed out to students the the potential for there being an alternative to the theory of evolution is self-evident.
I have seen plenty of things that I have trouble describing from an evolutionary perspective, however these aren't proof that evolution is false. Like everything the unanswered questions should be mentioned and alternative theories should be given.

However, the crux of this all is that ID is not a scientific theory. It is just a "What if?" sort of question. Students should be taught to ask "What if?" on there own and not told which questions to ask.

In the end all Darwinism vs ID is good for is to debate and hopefully get more students involved in science.

While I agree that recongition of alternatives might help get some students who are turned off by science because of their faith more interested in it. They should still be taught what current evidence suggests as is recognized by the scientific community as a whole.

For example, you don't have to know anything about origins to learn genetics,DNA or to be a doctor,etc.

Ehhh, some Bio people here might disagree with you on this.

 

[Heather S.]

This debate is plain silly.

Only valid scientific theories should be taught in a biology (or any science) classroom. ID cannot be falsified, therefore it is not a scientific theory. End of discussion.

As someone who has taught biology in different forms for quite a few years, trust me when I say that it is virtually impossible to give someone a good understanding of biology from the ground up without including evolution. Biology revolves around evolution. I suggest that you leave the deciding of what's most important in a biology lesson up to the scientists and biology teachers.

ID is pseudo-science. Anyone who tries to pass it off as a genuine scientific theory is full of nonsense. It's just creationism in disguise.


Heather

 

[Pete Harcoff]

With respect to ID, there is nothing that could be taught. The state of ID is such that IDists are still trying to figure out how to identify "Intelligent Design". They have some ideas, but they have yet to empirically verify their ideas, much less form a cohesive theory of ID around them.

Unfortunately, most people who are only exposed to ID via popular media outlets have no idea of this. ID is currently a political battle, not a scientific one.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Didn't the polls showed that over 70% wanted to have ID taught along with TOE? Of course this poll could have been set up yet it makes sense that a politician not going to ignore over 70% of the people. If evolution is so strong scientific as many loves to claim (which I don't see it for I see science as an whole againest Darwinism) then ID shouldn't be a threat.

In the end all Darwinism vs ID is good for is to debate and hopefully get more students involved in science. For example, you don't have to know anything about origins to learn genetics,DNA or to be a doctor,etc.

The problem is that:

a) Most high school students don't know enough about biology to enter into such a debate. Graduate-level studies is the place for it, but IDists have avoided that because they know their ideas are on shaky ground. So it's much easier to influence high school students.

b) IDists don't have a scientific theory of ID. ID is just "feel-good" religious politics. Hence, you hear all this stuff about "teach the controversy" and "freedom of ideas" with nobody actually talking about any of the supposed science behind ID. And when they do talk about it, they toss out terms like "specified complexity" or "irreducibly complex" without mentioning the fact that those ideas are still on the drawing board and have NOT been empirically verified.

 

[tulc]

Though I wouldn't mind learnin' Alchemy... dunno why, always had some interest in it.

Dude! There's a little something called "changing lead into gold" that was sort of a cornerstone of alchemy!
tulc(always liked the alchemy of changing water into coffee!)

 

[Dracil]

That, the philosopher's stone, and elixirs of life.

We've already succeeded in turning lead into gold. It's just not cost-effective.

 

[xMinionX]

Oh yeh you're just not aware of what the alternative theories are. Creationism science has come along way and is making evolution look more and more foolish an idea every day. What is even more amazing is how the Bible's account is becoming more and more obviously proven through science. Since it is unlikely that someone, probably Moses, who wrote Genesis could have known so much back in those days the claim that God must have told him what to write gets more and more credible. Of course God knew that all of this would be proven out as well, and also knew that there will always be those with hard hearts unwilling to believe in him, no matter how much evidence he gave us and how many people he showed himself to who have testified.

No.

 

[SackLunch]

GAG!! The only reason Bush said this is to divert attention away from his failing Iraq war, his rock-dropping polls, and the Plamegate/Rove Leak scandal.

The man could care less about intelligent design.

 

[MidnightBlue]

(AgapePress) - President Bush is being praised

By Creationists. The fact that Agape Press considers that news, and leads with that headline, tells me a lot about Agape Press.

 

[MidnightBlue]

So he's all for exposing students to different ideas, such as fake moon landings, Elvis Presley being alive, Alchemy, Astrology, Geocentrism, etc.?

Well... within reason, pal.

No, he was specifically addressing the question of teaching creationism in schools. So we're well outside the realm of reason. In fact, with the possible exception of Elvis being alive, all those things are easily just as plausible as creationism.

 

[MidnightBlue]

How about two science classes then? A general (evolution) class and a religious (creationism) class both involving biology.

I'd be fine with that, as long as the creationism class earned the student a credit in religious studies and not in science.

 

[TheBear]

"Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life." - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

 

[TheBear]

pure ignorance

On who's part? Those who understand what constitutes science, or those who keep changing the definition and moving goal posts?

 

[Smidlee]

The problem is though, that ID is not a threat in any scientific sort of way.

I totally agree that ID is no threat to science but I don't see TOE = science. the parts of evolution that is really science isn't what been debated. It's the part that's beyond the reach of science that's been debated.

It seems to only ask, hey what if evolution isn't true? This is fine, you can do that without calling it ID. In fact, most science classes I have been in have stressed the fallibility of viewing scientific results as conclusive and final. If this is pointed out to students the the potential for there being an alternative to the theory of evolution is self-evident.
I have seen plenty of things that I have trouble describing from an evolutionary perspective, however these aren't proof that evolution is false. Like everything the unanswered questions should be mentioned and alternative theories should be given.

There is only one alternative to evolution than is creation. Either man evolved or he was created (made). Either it happen without ID or with ID. If you automaticly dismiss creation then there isn't no way to falsify evolution. this is how scientist are programed to think in biology. This isn't having an open mind.
here's two examples can't be proven directly by science. (which requires faith)
-man and ape have a common ancestor
- The existance of God
You can look indirect evidence in science of both by the uses of appearance and human reason:
- these bones have similarities of both man and ape . Compare man's to ape's DNA
- The eye and flagellum have similarities with human designed machines.
there is the "information" similarites with both DNA and a complex computer program.
Personally I would like to see this double standred removed in biology. I still enjoy watching nature programs though. I let the scientist have the bone while I take the meat.

While I agree that recongition of alternatives might help get some students who are turned off by science because of their faith more interested in it. They should still be taught what current evidence suggests as is recognized by the scientific community as a whole.

It hard to miss what the scientific community believes , I remember being bombarded with evolution (even at the time i didn't know it) teaching since the first grade.

Ehhh, some Bio people here might disagree with you on this.

Boy, I surely know this. It almost like without TOE we would still be in the dark ages. I'm sure paleontologist would strongly disagree too since without evolution story then all they are is bone diggers and grave robbers. Evolution does help sell some of the more boring (and the worthless)science.

 

[sidiousmax225]

It hard to miss what the scientific community believes , I remember being bombarded with evolution (even at the time i didn't know it) teaching since the first grade. Boy, I surely know this. It almost like without TOE we would still be in the dark ages. I'm sure paleontologist would strongly disagree too since without evolution story then all they are is bone diggers and grave robbers. Evolution does help sell some of the more boring (and the worthless)science.

Ya, im sure vaccine creation is a worthless science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I totally agree that ID is no threat to science but I don't see TOE = science. the parts of evolution that is really science isn't what been debated. It's the part that's beyond the reach of science that's been debated.

I think what you mean to say, is that it's when the ToE is applied to the past then it ceases to be scientific. Except that's not true. You can apply observations in the present to recreate past events. It's still science (as long as it follows the scientific method - i.e. formulate a hypothesis, make predictions about one should find, then confirm the predictions via further data), even if you disagree with the conclusions.

There is only one alternative to evolution than is creation.

But it's not an alternative in a scientific sense, because it's not a scientific position. Nobody anywhere ever has been able to reduce the idea of "creation" into a scientific framework. It hasn't been done.

Either man evolved or he was created (made). Either it happen without ID or with ID. If you automaticly dismiss creation then there isn't no way to falsify evolution. this is how scientist are programed to think in biology. This isn't having an open mind.

Except that you could falsify evolution without invoking ID. But you'd be left with "I don't know".

here's two examples can't be proven directly by science. (which requires faith)

"Proof" doesn't exist in science. What you have are hyptheses and theories that can be substantiated or falsified by evidence. Anything in science that is currently substantiated by evidence could be falsified when legitimate contradictory evidence is brought forth. This has happened repeatedly to all sorts of ideas for hundreds of years.

-man and ape have a common ancestor

This is a conclusion that was drawn based on evidence. Whether you agree with it or not, it's still science.

- The existance of God

That is because God is inherently defined as a non-natural (supernatural) being. Science only works with the natural and can't deal with the issue of God.

You can look indirect evidence in science of both by the uses of appearance and human reason:
- these bones have similarities of both man and ape . Compare man's to ape's DNA
- The eye and flagellum have similarities with human designed machines.
there is the "information" similarites with both DNA and a complex computer program.

Except NONE of those are evidence for the existence of God. Even evidence of some other entity invoking design in biological organisms isn't evidence for God. You have to understand that the very definition of God precludes science from every substantiating or refuting his/her/its existence.

Personally I would like to see this double standred removed in biology.

If IDists can substantiate their case, then they might be listened to. As it stands, they haven't and this is why there is such opposition to teaching this stuff at the high school level. Because they haven't substantiated it with anything.

Evolution does help sell some of the more boring (and the worthless)science.

Evolution has been applied to medicine, agriculture, conservation biology and engineering. I'd hardly call that "worthless".