Bush and ID

  Okay, DOF asked that someone post this on its own thread.  I went ahead and posted the whole article because the paper is one of those for which you have to register.  Pay attention to the final paragraph especially.  This guy makes the same mistake that the majority of Creationists/ID types makes.  The theory of evolution deals strictly with the phenomonon of biodiversity.  Creationists try to claim that one of the biggest holes in the theory of evolution is that it can’t explain where life came from.  No shit, that is covered by genesis theories (abiogenesis and biogenesis).  I have also appended my e-mail to Mr John West.  Here is the link if you would like to go to the news story itself.

Posted on Tue, Aug. 02, 2005

Bush backs instruction in evolution, intelligent design

By RON HUTCHESON and DIANE CARROLL Knight Ridder Newspapers The Kansas City Star

WASHINGTON — President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and intelligent design Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

The president’s comments came as the Kansas Board of Education moved closer to approving new science standards that call for students to hear more criticism about evolution. The standards do not call for the teaching of intelligent design.

In a question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation’s schools.

Bush declined to state his personal views on intelligent design, the belief that life forms are so complex that their creation can’t be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine.

The theory of evolution, first articulated by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859, is based on the idea that life organisms developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature that favored certain traits that helped species survive.

Scientists concede that evolution does not answer every question about the creation of life, but most consider the push to add instruction on intelligent design in public schools an attempt to inject religion into science courses.

Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over “creationism,” a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As Texas governor, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

On Monday the president said he favored the same approach for intelligent design “so people can understand what the debate is about.”

“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” he said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes.”

The six conservatives on the 10-member Kansas Board of Education are supporting a draft of the science standards that calls for more criticism of evolution. The draft does not go so far as to call for the teaching of intelligent design.

Board Chairman Steve Abrams, who supports the proposed draft, said Monday that he supported “good science” and that he backed intelligent design to the extent that it met the requirements of what constituted good science. But he said more research needed to determine whether intelligent design should be inserted into the curriculum.

“I hate to disagree with the president, but at this point in time I am not in favor of actually inserting intelligent design into the standards,” said Abrams, of Arkansas City. “I think it’s important for students to be able to critically analyze evolution, but to actually insert intelligent design into it — I’m not much in favor of inserting intelligent design.

“I still go back to what is science. … It needs to meet the criteria of good science.”

Board member Sue Gamble of Shawnee, who opposes the proposed standards, said she could agree with the president if intelligent design were a scientific theory. Unfortunately, she said, it is not.

Intelligent design should not be a part of science curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade, she said, because “there is nothing to teach children about it in terms of basic science. I find it so unfortunate that political leaders are becoming embroiled in this, when frankly they are not qualified to have an opinion.”

Gamble said she did not oppose the teaching of the origin of life in a high school history or comparative religion class but said it did not belong in a science class.

The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have concluded that there is no scientific basis for intelligent design and oppose its inclusion in school science classes.

Some scientists have declined to join the debate, fearing that amplifying the discussion only gives intelligent design more legitimacy.

But advocates of intelligent design also claim support from scientists. The Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle that is the leading proponent for intelligent design, said it had compiled a list of more than 400 scientists, including 70 biologists, who are skeptical about evolution.

“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” John West, associate director of the organization’s Center for Science and Culture, said in a news release.

————————————————————————————————————————

First glance

■ President Bush says public schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design.

■ His comments to reporters come as the Kansas Board of Education works on new science standards that would have students hear more criticism of evolution.

  The title of my e-mail was “Get your theories straight”.  I have yet to receive a response.

When I read this quote from the Kansas City Star article,
“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” John West, associate director of the organization’s Center for Science and Culture, said in a news release.,

I had to laugh.  No self-respecting scientist would claim that Darwinian evolution explains the origin of life.  That is not what the theory of evolution explains.  The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity that we see in life, not where it came from.  The two schools of scientific thought regarding the origins of life are called abiogenesis and biogenesis.  There is a reason that Darwin’s book was titled The Origin of Species and not The Origin of Life.  The fact that you and your pet scientists can’t differentiate between wildly disparate scientific theories doesn’t bode well for your being able to form logical conclusions about anything scientific.  It also makes your argument that much less valid.  Confusion regarding scientific theories is understandable by the “rank and file” creationists, but is inexcusable from people who want to be taken seriously and are supposedly “academic”.  The unfortunate matter is that the average American seems to be too uneducated to realize that your ideas should be taken lightly.

  Sincerely,

      Warren E Biggs

 

7 thoughts on “Bush and ID

  1. WTF is it with people and creation—cough—intelligent design. There is no scientific evidence for ID. Personally if some one tried to teach me ID in a science class at my school I would be pissed. I think the major hole in ID is that it is born from people who wish to push that into curriculums and then a few years later push bible genesis into the science curriculum on the grounds that if you let ID in you have to let Abraham in.

    But ID is not science. It is a load of rubbish. Any real scientist, skeptical of evolutionism or not, should throw ID out on the grounds that ID is simply giving god a different title—be it aliens or some other unknown go—cough—being.

    Cheers BunBun

  2. ID isn’t even a proper theory. It makes no predictions nor does it try to explain an observation. It’s merely a critique of another theory.

  3. A few weeks ago I was browsing in Waldenbooks and saw a copy of one of Behe’s books in the (regrettably small) Science section. I smuggled it over to Christian Fiction—just couldn’t resist the opportunity for a little guerrilla warfare.

  4. Some reporter should ask Dubya that if religion is going to be forced to science classes in the name of some dubious fairness shouldn’t science be taught also in churches then.

  5. Vern – Awesome.  I might copy that next time I hit barnes and noble.
    I think that BunBun’s got it.  This is the slippery slope – but instead of Santorum’s man on dog we’ve got the first step towards faith-based science. 
    We probably should man the barricades at this point.

  6. A few weeks ago I was browsing in Waldenbooks and saw a copy of one of Behe’s books in the (regrettably small) Science section. I smuggled it over to Christian Fiction—just couldn’t resist the opportunity for a little guerrilla warfare.

    lol!  i love it!  thanks for the idea VernR *plan’s trip to local bookstores to commit warfare of my own*

    btw, great letter warbi!

  7. Maybe you could transport some bibles to the scifi/fantasy section while you are at it. And then put some pornography in the christian religion section.

    Cheers BunBun

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.