Bush on Intelligent Design in schools

[theist 1]

Bush Backs Equal Footing for 'Intelligent Design'

'Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,' president says.

 

The Record

Washington, Aug. 2 - 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. [Read transcript of Bush's remarks]

 

In a wide-ranging 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. Most consider intelligent design an attempt to inject religion into science courses.

 

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

 

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

 

The Kansas Board of Education is considering changes to encourage the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas schools, and Christian conservatives are pushing for similar changes in other school districts across the country.

 

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.

 

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

 

 

Transcript of the roundtable interview of President Bush by reporters from Texas newspapers on August 1, 2005, in the Roosevelt Room.

 

Question: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

 

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

 

Both sides should be properly taught?

 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.

 

So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

 

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Intelligent design does not specifically name a source, but given it's history and source, it is clear that it is a thin veil over the biblical view of creation starting from Adam, Eve and the apple.

 

When evolution is taught in schools, it comes with concrete support and evidence. No such support nor evidence can be provided for ID without specifically selecting a religious source. This raises the next question. Which religious source is to be chosen? There are several creation stories in the world, each different from the other. Which among these will be taught as the correct story in schools, thereby dismissing all the other creation stories as false? Or will ID be country specific where ID in the US will teach the biblical version, Islamic countries will teach the Quranic version, China will teach the Buddhist version and India will teach one of the various Indian versions?

 

If that happens, can it still be called science?

 

Cheers

 

[theist 1]

http://harekrsna.com/sun/

 

 

 

Bush on Intelligent Design

 

BY: SUN Staff

 

 

Aug 3, USA (SUN) — During a round-table interview on Monday with reporters from five Texas newspapers, President Bush weighed-in on the evolution debate, stating his support for teaching the concept of intelligent design in schools along with the theory evolution.

 

 

The theory of intelligent design (ID) asserts that life on earth is too complex to have simply developed through evolution, and a higher power must have taken a hand in the creation. While Bush declined to express his own personal views about the origins of life, he said, “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.” In fact, this is an agenda Bush has been pushing since serving as Governor of Texas.

 

 

Bush’s long-time base of Christian conservatives have been lobbying for him to take this stand, regardless of the fact that it will put the Administration at odds with scientists, who generally reject the concept of intelligent design as an attempt to force religion into the realm of science education.

 

 

As the Christian ID lobby takes aim at the Darwinists, many new opportunities are arising for the devotees to preach the science of Krsna Consciousness in this regard. As we read in the Sun article of July 22nd, ISKCON of Atlanta has joined a Cobb County, Georgia suit on evolution in the schools, and will thereby introduce the philosophy into the legal milieu.

 

 

The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences have concluded that there's no scientific basis for intelligent design, and these groups oppose its inclusion in school science classes. This opens the door for rebuttal presentations from the devotees, who can present a highly logical and scientific process for understanding the intelligence behind life.

 

 

In Kansas and elsewhere around the country, conservative Christians who are pushing the ID agenda are open to input from other parties who can help strengthen their cause. Because they seek to legitimize the ID conclusion from a more scientific angle, and not rely solely on arguments derived from their fundamentalist rhetoric, the Christian ID lobby will likely welcome input from the devotees, particularly in grassroots venues like school board meetings, community and town hall meetings, interfaith venues, etc. This equates to a large audience of listeners who might be exposed to Krsna Consciousness for the first time.

 

[Guest guest]

He ought to first try to make an intelligent design in his own administration. Everything he touches turns to garbage. Now hes pretending to be guru, and that ought to concern yall. If he has no idea of the glories of the energetic, how can he give Him credit for the energy.

 

Im not opposed to intelligent design to bridge the gap between science and religion, but the bible story is not bonafide to any degree, it is greatly altered for political purposes. Anyone who is taught that Mary Magdaline was a harlot is poisoned by the politicians who have ruined christianity forever, made is no less mysogenistic than ISLAM.

 

Haribol, mahaksadasa

[theist 1]

What a negative spin mahak. But then hatred will do that.

[Gauracandra 1]

I wouldn't say I'm for introducing Intelligent Design in a biology class. In a Philosophy class I'd have no problem with it.

 

However, I do think pointing out the improbabilities and holes in Darwinian evolution would be important to relay side by side with explaining Darwinian evolution in a biology class.

 

If you accept the Darwinian view of the origin of life you are pretty much asking for people to believe in a miracle. Often people are fooled into thinking it is logical because it is smooth and occurs over a long period of time. But something that happens slowly or quickly does not make it any more logical. Read a book called Darwin's Black Box if you want to know the sheer improbability of life occuring the way evolution says it did. It may have happened that way but if it did it was just as much a miracle as any in the Bible. Present the odds, and let the kids decide.

 

There are many questions that I think need to be answered. Darwin's Black Box gives many good questions. But here is a simple one I've long wondered and have asked friends who believe in evolution (none have been able to answer it).

 

We know that when genetically similar people (say within a family) in breed there is a doubling up of negative traits. The Amish for instance have started to experience this. They have had a closed community and the genes they share have over time become more and more similar. This has resulted in deformaties, dwarfism, increased cancer etc.... Royal families have experienced the same thing.

 

Now I first thought of this in relation to human evolution a few years ago. I read an article (on like CNN or such) that suggested there was a point in time when humanity was almost wiped out. They said there were probably only a few thousand humanoids around and they lived in small tribes of a few dozen.

 

Now imagine. You are these sloped foreheaded cavemen. You run in a tribe of 20 people (10 women, 10 men). You must not have that great genetic difference. And this was a time where the dispersion of people would have made even short distances difficult to intermingle. So wouldn't you think all the bad traits would double, quadruple and so forth up?

 

Take it back a little further. Remember most mutations are not positive. Most are negative (ie. there are a thousand ways to do something wrong but only a few ways of doing something right). When humanoids first appeared there weren't millions of them all genetically varied. When they FIRST appeared how many are there? And then they breed with one another. You should see the effects of inbreeding.

 

Let someone explain this to me. I think this is a legitimate question to pose in a biology class and I don't think they can answer it.

 

Now, Bible people with Adam and Eve don't have this problem (not saying I believe in the Biblical creation story). They believe Adam and Eve were the first humans and were made perfect. So any interbreeding would result in only doubling up of perfect genes (there would be no dwarfism gene, or cancer gene that would become increasingly prominent).

 

I think this is a simple question that can be introduced into such presentations.

[daschan 0]

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of science

 

Christian Creationists cannot claim proprietory rights to the theory of Intelligent Design. There is considerably more to it than what the Creationists promote.

 

What can be the objection to open up investigation into Intelligent Design on the merits of scientific principles?

 

Let religion be taught in religion class, but let scientific method apply in science class. Don't deify Darwin ... the jury is still out.

 

Recently, the noted British philosophy professor Antony Flew, a prominent life-time champion of atheism, has concluded after all, at the age of 81, that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature," he commented in a telephone interview. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." While teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading Universities in Britain and in visits to USA and Canadian campuses, and in his books and articles, lectures and debates, Dr. Flew denied there was evidence for the existence of God. Yet over the last few months, he has come to think differently. In a video "Has Science Discovered God?" Dr. Flew explains that investigation into DNA "has shown. by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved." In a letter to the Philosophy Now magazine (August-September, 2004), he wrote: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." �ABC News story: "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", The Associated Press, December 9, 2004

 

It's presented as a battle between science and religion, but a more powerful and rational argument for the case to teach the theory of Intelligent Design alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in schools is in the interests of pure science. To borrow the words of Bill Frist, Republican Senate majority leader, who recently voted for stem cell research opposed by President Bush and defended his stance: "It isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science."

 

Christian creationists argue for presentation of religious beliefs as an alternative to Darwin's theory, but public schools across the nation are bound by "separation of state and religion", so realistically the most they can hope for in that secular environment is a passing mention of a religious viewpoint contrary to that of mainstream science.

 

But there's more to the concept of Intelligent Design than religious faith. The Bhagavad-gita and other ancient Sanskrit texts of India such as Srimad-Bhagavatam expound scientifically on the origins of life and this universe and other universes besides and on anti-matter. The evidence goes well beyond the scope of a religion class.

 

If the educationists can be persuaded to open the classrooms up to real science, that is, investigation and debate based on scientific principles, teachers and students may get access to the oldest body of knowledge in the world: the Vedas. http://www.bhaktivedantas.com

[theist 1]

So-called evolution would necessarily have had to become de-evolution and we should all be back to the monkey stage by now. I doubt you will ever receive an answer.

 

I think ID belongs squarely in the science classroom with Darwinian evolution kicked out completely. The reason is there is Intelligence behind all material manifestation. But in the interest of practicality a side by side teaching would suffice.

 

People forget the primitive state of science way back when Darwin offered his speculations.

 

As to Who's Intelligence and the nature of that Person that can be saved for religious studies.

[Guest guest]

The bible version and darwinism are both seriously flawed theories, so why should any of them be taught as fact. mahak

[theist 1]

No one said anything about the Bible version or any other version. ID is not Biblical creationism.

 

Prabhupada said the more one kicks out Darwinism the more one advances.

 

All life comes from matter philosphies in whatever form are products of ignorance so why should they be taught in schools which are supposed to be places of knowledge and learning.

 

The example is Prahlada Maharaja.

[jai_govinda 0]

i still cant believe you used BUSH and INTELLIGENT in the same sentence!

[theist 1]

Do you have an intelligent response to the topic?

 

Everyone that takes birth in the material atmosphere is a fool jai govinda, that includes you and me.

[gHari 0]

 

<img src=http://canoeparts.ca/KINGDOM/EvolutionANIM.gif>

 

[gHari 0]

 

<img src=http://canoeparts.ca/KINGDOM/ThumbsUp.gif>

 

[theist 1]

Too funny!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif