Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
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.

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.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12278497.htm

Looks like quality control must've slipped a little with our president. You know you're in trouble when Rick Santorum thinks you're wrong (either that, or Santorum's worried about his poll numbers):

Republican differs with Bush on evolution

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."

Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.

Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1071656&tw=wn_wire_story
 
LoL, local news had a pissed-off scientist with a hilarious quip.

"Intelligent design is Creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo"

Apparently Bush signed up for biology at Yale but skipped every class. It's too bad, he might have learned something besides how to sniff coke off the curve of a stripper's ass.
 
[quote name='camoor']Apparently Bush signed up for biology at Yale but skipped every class. It's too bad, he might have learned something besides how to sniff coke off the curve of a stripper's ass.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
Bush is proposing a new bill determined to abolish these, "separate," notions of church and state. He's moving to now just call it, "Chate."
 
If we were "designed" by some intelligent being then why do we have so many useless extra parts like wisdom teeth, appendix, etc?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']If we were "designed" by some intelligent being then why do we have so many useless extra parts like wisdom teeth, appendix, etc?[/QUOTE]
Those are all just tricks of the Devil. :lol:

I actually overheard two people in Burger King discussing creation one time and that was their theory for dinosaur fossils - the Devil put them there to confuse us. So sad. :cry:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Those are all just tricks of the Devil. :lol:

I actually overheard two people in Burger King discussing creation one time and that was their theory for dinosaur fossils - the Devil put them there to confuse us. So sad. :cry:[/QUOTE]


Yeah, the whole billion years of fossil records is also a weak point of "intelligent design".

It was soooo funny the other day when I was listening to talk radio. I don't think I need to tell you it was conservative talk radio because after you read further it will be painfuly obvious. Anyway, the host was saying that it is "simply arrogant" to completely disregard intelligent design theory becasue there's simply too many problems with evolution.

One of his major points that was that there was no reason that evolution started and it was ridiculous to assume that all life on earth came from single cell creatures. Point of fact, as Quackzilla pointed out, they HAVE recreated a similar amino acid process that they believe started life. Not to mention the fact that evolution does a better job of explaining why life happened, it was an accident, whereas intelligent design says that some almighty creator just decided one day that he/she was going to create a bunch of lifeforms. I mean, hell, when I'm bored I can't think of anything better to do than whip up a bunch of creatures.

A semi-famous ex governor of my fine state of Minnesota said it best in an interview with Playboy. "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." I think this debate is a perfect example of what he was talking about. Some people are so scared of the fact that this is the only life we have and that after this there is nothingness that they need to go to religion to explain why they are here and where they are going.
 
i think its obvious that aliens took a crap on our planet and the poo had bacteria that was the first life on the planet. THe theory of Intelligent Poop.
 
Looks like the Pennsylvania case is going to court now. Unbelievable.

Court Test Begins For School District's 'Intelligent Design' Several Families Claim District's Policy Unconstitutional

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The merits of teaching "intelligent design" as a basis for human development are being argued in a Pennsylvania courtroom.

In opening statements Monday, a lawyer for eight families who contend it's unconstitutional argued it's a religious theory with no scientific backing.

Eric Rothschild told a federal judge in Harrisburg that the Dover Area School District incorporated the viewpoint in its curriculum with no thought "about its scientific validity."

But, the school district's attorney countered that having ninth-grade students read a statement on intelligent design "embodies the essence of liberal education."

Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., said, "This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda."

Intelligent design holds that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an intelligent force.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

After opening statements, the first expert witness, Prof. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, took the stand.

"Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be construed as scientific theory," Miller said.

About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of federal District Judge John Jones for the start of the non-jury trial.

The trial marks the first constitutional test of intelligent design, which the Dover School Board voted to include in school curriculum in November 2004.

http://www.wsoctv.com/education/5020656/detail.html

I actually believe in Intelligent Design, but religion does NOT belong in the classroom despite their attempts to camouflage it.
 
http://www.venganza.org/

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

piratesarecool4.jpg


In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

him2.jpg
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Looks like the Pennsylvania case is going to court now. Unbelievable.

Court Test Begins For School District's 'Intelligent Design' Several Families Claim District's Policy Unconstitutional

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The merits of teaching "intelligent design" as a basis for human development are being argued in a Pennsylvania courtroom.

In opening statements Monday, a lawyer for eight families who contend it's unconstitutional argued it's a religious theory with no scientific backing.

Eric Rothschild told a federal judge in Harrisburg that the Dover Area School District incorporated the viewpoint in its curriculum with no thought "about its scientific validity."

But, the school district's attorney countered that having ninth-grade students read a statement on intelligent design "embodies the essence of liberal education."

Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., said, "This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda."

Intelligent design holds that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an intelligent force.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

After opening statements, the first expert witness, Prof. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, took the stand.

"Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be construed as scientific theory," Miller said.

About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of federal District Judge John Jones for the start of the non-jury trial.

The trial marks the first constitutional test of intelligent design, which the Dover School Board voted to include in school curriculum in November 2004.

http://www.wsoctv.com/education/5020656/detail.html

I actually believe in Intelligent Design, but religion does NOT belong in the classroom despite their attempts to camouflage it.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, my daughter will have to go to school at Dover. There are currently 8 seats on the school board up for election in November. There were 16 people running in the primary election--8 for intelligent design and 8 against. Since they all cross-filed, we still have 8 for and 8 agiainst in November. The split was basically 50%-50% so it will be interesting to see what happens. I'm afraid we may have many generations of children "left behind" when it comes to science in this country.
 
[quote name='coffman']Unfortunately, my daughter will have to go to school at Dover. There are currently 8 seats on the school board up for election in November. There were 16 people running in the primary election--8 for intelligent design and 8 against. Since they all cross-filed, we still have 8 for and 8 agiainst in November. The split was basically 50%-50% so it will be interesting to see what happens. I'm afraid we may have many generations of children "left behind" when it comes to science in this country.[/QUOTE]

Ya know, it would certainly be struck down by higher courts, how high you'd have to go is the issue.
 
Just out of curiosity, if I put all the parts for a Boeing 747 in a junk yard and scatter them all around, what are the chances that, should a tornado rip through that junk yard, that I'd have a fully-working, ready-to-fly jet?

The complete close-mindedness of the scientific community to the anomalies to the evolution theory is really mind-blowing. Oh well, we're due for a paradigm shift sometime soon.

daroga
 
[quote name='daroga']Just out of curiosity, if I put all the parts for a Boeing 747 in a junk yard and scatter them all around, what are the chances that, should a tornado rip through that junk yard, that I'd have a fully-working, ready-to-fly jet?

The complete close-mindedness of the scientific community to the anomalies to the evolution theory is really mind-blowing. Oh well, we're due for a paradigm shift sometime soon.

daroga[/QUOTE]

Ya, because they never find semi complete fossils and bones, or find them scattered within a small area :roll: .
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']this makes PA seem like a hick state :(.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, tell me about it. People in Dover are kinda hickish. I would have no problem if this wasn't a religious issue, but it clearly is.
 
[quote name='daroga']Just out of curiosity, if I put all the parts for a Boeing 747 in a junk yard and scatter them all around, what are the chances that, should a tornado rip through that junk yard, that I'd have a fully-working, ready-to-fly jet?

The complete close-mindedness of the scientific community to the anomalies to the evolution theory is really mind-blowing. Oh well, we're due for a paradigm shift sometime soon.

daroga[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, the clockmaker arguement.

You do realize that this is philosophy, and not science - right?
 
[quote name='daroga']if I put all the parts for a Boeing 747 in a junk yard and scatter them all around, what are the chances that, should a tornado rip through that junk yard, that I'd have a fully-working, ready-to-fly jet?[/QUOTE]

Practically speaking, zero.

[quote name='daroga']The complete close-mindedness of the scientific community to the anomalies to the evolution theory is really mind-blowing.[/QUOTE]

Close-mindedness? A quaint choice of words. I'm guessing you say this because folks "won't even consider" the explanation which Intelligent Design offers. My question would be: how would one go about testing such an idea?

[quote name='camoor']Ahhh, the clockmaker arguement.[/QUOTE]

I don't follow; how does daroga's description of a functional airplane being reassembled by the winds of a tornado fit with the clockmaker argument? I thought the clockmaker argument decried the low (effectively nil) possibility of a complex machine evolving slowly over time, when its intricate pieces lack any function (relevant to the final machine)?
 
[quote name='RBM']I don't follow; how does daroga's description of a functional airplane being reassembled by the winds of a tornado fit with the clockmaker argument? I thought the clockmaker argument decried the low (effectively nil) possibility of a complex machine evolving slowly over time, when its intricate pieces lack any function (relevant to the final machine)?[/QUOTE]

It's like the arguement of the man who finds a watch in the desert. Does he just assume that it all happened naturally, as a product of wind, sun, and sand, without any artificial involvement?
 
[quote name='daroga']Just out of curiosity, if I put all the parts for a Boeing 747 in a junk yard and scatter them all around, what are the chances that, should a tornado rip through that junk yard, that I'd have a fully-working, ready-to-fly jet?

The complete close-mindedness of the scientific community to the anomalies to the evolution theory is really mind-blowing. Oh well, we're due for a paradigm shift sometime soon.

daroga[/QUOTE]

the odds are slim, but they aren't nill. Plus, keep in mind that the analogy deals more with organics than mechanics. Still, with that being said - how are crystals formed?
 
[quote name='RBM']Practically speaking, zero.



Close-mindedness? A quaint choice of words. I'm guessing you say this because folks "won't even consider" the explanation which Intelligent Design offers. My question would be: how would one go about testing such an idea?



I don't follow; how does daroga's description of a functional airplane being reassembled by the winds of a tornado fit with the clockmaker argument? I thought the clockmaker argument decried the low (effectively nil) possibility of a complex machine evolving slowly over time, when its intricate pieces lack any function (relevant to the final machine)?[/QUOTE]


Also, consider the fallacy of the clockmaker argument - the clock is perfect, the eyeball and the whole optic system, on the other hand, is not.

why would an intelligent designer make an imperfect device?

and regardless, science can't prove or disprove intelligent design... or FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM for that matter!



edit: :lol:

th_DINOSAURhq1.jpg
 
*sigh*

I really hate this backwards thinking. "What are the chances of the air being perfect for us to breathe!?"

People that advocate Creationism don't have the proper thought process to understand Evolution. They assume that Evolution says the Earth and lifeforms developed speparately and its just chance that things work. Oxygen isn't abundant because we breathe it. We breathe it because it is abundant!
 
It really is sad that people would support such a thing to be taught in PUBLIC schools. It really does make me sad! :(
 
[quote name='Kayden'] Oxygen isn't abundant because we breathe it. We breathe it because it is abundant![/QUOTE]

Actually Kayden if that were the truth our bodies would use Nitrogen gas instead, you'll notice however there are few organisms on this planet that can do much with inorganic Nitrogen.
 
[quote name='pthagonal']It really is sad that people would support such a thing to be taught in PUBLIC schools. It really does make me sad! :([/QUOTE]

Not even the private catholic schools around here teach creationism or intelligent design. They all teach evolution. Sometimes I feel like we're so out of touch with the rest of america, other times I feel that I live in one of the very few progressive areas of america. Normally it's the second one, and it's not like I ever want to be closer to the rest of the u.s. either.
 
Come to think of it, I went to a private catholicn school, and was taught nothing of religion. But then again, there were jews and agnostics/atheists in the school as well. Pure evolution in science class though. The only class (For me) without a nun teaching it.

And ID does fail to explain why something so smart would create things that wither and die. Or why they would create them. Seriously though, this theory would have more credibility if they replaced "inteligent force" with aliens, instead of the usual switch with GOD.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually Kayden if that were the truth our bodies would use Nitrogen gas instead, you'll notice however there are few organisms on this planet that can do much with inorganic Nitrogen.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't oxygen a lot more abundant? Also, inorganic could be the key word there. What life would benefit from inorganic matter? (Sure, birds eat rocks to help digest, but thats not really my point.) Plants use a lot of organic nitrogen.

There was a lot of carbondioxide so plants grew to process it and as a side effect made oxygen which animals started to use. Thats more or less right, right?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually Kayden if that were the truth our bodies would use Nitrogen gas instead, you'll notice however there are few organisms on this planet that can do much with inorganic Nitrogen.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't oxygen a lot more abundant? Also, inorganic could be the key word there. What life would benefit from inorganic matter? (Sure, birds eat rocks to help digest, but thats not really my point.) Plants use a lot of organic nitrogen.

There was a lot of carbondioxide so plants grew to process it and as a side effect made oxygen which animals started to use. Thats more or less right, right?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Wasn't oxygen a lot more abundant? Also, inorganic could be the key word there. What life would benefit from inorganic matter? (Sure, birds eat rocks to help digest, but thats not really my point.) Plants use a lot of organic nitrogen.

There was a lot of carbondioxide so plants grew to process it and as a side effect made oxygen which animals started to use. Thats more or less right, right?[/QUOTE]

oxygen actually wasn't more abundant.

there was tons of CO2 in the air and then the cyanobacteria used CO2 and put out Oxygen - so much so in fact that it nearly wiped out every living thing on the earth.

Then there was lots of oxygen in the air and the things that survived used oxygen as opposed to co2
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually Kayden if that were the truth our bodies would use Nitrogen gas instead, you'll notice however there are few organisms on this planet that can do much with inorganic Nitrogen.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't oxygen a lot more abundant? Also, inorganic could be the key word there. What life would benefit from inorganic matter? (Sure, birds eat rocks to help digest, but thats not really my point.) Plants use a lot of organic nitrogen.

There was a lot of carbondioxide so plants grew to process it and as a side effect made oxygen which animals started to use. Thats more or less right, right?
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']oxygen actually wasn't more abundant.

there was tons of CO2 in the air and then the cyanobacteria used CO2 and put out Oxygen - so much so in fact that it nearly wiped out every living thing on the earth.

Then there was lots of oxygen in the air and the things that survived used oxygen as opposed to co2[/QUOTE]


o_O You called me wrong and then said the same thing I did....
 
:lol: sorry, early morning, just read the first part of your post!

but it wasn't that things started to use oxygen, it was that 90% of everything died and those things that could survive did.
 
[quote name='chaostic_2k1']Come to think of it, I went to a private catholicn school, and was taught nothing of religion. But then again, there were jews and agnostics/atheists in the school as well. Pure evolution in science class though. The only class (For me) without a nun teaching it.

And ID does fail to explain why something so smart would create things that wither and die. Or why they would create them. Seriously though, this theory would have more credibility if they replaced "inteligent force" with aliens, instead of the usual switch with GOD.[/QUOTE]

Intelligent design does not work if aliens are considered the designers. The next logical question would be "Who designed the aliens?". Now matter how this is approached, in order to avoid a circular argument the creator must be a god. Intelligent design is therefore a religious argument which is why it is inappropriate to include it in a science class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top