Bush endorses Intelligent Design. Or does he?

Liar

now with 17% more class
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Posts
43,715
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."
Neat! This means that we can start teaching Satanism, Scientology and Smurf Cult as scientific too. Right? That's must be it. Georgie is a closet Smurfist, and this is all a populist charade to impose his REAL agenda.

#L
 
So is Inteligent Design just Creationism with a thin veneer of pseudo-scientific jargon?
 
no, ID is creationism cloaked in a veneer of scientific facts about the dev't and complexity of life together with some quite debatable premises about how they might be explained (or allegedly can't be explained).

ID further is neutral as regards any particular religion, e.g., Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, all of which have 'creationist' accounts with variations.
 
Let's be quite clear here.

Evolution is a theory. That is it is independently testable, offers problem solving tools specifically related to biology, and above all, it is falsifiable. It can be proved untrue.

From what I understand, intelligent design is a hypothesis. And a piss poor one at that. It offers none of the qualities that evolution possesses. It is simply Creationism with religious connotations removed. It has no place in science classrooms.

I can prick holes in intelligent design with a word and a phrase. The word is the appendix and the phrase is duck billed platypus.

No intelligent designer would leave something as potentially deadly in a life form created. And the duck billed platypus is kinda silly.
 
I actually approve of ID in some form. I believe evolution was guided by a higher power and, even if God didn't have a blueprint for a human, he was definitely nudging things along at times.

However, not sure that any religion should be in any school lesson outside of RE.

The Earl
 
rgraham666 said:
From what I understand, intelligent design is a hypothesis. And a piss poor one at that. It offers none of the qualities that evolution possesses. It is simply Creationism with religious connotations removed. It has no place in science classrooms.
Some versions of it could be called evolution with religious connotation added. Same thing, different angle. Anyway, it is not science. If it is, I want deductive proof of God. Which would kill religion. The whole point of religion is to have faith. If you need proof of your faith, then it was a weak-ass faith to begin with.

ID is philosophy, and should be taugh as such. IMO that is a subject that our western schools are too devoid of.

I can prick holes in intelligent design with a word and a phrase. The word is the appendix and the phrase is duck billed platypus.

No intelligent designer would leave something as potentially deadly in a life form created. And the duck billed platypus is kinda silly.
Personally, I believe in HAD. Half-assed design.
 
The premise of ID, let alone the spurious justifications and logival fallacies in its support don't stand up to the scrutiny of science. Ask Kansas. To teach ID they are thinking about changeing the definition of science so it will fit, if they haven't done so already.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
The premise of ID, let alone the spurious justifications and logival fallacies in its support don't stand up to the scrutiny of science. Ask Kansas. To teach ID they are thinking about changeing the definition of science so it will fit, if they haven't done so already.

That's scary.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
The premise of ID, let alone the spurious justifications and logival fallacies in its support don't stand up to the scrutiny of science. Ask Kansas. To teach ID they are thinking about changeing the definition of science so it will fit, if they haven't done so already.

I disagree. The principles behind of the ID being outed in America are spurious. However, ID can cover a wide range of ideas, including the one that evolution exists, it was just overseen by God. What's the flaw in that theory?

Rgraham: The eyeball. Even the simplest eye possible is ridiculously complicated. It requires more than one step to go from 'no eyeball at all' to 'rudimentary eye'. And what's the use of something which might run into an eye in future generations? It gives no evolutionary bonus and there is no reason why it should have survived.

An appendix was used back when humans were eating grass. The reason it is still there is that it provides no real evolutionary disadvantage on a large scale and those who die from having one will usually breed beforehand. There's no way evolution could get rid of it and, with appendectomies, I doubt there ever will. I believe that God guides evolution, not jerry-rigs it.

The Earl
 
On the contrary Earl.

I know of several animals, mostly protozoans, with very simple eyes, really no more than light sensitive spots.

And your point about the appendix wasn't true in my case. Mine nearly killed me before I bred.

Certainly, there may be a designer. But the existence and nature of that designer will never be proven scientifically. As Liar points out, such an occurrence would destroy religion.

Intelligent design might be an interesting intellectual tool to play with, but it is not science and should not be taught in science classrooms.
 
TheEarl said:
I disagree. The principles behind of the ID being outed in America are spurious. However, ID can cover a wide range of ideas, including the one that evolution exists, it was just overseen by God. What's the flaw in that theory?

Rgraham: The eyeball. Even the simplest eye possible is ridiculously complicated. It requires more than one step to go from 'no eyeball at all' to 'rudimentary eye'. And what's the use of something which might run into an eye in future generations? It gives no evolutionary bonus and there is no reason why it should have survived.

An appendix was used back when humans were eating grass. The reason it is still there is that it provides no real evolutionary disadvantage on a large scale and those who die from having one will usually breed beforehand. There's no way evolution could get rid of it and, with appendectomies, I doubt there ever will. I believe that God guides evolution, not jerry-rigs it.

The Earl


I don't think Bush was pimping for ID in a country othr than the US.

However, ID can cover a wide range of ideas, including the one that evolution exists, it was just overseen by God. What's the flaw in that theory?


It's not a theory. It's an assertion. If you can give me a testable experiement, whereby you can add creedence to your assertion and I can reporduce your results should I try said experiment, you can lift it from asertion to hypothesis. Otherwise, it's a naked assertion, unsupportable by any test and properly the realm of theology, philosophy or Rhetoric.

If you are saying it has merit for consideration by one or more of those disciplens, I'm inclined to agree.
 
TheEarl said:
Rgraham: The eyeball. Even the simplest eye possible is ridiculously complicated. It requires more than one step to go from 'no eyeball at all' to 'rudimentary eye'. And what's the use of something which might run into an eye in future generations? It gives no evolutionary bonus and there is no reason why it should have survived.
No cigar, Earl. it follows the pattern of natural selection perfectly.

1. A mutation develops a light sensitive skin cell. Good to have, sees when being eaten, can swim away. Survives longer. Makes more babies.

2. A mutation gets several light sensitive skin cells. Good to have, sees better when being eaten from different angles, can swim away. Survives longer. Makes more babies.

3. A mutation places some of those patches in a hollow "bowl". Very good, gives rudimentary sense of direction of attacker. Enables you to swim away in the right direction. Survives longer. Makes more babies.

4. Hollowness gets deeper, which means even better sense of direction. Cells get more sensitive, protective skin flaps and secretion cover the hollowness, making the light emitting opening above the hollowness smaller and smaller, improving the presicion. Every new mutation with a slightly better sense of sight than the previous lives longer and gets to fuck more.

Baby steps, baby steps, but thousands upon thousands. The very basis of evolution.

The eyes is not more ingenious or miraculous than the spleen or any other organ. It just happens to look cool.
 
1)a problem with the alleged 'theory' of evolution is that it's arguably vacuous. it generates no interesting hypotheses. it is, as the saying goes, 'just so' stories.
(as in 'how the leopard got his spots'). it is, for one thing, post hoc--after the fact--as liar's account above, demonstrates.

2)further, applied to life on earth, it's in a special category of theory like those of historical geology (applied to planet earth). there is only ONE process of geological dev't. on earth, so there can't be any proper experiments, one just tries to understand the process as it unfolds. there are repeated events, but these aren't really 'experiments' (e.g., eruptions of volcanoes).

3)even further it applies to complex phenomena, a bit like the (quasi) 'theories' of meteorology, and these are so complex as to defy prediction. (astronomical theory can tell me where the moon will be, Dec 1 2007, noon GMT. meteorological theory cannot tell me the weather in London, on that time and date.)

in those senses neoDarwinian evolutionary theory is quite UNlike the 'theory of relativity' or 'quantum theory.'

this is not a plug for theistic 'explanations' of the same phenomena.
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
1)a problem with the alleged 'theory' of evolution is that it's arguably vacuous. it generates no interesting hypotheses. it is, as the saying goes, 'just so' stories.
(as in 'how the leopard got his spots')

2)further, applied to life on earth, it's in a special category of theory like those of historical geology. there can't be any proper experiments, one just tries to understand the process as it unfolds.

3)even further it applies to complex phenomena, a bit like the (quasi) 'theories' of meteorology, and these are so complex as to defy prediction. (astronomical theory can tell me where the moon will be, Dec 1 2007, noon GMT. meteorological theory cannot tell me the weather in London, on that time and date.)

in those senses neoDarwinian evolutionary theory is quite UNlike the 'theory of relativity' or 'quantum theory.'

this is not a plug for theistic 'explanations' of the same phenomena.


That's not entierly ture Pure. In short lived specimins I can conduct experiements that will confirm natural selection of traits that tend to lead to survival. On isolated habitats, I can find unique species and through the fossil record, trace the genisis of that trait, should it be structural rather than cosmetic.

Experimental evidence can be provided that suports the thoery. Of course you can't test the theory as a whole nor can you prove it, as it is still a growin thoery.
 
Sub Joe said:
So is Inteligent Design just Creationism with a thin veneer of pseudo-scientific jargon?
Pretty much. They slapped the word "intelligent" on so people would take it seriously.
 
Colly said, On isolated habitats, I can find unique species and through the fossil record, trace the genisis of that trait, should it be structural rather than cosmetic.

if you start from the 'trait' or characteristic, as in liar's account, a seemingly reasonable account is available: some horse-like creatures became more dependent on trees, and the ones with longer necks were 'selected': they could reach, eat, nourish themselves and reproduce. that is reproduce faster/better than the short necked ones. the record will show longer and longer necked creatures, the evolutionary 'ancestors' of the giraffe.

but this explanation is based on knowing the outcome. then one constructs the 'just so' story around it. a bit like knowing that A and B are getting a divorce, and going back over their exchanges and finding they become increasingly bitter--hence an 'explanation' of the divorce.

seeing the horselike creatures, some dependent on trees (to some degree), it's not possible to predict what is going to be 'selected' (if anything--maybe they'll all die as eating material becomes unavailable [too high up]).
 
I think we should start teaching these principles in med schools. A semester in laying on of hands, a semester of oil, a semester in praying for diving intervention. Equal time and all.

And even agriculture classes can benefit. I think Sacrificing 101 should be taught alongside of proper fertilizing techniques.

Oh and while we are in the process of dumbing down reality based courses, let's go to the libraries and mix the fiction and non-fiction books together. After all, where is the proof that these things never really happened?

And while we are busy unlearning - the rest of the world marches forward with real science and knowledge, and then takes the place of the bunch superstitious heathens living here.
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
but this explanation is based on knowing the outcome. then one constructs the 'just so' story around it. a bit like knowing that A and B are getting a divorce, and going back over their exchanges and finding they become increasingly bitter--hence an 'explanation' of the divorce.

seeing the horselike creatures, some dependent on trees (to some degree), it's not possible to predict what is going to be 'selected' (if anything--maybe they'll all die as eating material becomes unavailable [too high up]).
True. Your point being?

This is all about explaining how thing got to be. Why do you stamp that as invalid or irrelevant? It's also about understanding that there are many different ways of adapting through natural selection, and the reason we sit here and browse porn sites today is the result of a one in a gazillion kind of development. If our ancestral über-primate had stumbled on their own toes too much and been eaten by crocodiles when they climbed out of the trees, things would had been much different today.
 
rgraham666 said:
Let's be quite clear here.

Evolution is a theory. That is it is independently testable, offers problem solving tools specifically related to biology, and above all, it is falsifiable. It can be proved untrue.

From what I understand, intelligent design is a hypothesis. And a piss poor one at that. It offers none of the qualities that evolution possesses. It is simply Creationism with religious connotations removed. It has no place in science classrooms.

I can prick holes in intelligent design with a word and a phrase. The word is the appendix and the phrase is duck billed platypus.

No intelligent designer would leave something as potentially deadly in a life form created. And the duck billed platypus is kinda silly.
You should see some of the earliest life forms in the pre-cambrian seas. Whole phyla have existed and lost the evolutionary race. many look very spacy.

That said, a platypus is only odd because it doesn't fit the category very nicely. If the category is a mental construct designed to classify life forms and there are playpi, then the category is clumsy. The mental construct is flawed, not the platypus. The animal does just fine. It's on the 20 pence piece in Australia.

Bush is an unfortunate thing for this country, but he'll be gone soon.
 
Pure said:
Colly said, On isolated habitats, I can find unique species and through the fossil record, trace the genisis of that trait, should it be structural rather than cosmetic.

if you start from the 'trait' or characteristic, as in liar's account, a seemingly reasonable account is available: some horse-like creatures became more dependent on trees, and the ones with longer necks were 'selected': they could reach, eat, nourish themselves and reproduce. that is reproduce faster/better than the short necked ones. the record will show longer and longer necked creatures, the evolutionary 'ancestors' of the giraffe.

but this explanation is based on knowing the outcome. then one constructs the 'just so' story around it. a bit like knowing that A and B are getting a divorce, and going back over their exchanges and finding they become increasingly bitter--hence an 'explanation' of the divorce.

seeing the horselike creatures, some dependent on trees (to some degree), it's not possible to predict what is going to be 'selected' (if anything--maybe they'll all die as eating material becomes unavailable [too high up]).

Well first, post hoc, so what. Seriously, most scientific experiments are built around post hoc. The noise that precedes most great discoveries is not "Eureka" but "That's funny" or "why is that".

And second, there have been concurrent evolution research where a specimen under study underwent a punctuated evolutionary change under observation. Many microbiology and genetics experiments rely on the mutation effect and basic evolutionary steps in their research (see the Rx resistant bacteria strains in genetic engineering).

This is why evolution is a theory rather than a sodding good guess. Like any scientific theory it can always be discarded or expanded if proven wrong or incomplete. This is what science is. ID is a guess, some would say sodding good one, but lacks the reproducability, the fossil record evidence, or the microevolution experiments to back it up. Thus, I would agree to its teaching in a class like humanities or philosophy but would give my left kidney to prevent being taught in the sciences. To do so, as Colleen and rgraham point out, is an affront to the integrity of science (like amicus).
 
Liar said:
No cigar, Earl. it follows the pattern of natural selection perfectly.

1. A mutation develops a light sensitive skin cell. Good to have, sees when being eaten, can swim away. Survives longer. Makes more babies.

2. A mutation gets several light sensitive skin cells. Good to have, sees better when being eaten from different angles, can swim away. Survives longer. Makes more babies.

3. A mutation places some of those patches in a hollow "bowl". Very good, gives rudimentary sense of direction of attacker. Enables you to swim away in the right direction. Survives longer. Makes more babies.

4. Hollowness gets deeper, which means even better sense of direction. Cells get more sensitive, protective skin flaps and secretion cover the hollowness, making the light emitting opening above the hollowness smaller and smaller, improving the presicion. Every new mutation with a slightly better sense of sight than the previous lives longer and gets to fuck more.

Baby steps, baby steps, but thousands upon thousands. The very basis of evolution.

The eyes is not more ingenious or miraculous than the spleen or any other organ. It just happens to look cool.

A single light-sensitive cell cannot be taken as one mutation. If a creature has a light sensitive cell, then they must have the capability to do something the information. Even if it's as simple as a "see light, move towards it" reflex, it still has to come from somewhere. A light sensitive cell offers no advantage without the reflex and the very chance of a light sensitive cell and the reflex being present in the same random mutation at the same time is freakish as to not be worth considering at all.

It could be argued that the only reason I can even consider this possibility is that I am here and therefore the several billions to one shot of having eyes came off and that we are working backwards and that could be taken as a valid point.

However, even with the billions of years of trial and error, multiple-celled life is a freakish coincidence, let alone anything complex.

Taken holistically, completly un-Deity-affected evolution of complex life is possible. Just not probable when you look at the odds.

However, it is a theology and thus neither provable nor disprovable.

IMHO Evolution in schools should not be taught as Godless. Atheism is a sect just like any other theology and to teach a dry evolution to say that "this is what happened and there is no room for any Deity" is wrong. Far better to say that this is probably what happened and that it is a matter of personal belief as to whether anyone was in charge.

The Earl
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
This is why evolution is a theory rather than a sodding good guess. Like any scientific theory it can always be discarded or expanded if proven wrong or incomplete. This is what science is. ID is a guess, some would say sodding good one, but lacks the reproducability, the fossil record evidence, or the microevolution experiments to back it up. Thus, I would agree to its teaching in a class like humanities or philosophy but would give my left kidney to prevent being taught in the sciences. To do so, as Colleen and rgraham point out, is an affront to the integrity of science (like amicus).

Just a note: Isn't ID built upon the back of evolution? I don't know what bastardised version the Christian Right uses, but AFAIK, ID is supported by all the evidence that there is for normal evolution. There's just an overlying belief that someone was pulling hte strings.

Okay, I'll be quiet now.

The Earl
 
ID = 'Okay-dammit! Not in seven days, but it was still God!'

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Back
Top