Today on Blogcritics
Home » George W. Bush: Denies Evolution; Warns Bird Flu Will Evolve

George W. Bush: Denies Evolution; Warns Bird Flu Will Evolve

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

George Bush illustrates the level of contradiction you must live with to be a conservative in America. First he says the “jury is out” on the theory of evolution, meaning he does not believe evolution is a “fact”, then he warns the nation in a press conference that bird flu, heretofore only passed between birds, is poised to mutate and make the huge evolutionary leap to be able to be passed between humans.

Well the President is right about one thing – evolutionary theory is not a fact. On the contrary, it is a theory and a pretty solid one at that. In fact, evolutionary theory, along with gravitational theory, the theory that the earth is round, and the theory that the sun is at the center of the solar system, are some of the most solid theories man has ever devised.

They help explain the past, they help explain what we see today, they help predict the future, and most importantly, they are testable so that our children in science lab actually have some real scientific experimentation and learning to do – instead of just praying to the “intelligent designer” hoping he will make everything better.

Intrinsically Bush seems to understand all of this, even though he is loathe to admit it to his base. At a recent press conference Bush fear-mongered by warning that the H5N1 virus, known as bird flu or avian flu, might jump between humans soon, requiring drastic measures including imposition of a quasi-police state, which he outlined in his speech.

So lets get this straight Mr. President, you believe evolution is some fiction dreamed up by atheists, in order to make people doubt the existence of your minority-version of God? You further believe that the hypothetical possibility that bird flu will evolve and mutate so that it will be able to be passed between humans is virtually a sure thing – so much so that you devote an inordinate amount of time in a national press conference to the subject?

Sounds like a flip-flop of biblical proportions to me. First of all, there is no evidence that bird flu can be passed any other way than between birds and other fowl. Now, from an evolutionary standpoint, it would be real advantageous (to the H5N1 life form) if it mutated and evolved into a strain that could be passed from human to human; but it has not happened yet, it may never happen, it may be impossible to happen for reasons we don’t yet understand, or alternatively it may happen at some indefinite time thousands of years from now.

That is a fact.

But for an evolution denier like George Bush to state with practical certainty that bird flu will evolve into a human-transmittable strain seems hypocritical. Maybe he said it because it is good material to fear-monger with, rather than actually believing it will happen.

Powered by

About Balletshooz

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Oh you silly liberal mushy-headed thinker of dark thoughts.

    I mean, I can’t believe you miss the difference between evolution and evolution. The first deals with changing stuff. The second deals with changing other stuff. That clear enough?

    No? Well then, think of it this way. There scientific evolution, which is obviously a liberal plot of hearden American children’s hearts against God. And then there’s Bush’s evolution which is a warm embrace of the divine spirit that inhabits everything–except the virus in those lousy chickens.

    Get your science straight! You’re just making it tough for us straight thinkers.

    (Great post, by the way!)

    In Jamesons Veritas.

  • Nancy

    Bush would be laughable if he weren’t in a position to be so dangerous.

  • balletshooz

    Oh I see, if you put the word “evolution” in italics, then its permissible. Maybe Bush is evolving to realize that evolution is a “fact”. that would be nice wouldn’t it.

    Then maybe we can train a generation of intelligent young scientists to really combat the virus when it evolves, without confusing them when they are 6 years old.

  • gonzo marx

    oh Mark, me boyo…

    they still let you type?

    and here i had thought that one they put you in the nice dinner jacket that ties up in the back, ya would have not been able ta manage it…

    ah well…. {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    as for the Post…nicely done pointing out the dichotomy in what passes for “thought” around 1600 Pennsylvania ave…

    things are getting interesting, mug shots from Texas, Fitzgerald almost ready to set out some Fun…Insider trading with the Senate Majority leader..

    “it’s going to be a bumpy night” Mae West

    Excelsior!

  • Nancy

    Hey Gonzo – missed your rapier wit. Where ya been? Welcome back.

  • http://gbytes.gsood.com Gaurav

    It is surprising that evolution threatens believers. For years together, they have followed a very simple rule – see anything fantastic – route it to God. Well the big J freaks may want to think about embracing evolution – its God’s awesome power at display that we evolved and God’s love …. Of course the material in Bible is a bit of a problem. But last time I heard, Church of Science was furiously number crunching predicing everything from Tsunami to 9/11.

  • billy

    quite true about evolution. if god is so powerful, why could he not have created evolution along with the universe?

    why cant religious folk grasp that people 2-6000 years ago didnt know ebough about the world to write a bible that is accurate to the T?

    heck, they didnt even know the earth was round and thought it was stationary at the center of the universe. cut them some slack.

    If god can create the universe, certainly he can create an orderly process (evolution) whereby his creation is realized over time?

    Maybe god is patient?

  • Dr. Kurt

    Bush is just drawing on the old Spanish proverb, “He who talks a lot will be right some of the time.”
    The Shrub really needs a wonder-drug himself, right now.

  • Alethinos

    I don’t know WHY Bush denies evolution, he obviously was evolved in Cheney’s lab, with Boriskarlroveoff assisting from a used CURIOUS GEORGE doll!

    Alethinos

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    Balletshooz said, “Intrinsically Bush seems to understand all of this, even though he is loathe to admit it to his base.”

    Are you completely ignorant of your opposition or do you intentionally misrepresent the opposing view? Creationists and those who hold to an intelligent design point of view accept that natural selection exists and is a powerful explanation for changes within a kind and speciation. But natural selection is a subtraction process, it removes genetic information, it does not produce novel genetic information that did not exist previously. This includes the expected “evolutionary leap” of the bird flu to humans. It is generally the reduction of information that provides the environmental advantage for the organism’s survival.

    It is the evolution from single celled bacteria to multicellular organisms to invertebrates to vertebrates type of evolution that is a huge extrapolation. So the evidence for evolution does not contradict creationism while evolutionists claim victory saying evolution is everywhere. This is a “bait and switch” trick and Balletshooz is enjoying the use of it. For evidence for creation I invite you to look at creationevidence.blogspot.com

  • JR

    Jim Bendewald: But natural selection is a subtraction process, it removes genetic information, it does not produce novel genetic information that did not exist previously.

    Hmmm, seems to be a common misconception. Where are you getting your bogus information?

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    JR said, “Hmmm, seems to be a common misconception. Where are you getting your bogus information?”

    This is basic genetics, it is not “bogus information”. The phrase ‘weeding out’ is another way to refer to the subtraction process of natural selection. http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm states, “This ‘weeding out’ of less suited organisms and the reward of survival to those better suited led Darwin to deduce that organisms had evolved over time, where the most desirable characteristics of a species are favoured and those organisms who exhibit them survive to pass their genes on.”

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    This quote speaks specifically to ‘more exclusive’ genes. “Natural selection will favour genes that are more suited to their environment and become more exclusive in the gene pool over time in such an environment. Different genes will become more exclusive when the environment changes, or the species migrate.” From http://www.biology-online.org/2/14_gene_pool.htm

  • Dr. Kurt

    Ummm… what does that quote have to do with subtracting chromosomes? Not that Darwin had ever seen one; he theorized, and years of research have generally supported him. Now that we can sequence DNA, we know a bit more.
    The “subtraction” claim is a dumb con used by the ID people; amazing how some people will believe it without evidence. Wait, that’s ID itself…

  • zingzing

    id is a crock of butter beans, thought up by christians who figured out that evolution is correct and found out a way to connect it back to “their” god. of course, it’s the god of the bible, if it’s anyone! horse hooves! idiots…

  • Luke

    If god used evolution to create things, then even if it took a billion years, to god that’s some work he did one afternoon, our time and gods time don’t run on the same scale, and obviously, if he was going to inspire the bible, it wouln’t make sense to tell people it took him 350 billion days to make this thing, and 275 billion days to make that, he simplified it for our tiny little minds.

  • Baronius

    Micro evolution versus macro evolution. The envelope.

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    Dr. Kurt said, “Now that we can sequence DNA, we know a bit more.”

    Let me remind you that I am from a pro evolutionary source which says about natural selection: “Different genes will become more exclusive when the environment changes”

    But when you say we now know a bit more possibly you were referring to mutations. So the question arises, do mutations bring about novel information that did not exist previously? The answer again is no!

    Lee Spetner, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has studied the issue of new information extensively. In his book, Not By Chance (pp.131, 132 134), Spetner wrote,
    “But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. The NDT [neo-Darwinian Theory] says, not only that such mutations must occur, they must also be probable enough for a long sequence of them to lead to macroevolution . . . All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

    Spetner says that mutations reduce genetic information. In extremely rare circumstances mutations turn out to be an advantage to the creature in a particular environment; even so, it is from a loss of information. Evolutionists teach that microevolution occurs through small steps, with macroevolution the eventual result. But there appears to be no evidence for it, since macroevolution requires great amounts of new information.

    Mutations may have the ability to do the equivalent of copying a paragraph of text and pasting it somewhere else but that is nothing like writing a complete, unique and intelligent paragraph of text. Evolutionists have no biological evidence that evolution creates novel information that has not existed before. If you disagree, provide us with the evidence, not your insults.

  • JR

    Jim Bendewald: Mutations may have the ability to do the equivalent of copying a paragraph of text and pasting it somewhere else but that is nothing like writing a complete, unique and intelligent paragraph of text.

    A “paragraph of text” is copied; there are now two copies in the genome. Over time, random mutations accumulate in one the copy, while the other is conserved by virtue of the fact that individuals born with critical changes in both copies tend to die. So while one copy stays the same, the other accumulates changes, becoming essentially a new text. Among all the different mutations in all the different progeny, some happen to code for heritable traits. Voila! New information.

    Evolutionists have no biological evidence that evolution creates novel information that has not existed before.

    I doubt that you can credibly make that claim, as it involves auditing the entirety of the scientific literature. I haven’t done that; have you?

  • Brandon

    stop this poitless bickering we all know George W. Bush’s vocabulary is limited to that of forest gumps (no offence meant) there is only one scientificly sound theory of evolution and it is also complitly biblical the theory of adaption or the abilty for somthing to change to meet its needs natural selection also a solid theory says that those adapted organisms are going to survive longer and produce more any student in grade school can tell you that so please stop this pointless Arguing and start debating on somtihing more important like mabye the war in iraq or the death penalty your just wasting your time

  • phil

    The fact is, that if you have Jesus in your life, you have peace and don’t really care what some (de-evolving) idiot believes. If Bush is truely an idiot, then those of us who believe are all idiots

  • Nancy

    Phil, by your own words are ye convicted, lol!

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    JR said, “Voila! New information.”

    That is great for the imagination but that does not make it science. Where is the overwhelming evidence that evolutionists’ claim?

    You also said, “I doubt that you can credibly make that claim, as it involves auditing the entirety of the scientific literature. I haven’t done that; have you?”

    No, but all you have to do is find any empirical evidence to demonstrate that I’m wrong. Since evolutionists claim that evolution is so well documented, that should not be too hard to find. Otherwise evolution as a well-founded established theory is all hype, isn’t it?

  • barry boob

    yes it is time to get over there is no god…
    we evloved from bactriea over about 2 billion years or so…
    the you guys happy an answer with evidence

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    Correction:

    I said, “Let me remind you that I am [quoting] from a pro evolutionary source which says about natural selection: “Different genes will become more exclusive when the environment changes”

    The word “quoting” was left out in the original comment.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    he simplified it for our tiny little minds

    how could a “little mind” have figured out that something was simplified for it?

  • steve

    where do I sign up to be a nihilistic pinko bastard like some people on this blog?

  • Nancy

    Just look in the mirror, steve.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Gonzo, me lad, and you’ve been soorly missed these long days or I’m a bleedin’ leprechan! As fer me, ‘fraid t’ere ain’t enough time in der world fer all ta stuff I gotta do.

    Between the new novel, posting on way too many sites, trying to make a living creating and then fixing crises…ah, but if the good Lord had only designed us so we didn’t need to sleep.

    Baronius, check recent literature. Scientists no longer talk about micro and macro evolution–that problem was fixed years ago. Sorry.

    And Phil, your logic is illogical. It’s not “If The Bushman believes in God, then he’s an idiot. I believe in God, therefore I am an idiot.”

    It’s “George Bush is an idiot. He also believes in God.” The two statements are unrelated. Sorry–that alone can’t make you an idiot. You have to do it all yourself. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

    And to all a good night.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • Eric Olsen

    classic title!

  • JR

    Jim Bendewald: That is great for the imagination but that does not make it science.

    Funny, I could say exactly the same thing about everything you’ve written. I did you the favor of describing how “new information” can be created; if you can blow that off so casually, what hope that you’ll be open-minded to anything I present as evidence?

    all you have to do is find any empirical evidence to demonstrate that I’m wrong. Since evolutionists claim that evolution is so well documented, that should not be too hard to find. Otherwise evolution as a well-founded established theory is all hype, isn’t it?

    You are asking me to put in the work here when you are the one who hasn’t bothered to pay for and get the education and you are probably going to do your level best to deny the reasoning and evidence at every step of the way.

    Seriously, what’s in it for me?

  • http://www.EvidencePress.com Jim Bendewald

    JR said, “Funny, I could say exactly the same thing about everything you’ve written.”

    I started off explaining that the author did not understand the creationist point of view in regard to natural selection. I also stated that natural selection is a subtraction process. You said I was providing bogus information and asked where I got my information from. Understanding natural selection as a subtraction process is basic genetics. I provided a few quotes from a pro evolutionary source which also describes natural selection as a “weeding out” process and “genes will become more exclusive when the environment changes, or the species migrate.” Explaining natural selection from a pro evolutionary source is providing evidence to support my view — it is not an imaginative scenario.

    You said, “Seriously, what’s in it for me?”

    Debating is not just about winning, it’s about learning. I do not claim to be a scientist but I am on a quest to learn truth and communicate it as best I can. If I’m wrong I want to know it.

    Richard Dawkins writes, “There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopedia Britannica 60 times over.” The Blind Watchmaker, (pp. 115-116). Now where does all that information come from, either in the hypothetical first cell or even in the hypothetical idea of evolving new creatures from pre-existing creatures? We are talking about massive amounts of highly detailed information.

    Information scientist Dr. Warner Gitt, describes information, wherever it exists is in five levels. The five levels he describes are: statistics, syntax, semantics, application and purpose. Just as this forum displays all five levels so does DNA. DNA is the most highly compact form of information known. Where did that information come from if there is no intelligent designer who I call God? Steven Meyer describes information as a massless quantity. He then asks the question, how can a universe of matter and energy provide information which is not made up of either?

    You said, “So while one copy stays the same, the other accumulates changes, becoming essentially a new text.” Your scenario just cannot account for intelligent information required to assemble proteins, organelles and new organisms.

  • Brandon

    a closed mind brings ignorance and with it stupidity please understand we have more chance of MT. rushmore making itself than the theory of common ansestry being true I’m a 16 year old and know that please accept that either side could be wrong like Jim Bendewald here hes the only one who seems to know what hes talking about both creation and the heory of common ansestry (not evolution) are just theories and evolutions a part of both as i explained in my earlier post so once again find a more constructive debate topic and stop the abuse on what our president said it matters little to our pollitics

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    The man doesn’t believe in the fact of evolution just like many people. What does that have to do with anything???

  • http://getslaughtered.blogspot.com Timmy

    The New York Times could save themselves some time by just using “BUSH MAKES HYPOCRITICAL REMARK” or “BUSH SAYS SOMETHING STUPID” as a headline everyday from now until the end of his term. But it’s gotten to the point that his idiocy is so common-place that it’s not even worth pointing out any more.

  • JR

    Jim Bendewald: Debating is not just about winning, it’s about learning. I do not claim to be a scientist but I am on a quest to learn truth and communicate it as best I can. If I’m wrong I want to know it.

    Yeah, me too. It just seems like it would be more productive for me to spend my time trying to keep myself up to date, and more productive for you to take the classes and put yourself in the environment of science rather than rely on half-assed, amateur banter from me.

    All I can say from the standpoint of a former student is that given the totality of data reported and the reasoning linking that data, the evidence for evolution is quite convincing. Whether there is a conspiracy of lab technicians, instrument makers and professors; or whether God is faking the evidence; I find no shame in falling for it. Indeed, if God appeared and revealed all the evidence of natural history to be an elaborate hoax, I would still have less respect for the people who didn’t fall for it.

    Where did that information come from if there is no intelligent designer who I call God? Steven Meyer describes information as a massless quantity. He then asks the question, how can a universe of matter and energy provide information which is not made up of either?

    Is there reason to believe it shouldn’t? The questions are so abstract, and our experience is so limited, I’m not sure how you decide which answers are going to strain credulity.

    You said, “So while one copy stays the same, the other accumulates changes, becoming essentially a new text.” Your scenario just cannot account for intelligent information required to assemble proteins, organelles and new organisms.

    Well, that seems like a strong assertion. It would certainly be provocative if it could be shown to be the case, but I just don’t know how such a flat denial can be demonstrated, let alone that it has been. One might just as easily say that running water can’t account for the Grand Canyon – the statement certainly sounds reasonable as you stand in awe at the rim, but is it really true?

  • http://www.blogcritics.com T A Dodger

    Jim B,
    Evolution / natural selection adds new genetic information via random mutations. Some mutations increase the mutants’ reproductive success and, as the mutants pass their genetic material onto their offspring, the mutation spreads through the population.

  • http://www.blogcritics.com T A Dodger

    Incidentally, random mutation is the way the avian flu would become trasmittable to humans. It would not be the elimination of some “can’t be spread by humans” gene, it would be the addition of new genetic information.

  • Mark Paul Bare

    Most of the genetic code in humans is basically unused data. Same for many other creatures if not all. What is this inactive data for? old genes that have gone inactive due to mutation or genetic drift seems to be the consensus. Many physiological changes are a result of a change in the operation of a gene and not about a lot of new information added (i.e. look at a juvenile chimpanzees face and it is flat like a humans… as the chimp ages it protrudes more because the bones grow for longer). Not really any new info added or lost… just a change that effects the timing.

    I laugh at the phrase “intelligent design” every time I have to go to the chiropractor!

  • Maurice

    I am an engineer and an athiest. There are those on this thread that have refered to evolution as a ‘fact’. It is a theory. As a man of science I look at all these theories of origin with skepticism.

  • David Edwards

    Seems someone doesn’t know even the state of the art of research in evolutionary biology 8 years ago.

    Here’s a scientific paper that blows creationist “information” canards right out of the water:

    Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider, Nucleic Acids Research, 28: 2794-2799 (2000)

    This paper can be downloaded directly from Schneider’s own website here.

    More papers by the same author available here.

  • ash

    look evolution makes no sense at all!!!!!!!!

  • mark

    Evolution dosen’t contradict intelligent design, it contradicts the Christian Bible.

    Evolution in no way trys to explain where matter originated, or whether a god exists. The two can exist side by side.

  • Greg

    There is a difference between evolution and natural selection. The flu’s mutational changes is natural selection. The origin of species from random processes is evolution.