Author's Note: Perhaps all the flak over the president's comments is due to the words "intelligent design" and "Bush" being used in the same sentence?
```
Hell, if you can't see it, and if you can't measure it then it ain't there. Everybody knows that.
We teach our kids real scientific theory not faith, so there's no way that 'Intelligent Design' claptrap is gonna be taught in our schools. Hell, no.
We teach our kids about real stuff that has been proven under strict scientific conditions and stood the test of time.
I doesn't matter to me that most theories are replaced every few years. At least it's done by real science.
After all, we teach our kids about important things like the big-bang theory and gravity and such.
What's that you say? Gravity is an unseen force? Ok, I admit we can't see gravity but we can still feel it's effects. Right? And just because we can't see it don't mean it ain't there.
Ok wait a sec. I think I see where you're going with this so stop messin' with my head. The next thing you're probably gonna tell me is the big-bang never really happened.
Excuse me? Who lit the fuse? Well, just because we don't know who started it don't mean it didn't happen. It was probably that great cosmic arsonist in the sky or something.
I mean... say again? What is the universe expanding into? Talk about an exercise in semantics. No way I'm going there bud.
Ok, maybe I see your point. Come to think of it, scientific theory is kinda like faith. Both take a little bit of "faith" to believe in.
Then again, I never was a gambler. May the force be with you.
This post also appeared at the daily FISK.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - ochairball
Bingo!
There's more to the universe than what scientists know now and theories abound. But, dang it, it's a real turn off when Bush starts talking about Intelligent Design. In fact the universe may be a combination of great science and something we can't even comprehend with our present minds.
2 - gonzo marx
Science....Metaphysics
can ya tell the difference between the two?
can the White House?
oh...the humanity....
Excelsior!
3 - No Milk
the only thing i want to make sure that we do is that we teach ALL versions of 'intelligent design'. let's not forget that there are many versions of this; one version has not proven to be better than the other. for example: there is the greek pantheon, the indian version, the islamic version, the native american version and so on and so forth. to focus solely on one version of 'intelligent design' would be plain stupidity.
4 - Bennett
HEH!!! good one No Milk!
5 - jo
Brilliant BB!
6 - Duane
Yes, brilliant BB! Your uninformed bias shows through brilliantly!
So, anyway, it's clever. Well ... wait ... your questions show [edited].
So, yes, a fine job. It's not totally stupid.
However, you seem not to know what the word "faith" means. And although you're fairly adept at linking, it's clear that you don't understand how science works.
So, all in all, it's a pretty dullwitted post. But brilliantly dullwitted! I wouldn't try to take that away from you.
Carry on.
7 - Lumpy
"I doesn't matter to me that most theories are replaced every few years. At least it's done by real science."
Evolution theory is over one hundred years old. Over that time, the evidence to support it has been piling up.
A lot of confusion is due to people not understanding the meaning of the term "Theory" in a scientific context. A scientific Theory is not a guess or an estimate or an idea, like the word is commonly used. In order to become a theory, a concept must undergo rigorous testing, and pass.
Intelligent Design is not considered a scientific theory at this point, far from it. Teaching it in a science class in a public school would be ridiculous. However private schools are free to teach whatever they please.
8 - RKC
The concept of "intelligent design" that makes sense is identifying all the "holes" in what is currently being taught. There are more questions than answers in the current "theory". To ignore these "holes" is deceptive.
Accepting the "the theory of evolution" as it is currently expounded takes more faith than to believe in an "intelligent designer" who has a "plan" that has been revealed over time (keeping in mind that "time" is also an intrinsic part of the "plan".)
To simply believe that "chance" and "selection" have been sufficient to achieve all that our senses can perceive is too simplistic to believe -- even with unbounded "faith".
9 - apeman
You might have to ask yourself, though,
which theory has more 'holes' in it.
The theory that accurately maps the close genetic similiarity between all mammals with opposable thumbs and postulates the species that learned to use tools, and copy other members of it's species that learned to use tools is the same species in which increasing intelligence became a reproductive asset, the end result being math, science, music, and culture
OR
the one that says an invisible man created all life at the same time and fossils are the tricks of an equally invisible evil trickster?
You might ask yourself, but if you believe in the invisible man, no questions are required.
10 - RKC
RE: Comment 9
Which theory has more 'holes' in it?
The theory that relies on a similiarity between mammals and the ability to use tools without consideration of what it would take to achieve such a result?
OR
The one that says there is a lot more to this puzzle?
You should ask yourself -- but if you believe in the "tooth fairy" and that all creation came about by the magic wand of "selection" and "chance", no questions are required.
11 - JR
RKC: There are more questions than answers in the current "theory".
You keep saying that. How many questions are there? How many answers are there? If you know which number is greater, you should be able to tell us what the numbers are.
12 - RKC
How many questions are there?
I could not begin to list them all here -- but if you have not raised your own questions during your own lifetime, you have a problem with perception.
13 - JR
RKC: How many questions are there?
I could not begin to list them all here
Then how do you know they are greater in number than answers? Why won't you just tell us how you know that evolution raises more questions than it answers? You've made the claim on more than one occasion; can't you defend your own statements?
14 - apeman
Selection, chance, and random mutations aren't 'magic wands'. Mutations occur due to a variety of factors, here's just three:
1) RNA transcriptose is the chemical that allows for DNA replication. The copies are faithful to a staggering degree, but errors do occur.
2) Viral contamenation.
3) Environmental radiation and toxins.
These three factors allow for a great deal of mutation. These mutations are rarely benificial. And even when they are beneficial, there is no gaurantee the genetic sequence that created them will become the most likely to repeat itself at the molecular level (the dominant gene).But occasionally these mutations are beneficial and the recipient becomes likely to sire or birth the most offspring. If the new mutation also turns out to be easier to produce at the molecular level, the dominant gene will slowly(over many generations) push the recessive gene to points on the helix where it no longer functions. (except in rare cases where it causes birth defects)Over time, this creates a new species. That's why it takes a long time for evolution to work. Chance plays a part at the molecular level, selection interacts with the environment.
Neither the 'tooth fairy', or any fictional character invented for the delight of small children, is required.
15 - Shark
RKC: "...if you believe in the "tooth fairy" and that all creation came about by the magic wand of "selection" and "chance", no questions are required."
So we have a choice -- and you pick God [AKA "Mr. Intelligent Designer"] as the one to use the magic wand?
Making something out of nothing is just as much of a dilemma for "God" as it is for science, although science currently has the best record when it comes to explaining 'things'.
One question, RKC: Who made God?
[Shark grabs his shorts -- anticipating an eternally spiraling semantics maze -- a never ending 'open-ended' heirarchy wherein gods gets created by bigger gods ad infinitum.]
Meanwhile, I'll stick with Science.
PS: Where's my aspirin?
16 - Bob Bogdal
I just had to weigh in on this one, first it is very important to go back to 1845 or so and to grasp that scientist before Darwin already embraced evolution theory, why? because it was a useful tool to justify using people of color for slave work and menial tasks by claiming they wheere less evolved. They where caught red handed putting a gorilla jawbone on a human skull to promote their racist scheme. Contrary to what I read here there is no proof of CROSS evolution, meaning zero proof that one species turned into a new a distinct species. sorry folks but the term THEORY does apply clearly to cross evolution. It was created to promote racism and justify slavery simple as that. Virtually no science from over 100 years ago is worth its weight in modern science, 100 years of science hardly is enough for humans to make such grand statements as fact, especially with all the documented racial parts to this story. For all we know this is one big dream.
17 - billy
Bob
I guess all different species dont have eyes, ears, noses, mmouths, stomachs, arms, legs, lungs, hearts, brains . . .
yet there is no evidence for coss evolution?
are you dimwitted or just willfuly blind?
who cares if darwin was the second coming of the devil?
his theory is right. his motivations irrelevant.
yours are revealing.
18 - Bob bogdal
I would like to add that evolution is a fact that all creatures are evolving, I can accept that without hestitation. The problem with Darwin lies in the illustration and how they present it. I am sure mankind evolved from some type of upright walking creature, however the idea that it was another species ( aka apes or monkeys is ridiculous) and not a unique species of its own is where the problem begins. the dream thoery is just as viable and just as hard to prove, everything around us seems concrete enough even though we know every thing is fluid and in motion. I think all these peole that argue this should keep in mind that some of our greatest scientist are Jewish and like Einstein use Kabbalah and their religious mentality to come up with this stuff in the first place. Lastly it might suprise poeple how many scientist are embracing, a form of intelligent design and evolution. The problem is not that some scientist do not believe in a higher being, it is that in science you can only prove what is known and can be proven with very limited scientific instruments. There is so much we do not understand and cannot, do to the limitations of the very science everyone embraces as truth.
19 - Bob Bogdal
All earth creatures have unique attributes to earth, in our case it is two eyes one mouth etc as you suggest, however you still have to explain say a platypus or any myriad of creatures. You are confusing earths dynamics with Darwins cross evolution theory. and again the racism behind Darwin is well documented.
20 - billy
"however the idea that it was another species ( aka apes or monkeys is ridiculous)"
evolution doesnt claim this. it claims we share a common ancestor, and all life does, it doesn claim we were monkeys. that is a typical id response.
true einstein believed in god, and evolution, and he believed in the static universe, which he was wrong about, it just goes to show there is no conflict at all between evolution and religion, except the one made up by id proponents.
21 - billy
"and again the racism behind Darwin is well documented"
so what, people were racists back then. thats not relevant. hitler could have said the earth is round, does that mean the earth is really flat?
platypus is no big deal, it lives in two environments and has retained features for both. that is the best proof of evolution.
A theory cant be based on finding "holes" in another theory. the hole has to be explained by a new theory. SO ID is just evolution bashing with no substance. there is no chance to teach it in school outside of comparative religion.
22 - Bob Bogdal
And yes you are correct there is NO proof of cross evolution...period. If there where it would be a fact not theory. My point in all this is that for people of say philosophical or science minded should be able to freely explore every and all theory without religion or the president or anyone else saying what is true or not true because we simply do not know. Just because simple minds have an easy time wrapping around an idea does not make it more viable. I want my children to be taught all theories and all possibilities, it was God , it was the devil, its all a dream. we live in a belief system, and time after time it is proven that what the majority believes becomes the truth. It was true with the speed of sound, electricity etc etc. the speed of light ...no problem once people believe it can become true and happens, this is the nature of our being. we are not as encumbered by physics as it seems. Thatis a fact.
23 - billy
"what the majority believes becomes the truth."
sometimes, except for religion. the majority are muslims, not christians, but even christians must admit, everything they believed in the bible has been proven false. thats a fact.
the earth wasnt created in 6 days.
its not the center of the universe.
etc.
24 - Bob Bogdal
I love this place for this interaction , glad I found it. You do not offend me in anyway for your beliefs one way or another, I believe the only way to break through what is true or untrue is with exchange of thoughts and freedom to think any possibility that the mind can create. That is the the point here anything the mind can concieve can become reality, once the masses accept it.
25 - Bob Bogdal
I agree with you about Christian thought it is one version, however, I think Joseph Campbell explained it the best, all the major religions of the world have the same basic storyline colored by their particular culture. Christ is Krishna, Christ is Mohamed, God is YHVH, God is Allah, story is the same the coloring of it different. And you are correct to point out that there are inconsistancies in the religions of the world, the question is did man change the doctrine as the Catholics have with Christianity to control the masses, I say yes. But underlying the story is a universal truth that all races seem to embrace, the flood stories, the devil, heaven and hell etc. look I do not claim that religion has scientific answers, I am only cliaming that Darwin and his cronies and the Freemasons of the day had an agenda, and it is clearly documented.