Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush Says Creation 'Not Incompatible' With Evolution
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 1 of 15 (490842)
12-09-2008 2:19 AM


FoxNews writes:
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with the scientific theory of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
He added, "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life."
http://www.foxnews.com/...ys-creation-incompatible-evolution
Looks like he's down with ID, dont know if thats any better than literal creationism.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 12-09-2008 5:09 AM Shield has not replied
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 12-09-2008 5:23 AM Shield has not replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2008 7:31 AM Shield has not replied
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 12-09-2008 8:37 AM Shield has not replied
 Message 9 by Deftil, posted 12-12-2008 2:21 AM Shield has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 15 (490858)
12-09-2008 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shield
12-09-2008 2:19 AM


If I was being cynical I'd say it was political hedging.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shield, posted 12-09-2008 2:19 AM Shield has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 15 (490859)
12-09-2008 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shield
12-09-2008 2:19 AM


He added, "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life."
Well he's right; it does not fully explain the mysteries of life: it explains how organisms evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shield, posted 12-09-2008 2:19 AM Shield has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 4 of 15 (490865)
12-09-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shield
12-09-2008 2:19 AM


The money quote:
I'm just a simple president.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shield, posted 12-09-2008 2:19 AM Shield has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 15 (490868)
12-09-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shield
12-09-2008 2:19 AM


Bush is such an extreme scientific ignoramus and his administration has been so incredibly anti-science that I am pleasantly shocked that he said something so intelligent and coherent.
The incoming Obama administration should be like a breath of fresh air for the scientific community.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shield, posted 12-09-2008 2:19 AM Shield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by obvious Child, posted 12-11-2008 2:55 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 12-11-2008 9:14 AM Percy has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 6 of 15 (491040)
12-11-2008 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
12-09-2008 8:37 AM


I'm not so sure I agree with that. Sure Bush's administration has largely been only pro-science when it came to new ways of killing people, but I've long believed that Bush was using religion as a tool for advancing his political gain. Not that he actually strongly believed in the anti-sentiments of his radical religious base. This provides more evidence of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 12-09-2008 8:37 AM Percy has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 7 of 15 (491055)
12-11-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
12-09-2008 8:37 AM


Considering Obama is having a physicist as his energy secretary, I would say he values intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 12-09-2008 8:37 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 12-11-2008 10:00 AM ramoss has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 8 of 15 (491057)
12-11-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ramoss
12-11-2008 9:14 AM


Not just any physicist. A nobel winner and an employee of the DoE who heads the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab who's been pushing alternative energy.
We might actually see global warming tackled seriously!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 12-11-2008 9:14 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Shield, posted 12-13-2008 5:04 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 9 of 15 (491142)
12-12-2008 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shield
12-09-2008 2:19 AM


Nice. We got the pope, we got the president... who does that leave?
Theistic evolution in general, and even ID specifically, is better than literal creationism in my book. I don't care so much if people think there is a God, I just don't want that belief to stifle scientific progress and acceptance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shield, posted 12-09-2008 2:19 AM Shield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2008 4:27 AM Deftil has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 10 of 15 (491145)
12-12-2008 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Deftil
12-12-2008 2:21 AM


even ID specifically, is better than literal creationism in my book. .. ...I just don't want that belief to stifle scientific progress and acceptance.
Not on topic here, but I cannot think of much more stifling to scientific progress than 'this couldn't possibly happen naturally, and therefore there is no point investigating further - ID'er'didit
ID is not even an attempt at science, it is merely a poorly disguised religious wedge...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Deftil, posted 12-12-2008 2:21 AM Deftil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Deftil, posted 12-13-2008 12:25 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 11 of 15 (491275)
12-13-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by cavediver
12-12-2008 4:27 AM


cavediver writes:
Not on topic here, but I cannot think of much more stifling to scientific progress than 'this couldn't possibly happen naturally, and therefore there is no point investigating further - ID'er'didit
I think a concept that completely rejects evolution (literal creationism) is more stifling to science than one that accepts evolution, but holds that a deity guided it (ID).
I don't mean ID is good by any means, but I think it's better and less stifling to science than literal creationism. At least ID is loosely based on science. Creationism completey ignores it. That seems worse to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2008 4:27 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 1:14 PM Deftil has not replied
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 12-13-2008 2:16 PM Deftil has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 12 of 15 (491281)
12-13-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Deftil
12-13-2008 12:25 PM


Honesty
Hi Deftil,
Could it not be argued that creationism is more honest then ID?
Literal creationism strikes me as more honest. It was originally a sincere enough attempt to explain the universe. It's proponents tend to believe in it most sincerely.
ID on the other hand is and always has been a fudge, a big lie, designed to get creationism into schools under the wire, so to speak.
Creationism seems to me, to be wrong about almost everything, but honest and sincere at its heart, whereas ID strikes me as rotten to the core.
Having said that, literal Bible style creationism requires a much larger set of falsehoods for support than ID does.
Going back to Bush, I have always been deeply suspicious about how sincere his born again conversion really is. I can't help but wonder if it isn't largely played up in order to appeal to a religious support base. Certainly, many other members of his circle are happy to exploit the religious right, without believing it themselves. Karl Rove is said to have described fundamentalists as "the nuts". He's quite happy to court their vote however.
I'm deeply sceptical of the GOP's link to religion and i think they should drop it before it poisons their party.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Deftil, posted 12-13-2008 12:25 PM Deftil has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 15 (491286)
12-13-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Deftil
12-13-2008 12:25 PM


I don't mean ID is good by any means, but I think it's better and less stifling to science than literal creationism. At least ID is loosely based on science. Creationism completey ignores it. That seems worse to me.
ID is proposing science that is diametrically opposed to the scientific method. As Behe testified at Dover, the very definition of science would have to change to permit ID, and that definition would also permit astrology.
Dogma driven science is a perversion, and nothing resembling real science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Deftil, posted 12-13-2008 12:25 PM Deftil has not replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 14 of 15 (491295)
12-13-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by kuresu
12-11-2008 10:00 AM


A scientist is not neccesarily a good administrator.
Besides, the DoE is more about handling the nuclear weapons of america than handling energy production.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kuresu, posted 12-11-2008 10:00 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 8:58 AM Shield has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 15 of 15 (491317)
12-14-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Shield
12-13-2008 5:04 PM


A scientist is not neccesarily a good administrator.
Neither is a professional politician. It just depends on their managerial experience and their judgement factor. Some scientists have had very good admin/managerial experience especially those who lead teams of other scientists i.e. those who are deans or department heads at large universities, leaders of research teams, etc. Steve Chu is more than qualified in all these regards.
Steve Chu is currently the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory the oldest and most distinguished DOE owned and funded laboratory with a staff of over 4000 staff and 800 students and a budget of over $650 million dollers with 76 buildings (owned by the DOE) on 200 acres hosting over 3,000 international guests per year. Additionally he has over 20+ years of DOE related administrative experience working as a member and co-chair of several reports by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) (international science organization), Copenhagen Climate Council (an international climate change awareness group that advises the UN), Chair of the Physics and Applied Physics Department at Stanford University, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, head of the Quantum Electronics Research Department at Bell Laboratories, co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics . He has written over 220 scientific papers and is a fellow or member of the world’s leading scientific academies. He serves on numerous boards including the Hewlett Foundation, the University of Rochester, and the Executive Committee of the National Academies’ Board on Physics and Astronomy. He has also been an advisor to the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the National Nuclear Security Agency. That along with being a Nobel Laureate just adds to his prestige.
Besides, the DoE is more about handling the nuclear weapons of america than handling energy production.
No it isn't. The DOE covers both aspects as seen in the DOE's mission statement below:
DOE writes:
The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. The Department's strategic goals to achieve the mission are designed to deliver results along five strategic themes:
Energy Security: Promoting America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy
Nuclear Security: Ensuring America’s nuclear security
Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Strengthening U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in science and technology
Environmental Responsibility: Protecting the environment by providing a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production
Management Excellence: Enabling the mission through sound management
Steve Chu has experience (more than some previous DOE secretaries who have had only non-nuclear corporate experience) handling both nuclear energy research (including overseeing nuclear weapon research as the Director of the DOE owned Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) and other energy related research. IMHO, he is more than qualified and excellent choice by Obama.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Shield, posted 12-13-2008 5:04 PM Shield has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024