# Whom to Pit: Bush or the Press? (Re: Bush's support for teaching Intelligent Design) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331 "2005-08-02T17:35:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/1 "2005-08-02T17:35:07Z")
[Bush endorses teaching ‘intelligent design’](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12278405.htm). (Requires registration) OK, Bush has been Pitted enough on this issue, so no real reason to do so again. Suffice it to say that on the subject of evolution, he’s an idiot. But why can’t the press at least get the details right? Doesn’t the SJ Merc have science writers to cover these types of issues? This is supposed to be the newspaper of Silicon Valley, not the newspaper of Silicone Valley… > [@](#): > > 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. > > \ > > Scientists concede that evolution doesn’t answer every question about the creation of life, but most consider intelligent design an attempt to inject religion into science courses. > > \ > > “The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” John West, associate director of the organization’s Center for Science and Culture, said in a prepared statement. Emphasis added. There is so much misinformation floating around about evolution [by natural selection] that we don’t need large newspapers confusing that subject with “the origin of life”. That’s exactly what the creationists and the IDers want-- to mix those two subjects together in the minds of the public. Once and for all, Evolution is not about the origin of life, goddamit!!! ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/2 "2005-08-02T17:37:17Z")
The sad thing is, I’m an atheist, and I have no problem with intelligent design being taught as a theory in our public schools. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/3 "2005-08-02T17:42:56Z")
Do you mean theory in the sense that it is used by the common dude in a conversation, or theory in the way that it is used in the scientific community? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/4 "2005-08-02T17:44:42Z")
**John** , you’re right that evolution _per se_ doesn’t deal with the question of abiogenesis, but the two subjects naturally go together. If we’re discussing the history of living organisms and the processes by which one type of organism changes into another, it’s very natural to expect that discussion to address the question of how living organisms got here in the first place. And IMO the teaching of evolution in schools **should** address that question. Namely, the teachers should say “We dunno. Researchers are experimenting to see if living organisms can arise by purely chemical processes from complex molecules, but so far no joy.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/5 "2005-08-02T17:46:40Z")
Evolution and natural selection are not synonyms. Natural selection is one possible mechanism by which evolution occurs. There is no reason why there should not be scientific inquiry into the origin of life. It goes hand in hand with the evolution of life. Even the universe itself [evolves](http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/Cosmos.htm). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/6 "2005-08-02T17:54:30Z")
> [@NotWithoutRage](#): > > The sad thing is, I’m an atheist, and I have no problem with intelligent design being taught as a theory in our public schools. But it’s not a theory. It’s not even an hypthesis-- it can’t be falsified. ID is not science, it’s religion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/7 "2005-08-02T17:58:57Z")
[Bush Encourages Return to Pantheism](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1051)😃 * * * > [@NotWithoutRage](#): > > The sad thing is, I’m an atheist, and I have no problem with intelligent design being taught as a theory in our public schools. Well, sad in the sense of unfortunate if you believe that there actually is a scientific theory known as Intelligent Design. ID has a few scientist adherents, but there is no such formal theory (even a discredited theory) known as Intelligent Design. They have never bothered to formulate or describe the theory. They want it taught in schools without bothering to discuss it in scientific journals. ---
**Author:** ![THespos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@THespos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/THespos)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/8 "2005-08-02T17:59:46Z")
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the theory behind intelligent design? Evolution seems to offer answers, but from what I’ve read about intelligent design (admittedly not much), it seems to advance the notion that life is too complex to have evolved naturally over the ages. See what I’m getting at? The theory of evolution seems to offer up a theoretical explanation for how our species emerged, but intelligent design seems to simply shoot down evolution without advancing an assertion of its own. Again, I haven’t read too much on this, so please forgive the gaps in my understanding of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/9 "2005-08-02T18:04:25Z")
> [@THespos](#): > > Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the theory behind intelligent design? God did it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/10 "2005-08-02T18:04:30Z")
For the record, as Eugenie Scott often explains, specific claims of irreducible complexity (for example, the flagellum) are indeed falsifiable, although irreducible complexity itself is not. But that shouldn’t be surprising since natural selection is not falsifiable either. Neither is any other metaphysical claim. In fact, falsifiablity is not falsifiable. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/11 "2005-08-02T18:06:56Z")
> [@THespos](#): > > Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the theory behind intelligent design? Evolution seems to offer answers, but from what I’ve read about intelligent design (admittedly not much), it seems to advance the notion that life is too complex to have evolved naturally over the ages. See what I’m getting at? The theory of evolution seems to offer up a theoretical explanation for how our species emerged, but intelligent design seems to simply shoot down evolution without advancing an assertion of its own. That’s pretty much it. It is not testable, and it predicts nothing. It ain’t science. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/12 "2005-08-02T18:07:07Z")
> [@THespos](#): > > Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the theory behind intelligent design? At its root is the concept of irreducible complexity — that is, the idea that there exist organs and organisms for which it is necessary that all components be in cotemporaneous working order for them to function. Remove one component, and the whole organism would fail. The obvious implication is that such an organism could not have survived to evolve into its completed state. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/13 "2005-08-02T18:09:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **John** , you’re right that evolution _per se_ doesn’t deal with the question of abiogenesis, but the two subjects naturally go together. If we’re discussing the history of living organisms and the processes by which one type of organism changes into another, it’s very natural to expect that discussion to address the question of how living organisms got here in the first place. > > And IMO the teaching of evolution in schools **should** address that question. Namely, the teachers should say “We dunno. Researchers are experimenting to see if living organisms can arise by purely chemical processes from complex molecules, but so far no joy.” Which makes it all the more important to ensure people understand the difference between evolution and the origin of life. It also is no reason to teach ID, since ID isn’t science. Science hasn’t explained the origin of life, but science hasn’t explained a lot of things, yet. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/14 "2005-08-02T18:10:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It is not testable, and it predicts nothing. You are mistaken. Just as with natural selection, it is not testable as a metaphysical claim. But specific claims it makes with respect to organisms are testable. And it predicts (among other things) that natural selection would lead to evolutionary dead ends — organisms that cannot possibly evolve. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/15 "2005-08-02T18:10:27Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But that shouldn’t be surprising since natural selection is not falsifiable either. Care to expound on this? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/16 "2005-08-02T18:12:14Z")
Incidentally, Scott herself has conceded that Darwinism as a whole (including natural selection) is not falsifiable. She has a firm grasp of the philosophy of science. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/17 "2005-08-02T18:15:10Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Care to expound on this? It is a matter of infinite scope. In order to falsify natural selection, you would have to show that there is no other possible pathway by which variations in allele frequencies arise. Metaphysical claims in general are not falsifiable for the same reason. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/18 "2005-08-02T18:15:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It also is no reason to teach ID, since ID isn’t science. Science hasn’t explained the origin of life, but science hasn’t explained a lot of things, yet. Oh, I agree. I’m just saying that the press and public opinion will never treat evolution and the origin of life as two separate subjects, although technically that’s what they are, since in the popular notion of biology they go together like ham and eggs. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/19 "2005-08-02T18:17:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is a matter of infinite scope. In order to falsify natural selection, you would have to show that there is no other possible pathway by which variations in allele frequencies arise. Metaphysical claims in general are not falsifiable for the same reason. Maybe I’m just reading this wrong, but if the theory of natural selection claims that it’s the only evolutionary mechanism, couldn’t you falsify it by demonstrating some other mechanism, like symbiosis? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331/20 "2005-08-02T18:19:21Z")
From the article link to in the OP: > [@](#): > > “The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the **origins of life** ,” John West, associate director of the organization’s Center for Science and Culture, said in a prepared statement. (bolding mine) It looks like maybe the writer of the article may have gotten confused from the ID’er statements. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-to-pit-bush-or-the-press-re-bushs-support-for-teaching-intelligent-design/315331.md?page=2)