Bush Remark Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution
The following two pieces both address evolution. The first article is written by Elizabeth Bumiller, and the second article is written by Lisa Fullam.Read them both carefully and write a 500 word essay where you decide which essay is an argument and which essay is the explanation.
- Follow the conventions of MLA and submit the paper the way you submitted your research paper.
Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution
Elizabeth Bumiller
A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by [former] President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nations’ public schools. (1)
In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution. Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.” Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, “so people can understand what the debate is about.” … (2)
On Tuesday, the president’s conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush’s comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly bible study group, Mr. Bush’s science adviser, John H. Marburger, sought to play down the president’s remarks as common sense and old news… (3)
Intelligent design, advanced by a group of academics and intellectuals and some biblical creationists, disputes the idea that natural selection- the force Charles Darwin suggested drove evolution-fully explains the complexity of life. Instead, intelligent design proponents say that life is so intricate that only a powerful guiding force, or intelligent designer, could have created it.(4)
Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe. Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states with Kansas in the lead… (5)
Of God and the Case for Unintelligent Design
Lisa Fullam
As the theory of intelligent design again hits the news with [former} President Bush’s encouragement this week that the theory be taught in schools alongside evolution, I have one question: What about unintelligent design? (1)
Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is it’s at the far end of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients can happen. A sensible system-as we see in ruminant animals like cattle and deer- ferments before the large intestine, maximizing nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through, sending half- digested food back through the small intestine for re-digestion. (2)
Horses are similarly badly put together: they ferment their food in a large blind-ended pouch after the small intestine. Unlike rabbits, they don’t recycle their feces- they are just inefficient. Moreover, those big sections of hind gut are a frequent location for gut blockages and twists that, absent prompt veterinary intervention, lead to slow and excruciating death for the poor horse. The psalmist writes: “God takes no delight in horses’ power.” Clearly, if God works in creation according to simplistic schemes of intelligent design folks, God not only doesn’t delight in horses, but seems positively to have it in for them. (3)
The real problem with intelligent design is that it fails to account for the obvious anatomical and physiological making–do that is evident of so much of the natural world. Evolutionary minded folks see this as the result of genetic limitations and adaptations accumulated in specialization for certain environments, while the intelligent design folks are left with a designer who clearly cannot have been paying close attention. While there are extremely precise and fine-tuned mechanisms in nature, there is also lots of evidence of organisms just cobbled together. (4)
As a theist, one who believes that the concept of God is beyond human comprehension, I see natural evolution not as a theory but as well- established observation. I have every confidence that an all-loving creator walks in and with the natural world as it struggles to fruition, cheering on our evolutionary triumphs (let’s hear it for the opposable thumb!) and standing in solidarity with the evolutionary misfits and misfires, like rabbit and horse guts. Isn’t this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives as well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often misguided attempts to live well and do right? Is this not a more compelling vision of God, and truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation to erring humankind, than that of a designer who can’t quite seem to get things right? (5)