2005/08/01: USA President George W. Bush was asked about "intelligent design" during a press conference.

In a press conference on August 1st, 2005, President George W. Bush responded to a question on "intelligent design". A Washington Post news article gives the complete exchange:

Q I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
"THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor . . . Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

NCSE's Anj Petto will be on "Conversations with Kathleen Dunn" on Wisconsin Public Radio on Thursday, August 25, 2005. The segment begins at 10 AM CDT. Yesterday, the Kathleen Dunn show interviewed Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Michael Behe.

To call in to the program, use 1-800-486-8655 or 227-2050 in Milwaukee.

Wisconsin Public Radio has streaming webcasts.

Update: There are RealAudio streams for the interviews with Petto and Behe.

This is a new install of CMS software to run the AE site upon. I'm getting a feel for things and one thing I'm certain of is that this provides a good basis for a collaborative website.

Unfortunately, one side effect of going public early is that I now am also dealing with early cracking attempts. Someone at IP address 64.124.85.72 spent a good chunk of the evening trying to get to various administration pages without authentication. One typical item from the log:

Type	access denied
Date	Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 00:31
User	Anonymous
Location	/cs/admin/system/modules

Over on his weblog, William Dembski has a post making reference to an article on a means of "fingerprinting" textured surfaces, like paper. It is an interesting article. But look what Dembski has to say about it:

The Logic of Fingerprinting

Check out the following article in the July 28th, 2005 issue of Nature, which clearly indicates how improbability arguments can be used to eliminate randomness and infer design: “‘Fingerprinting’ documents and packaging: Unique surface imperfections serve as an easily identifiable feature in the fight against fraud.” I run through the logic here in the first two chapters of The Design Inference.

Well, it is a little troubling how to proceed from this point. Did Dembski fail to read the article? Is Dembski simply spouting something that ID cheerleaders can nod sagely about without regard to whether it happens to accord with reality? Whatever excuse might be given, the plain fact of the matter is that the procedure and principles referred to in the short PDF Dembski cites have nothing whatever to do with Dembski's "design inference", and cannot be forced into the framework Dembski claims.

Please send me email (welsberr@antievolution.org) to request a user account here at AE.

Body:
From the NCSE events page:
"NCSE board member and RNCSE editor Andrew J. Petto will be interviewed live on the Perpetual Notion Machine, a a science news show on WORT 89.9 FM Community Radio in Madison, Wisconsin. The show is locally produced and is aimed at making science more accessible to the general public. Be sure to tune in!"

I've been involved in online discussions of evolution and SciCre since the mid-80's in various fora. I'm a longtime participant on talk.origins (since 1992), and the founder of the FidoNet Evolution Echo. I've contributed to the TalkOrigins Archive and am the current president of the TalkOrigins Foundation.

My major motivation in participation has been the issue of whether we will continue to teach science and only science in the science classroom.

In 1986, I attended a lecture given on YEC by a geologist. Not having much familiarity with geology, many of his arguments sounded not just plausible, but conclusive. After the lecture, I talked with the speaker, who gave me a copy of Henry Morris' "The Scientific Case for Creation". As I read that book, I started highlighting things that were pretty obviously contrafactual. I think that there are perhaps five pages total without highlighter in the book now. I also learned that many if not most of the arguments given by the original lecturer were also bogus. This helped spur me to investigate the topic further and get involved in the discussions.