Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[ToryHeartland]

Churches urged to back evolution By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter, St Louis

US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in Missouri.

Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said.

Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.

As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the hand of a designer in nature.

It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other Gilbert Omenn AAAS president

There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.

At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly condemning the moves.

"Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students, parents, teachers and tax payers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn.

"It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other.

"They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."

'Who's kidding whom?'

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.

Some have already heeded the warning.

"The intelligent design movement belittles evolution. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.

"Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify - but who's kidding whom?"

Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact.

Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.

Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way.

Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would restrict the teaching of evolution.

These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools.

I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design Teacher Mark Gihring "The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.

Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution."

However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design.

"[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and the value of life... if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."

Economic risk

The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in the Dover case.

"I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms Scott.

"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."

Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.

But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.

"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm

Published: 2006/02/20 10:54:16 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[Dimensio]

Instead of blurting--"If you don't agree, you need to go back to biology class!" try negotiating. Instead of the snarky, "You don't know what the word means!"you might make the effort to find a common definition.

The problem is that I see quite a bit of poisoning the well from the creationists disputing the definitions. You yourself have accused us of redefining the words "theory" and "species", not even allowing for the possibility that you might simply be mistaken as to the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context, and not allowing that you might be wrong about the meaning of the word "species" in general.

[Mamzelle]

I thought we were still working on "theory." But--" Does it, or does it not mean the genetic separation of two populations so that their attempts at cross-breeding show little or no success?" is at least a start. Two species can be ID'd geneticially, and mules are not a lifestyle success story. But your definition lacks a good way to pinpoint "distinct."

It'd be nice to have a benchmark to act as a control. What we need is an actual "emergence" to document. Something that does not involve looking backwards and then reasoning forwards. (Not the hope or expectation or wish or even fossil indications). That's asking a lot, I know. But that immediately poses a question--why is it asking so much?

[When_Penguins_Attack]

thanks for the reply

I find it difficult why you would accept the CONCEPT of a me paying with money if I kill your dog (which represents real loss to me..., as money is a representation of my time and life and energy..., it is just a tangible representation of those), and recoil from the idea of me paying with my life when I brutally and wantonly murder your wife and children (ok, I admit I am going for the emotional jugular). Once we move past the concept of me suffering (even if it is just the idea of losing a tangible representation of part of my life), then I don't see why one would recoil from paying IN my person, if the crime is heinous enough.

Again, I believe it it because we anthromorphize God, or in the words of the Psalmist, God charges that "You thought I was just like you are." Our visions of justice are caught up in the hate, vengful petty recriminations that *I* would do to you if you make me mad enough. The idea that justice can call for a penalty and that a being would not "lose his temper" is foreign to us. It is, however, the biblical portrayal of God.

Let me take a detour here and say I have to go for right now (I have to go make some money, ha ha) , but I have seldom had as enjoyable a conversation about these kind of things on the internet as this one. Both of you have been very kind, gracious, and a delight to talk with. You have my sincere thanks.

[js1138]

He wants to forgive us but he cannot do so before he hasn't vented his anger somehow.

When I was a kid, people poked fun at the Greek and Pagan Gods for having such human foibles as emotions.

[Mamzelle]

re: not even allowing for the possibility that you might simply be mistaken as to the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context)))

Theory certainly has more than one definition, and is an abstract term that connotes more than it denotes. So does "evolution"--evolution may not mean speciation, but it is closely associated and when discussing one, the other comes to the party. That's how language and rhetoric work--and, ethical absolutist I might be, meanings are always and inevitably in the mind of the beholder.

Dispute is not mistake.

[darbymcgill]

One would be a start. Pick the best one.

Ok, you can start here

Highlighted by thread master #1 here

Acknowledged here

And reinforced by thread master #2 here

[js1138]

Every time you call me a liar, you are calling God a liar

Starting with your first example, I have to agree that the poster is a delusional megalomaniac.

[Elsie]

Dang!

I was supposed to WIN???

[Junior]

The Greeks and Romans did not trust their gods farther than they could throw them. Religious ceremonies, such as they were, were for the explicit purpose of appeasing said deities to keep them from swatting you and yours out of existence.

In many ways the early concepts of the Jewish God are similar: He had to be sacrificed to in order to placate Him; He got angry at the drop of a yamulke; and He liked smiting a lot.

[Junior]

That was not a logical lapse. The poster to which he replied specifically said that calling the poster a liar was equivalent to calling God a liar. Hell, even I (of limited intellect) caught that.

[Dimensio]

Theory certainly has more than one definition,

I'm well aware of this, thanks to creationists who frequently selectively quote dictionary definitions of the word while deliberately ignoring other definitions. Apparently they believe that they can choose which definition of "theory" applies to evolution and the science will disappear accordingly. The idea that the word "theory" in a scientific context might have a different meaning -- yet one that appears in the same dictionary that they have quoted -- never seems to occur to them.

and is an abstract term that connotes more than it denotes.

Explain this.

So does "evolution"--evolution may not mean speciation, but it is closely associated and when discussing one, the other comes to the party.

I admit that "evolution" has multiple meanings, though it should be clear on these discussions that at the very least "evolution" here almost always refers to biological events. I try to make it clear when I'm referring to the theory of evolution or events called "evolution" when I fear such ambiguity can arise.

[Elsie]

...that body of basic knowledge that all educated people should have.

I understand, but we passed on that option a LONG time ago.

All you gotta do is BREATHE and you can vote!

Wait! That's NOT a requirement in Chicago! ;^)

[Elsie]

The only hoax I am aware of is Piltdown Man......then I got a feathered dino from Chino to sell you; complements of the Nat Geo folks.

[Elsie]

Fake fossils???


You mean my Calvinasaurus might be PHONEY!?!?!

[js1138]

NMH claims never to have heard of Anthony Flew, yet here he is posting about him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298548/reply?c=160

[Thatcherite]

All you gotta do is BREATHE and you can vote! Wait! That's NOT a requirement in Chicago! ;^)

Or Belfast.

[js1138]

Whoops...

[Elsie]

Logic?

Then I refer you to a reply just a few numbers back, that said something about Descartes.


When a mere mortal can apply logic to figure out God's ways, I, for one, stand in awe!

[darbymcgill]

That was not a logical lapse.

It appears that you guys have been passing around the logical fallacies for dummies book lately. Maybe DC should stock up on version II.

If it was not a logical fallacy then all one needs to do to defeat an opponent's argument is claim they are "arrogant, delusional liars" and they instantly win.

Makes sense to me....

[BMCDA]

When I was a kid, people poked fun at the Greek and Pagan Gods for having such human foibles as emotions.

I guess that's why I loved all those stories as a kid. I literally swallowed them.