Churches urged to back evolution

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.

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."

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.

"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.

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."

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

Those who assault "Darwinism" are also assaulting scientists.

If true, it is still not assaulting science, and I fail to see why they should be entitled to some sort of special protection.

The phrase "Darwinism" is a creationist construct - There are no "Churches of Darwin" or Darwinist Schools or anything that gives that term credence.

A Darwinist is someone who follows Darwin--believes what he did. There need be no vestment of supernatural power in Darwin simply because there is Darwinism--and there is while there is Darwinism while there are believers in what Darwin wrote.

That said, by attacking Darwin's ideas, you ARE attacking science as a whole. Or, at least ALL of biology and all its branches, like it or not.

How so? All of science or biology (as the case may be) is wrapped up in Darwin? Attacking one fallacious idea does not mean jettisoning the rest. At one time the Ptolemaic system was prevalent, to put it mildly, in science. Was Copernicus, by attacking this one erroneous, but widespread, idea attacking all of astronomy or all of science? No, rather he was upholding both.

I suppose this may be right if you can show me where this "Darwinism" is practiced. Since it doesn't exist in scient, maybe it IS a religion of some sort.

It is practiced in the hearts of those who affirm it, as is all religion. You are in error because you associate religion with the external trappings and organizations that often, but not always, follow it. Islam is more than Mecca and Catholocism is more than the Vatican.

no one can ever, EVER "Prove" a theory. Ever. Never ever. Never.

Relax. I am not saying you can, but many have asserted that Darwinism has, in fact, been proven. It is with this that I take issue in my statement. So, you are acknowledging, then, that Darwinism/Evolution is based on faith?

Do you not understand that tens of thousands of scientists have built upon Darwin's ideas and that while he certainly nailed the framework, his word was hardly the last in the biological sciences.

No, but they are followers of Darwin.

First, you seem to have misunderstood one thing: I did not set out to be exaustive when I began writing, I set out to lay out the argument for someone who had asked. Just because I don't talk about others, doesn't mean I am disregarding them. I was trying to interject some brevity into what was already a fairly long, though I've seen longer, post. Secondly, I should like to add that I personally believe all "relics" (as the Catholics are so proud of calling them) to be spurious, whether through good intent or bad is irrelevant. I could care less about dating shrouds, because I could care less about the shroud. Finally, the whole thing was an ad-hominem red herring as I said nothing about the subject.

All dating is based on some kind of axiom(s) as no one can conduct studies going far enough back to actually verify their results that far.

which has absolutely nothing in the world to do with evolution.

My statement was and is about the origin of the world. I know the difference. If you wish a broadened premise, very well: I would argue that what happened prior to the existence of man, be it the creation of the world or the creation of the creatures in it [which, as a side note, Darwinism DOES attempt to explain] cannot be proven. You cannot dismiss the point, but you can play semantics with how it was worded.

And besides, "Intelligent Design" pretends that it isn't about "faith," that it is indeed science. So thanks for dispensing with that nonsense forthrightly.

I was addressing the difference between Creationism and Darwinism. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days--but I am not an Intelligent Design advocate and so your argument on that score is not with me. Intelligent Design seeks to say that, due to the inherent complexity in our world, evolution fails to explain its origin and, furthermore, that the best way to explain origins is to say that there was some intelligent driving force. This does not even, in and of itself, preclude evolution. It allows evolution driven by an intelligent controller. If you have issues with ID, take it up with someone who is an advocate of ID, for I will not defend that which I do not hold.

You then prattled on about how "Darwinism" results in all sorts of anarchy and lawlessness and men without direction adn origins and atoms and space blah, blah, blah. You know, typical creationist claptrap. Evolution says nothing of any God, government, or social more.

My point was that these are collaries of the evolutionary worldview. These do not disprove evolution (as I have already stated), but, if one does hold mindless chance as the origin, then it is a logical next step, despite the fact that most of those who cling to it lack the logic or courage to make that step. You also seem to be taking them out of context as though they were, in and of themselves, arguments against evolution. They are not. If you refer back to my original post, you will note that I am answering a question which someone else posed: Why is it so important? It matters because there is so much more at play then a conjecture.

I'm not sure which fossil record your creationist pamphlets have been lying to you about,

The one that lacks transitional forms and contains an explosion of life rather than a slow progression into it.

I actually have spent relatively little time at AiG. I have been there and have seen good things, but they taught me little--if anything. If you wish to say that I am speaking Creationist talking points, fine. I could care less. That does not in any way negate their truth or veracity.

On the side, I think if you'd look closely at your own writing, I think you'd find that it is comprised of the same old, tired evolutionist/Darwinist talking points.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? " Job 38:4-7

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 1:20-21

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.