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

[ToryHeartland]

Properly speaking, the word 'liberal' has been stolen from us by the American socialists. (Personally, I want it back.)

I have often said the same thing! They can have the term 'Whig' back in its place!

Thanks btw for another illuminating posting; much appreciated. Can you recommend historians on these subjects? I feel the need for some homework... :-)

[Mamzelle]

re: 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.)))

Don't fear it, make it work for you. Before John Kerry came along, before the libs took the word and ruined it, "nuance" was a nice word. It doesn't just mean weasel-ly, it meant layered meaning. Language is a gift, not a straightjacket.

I define "theory" as a hatrack. I have all these hats that make no sense, but when I put them on the rack, they are orderly and meaningful. I can see which one works for what. Theory is a model, evolution is a model. I don't see how you can teach beginning biology without talking about the relatedness of living things. However, once the Tree is mastered, there really is no need for a "belief" in evolution either from students or teachers. Science and biology can move quite profitably without loyalty oaths one way or another.

[stands2reason]

The Lord does indeed tell his own himself, but he says nothing to those who he knows are not his.

How gnostic of you.

I wonder if my friend the Christian minister knows God is supposed to talk to him. I don't think that he has....

I'll tell him to find another line of work.

[Elsie]

Would God refuse salvation to an individual who failed to draw conclusions that matched those in the Bible?

Romans 2
11. For God does not show favoritism.
12. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
13. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

This help?

[P-Marlowe]

The character of Jesus presented in the NT is a re-presentation of the dying & rising god-man of the near eastern mystery cults presented in a mixture of Jewish and Roman symbols, stories, metaphors, analogies, etc. Hope that helps answer your question.

So Jesus really didn't exist? He was just a fairy tale?

So what does "PresbyRev" stand for? I had assumed you were a Presbyterian minister. Aren't you supposed to believe in Jesus? Doesn't that ordination require some belief that He actually existed? Or is that optional these days?

Pinging a few Presbyterians.

[Junior]

What a nice dodge. Now anyone can claim God said something, and when it's pointed out how illogical it sounds, he can come back and say "God is beyond our understanding."

Now do you understand why I've begun to consider organized religion to be a confidence game?

[Elsie]

Fun is what we are partly here for, after all.I>

Amen!

(Although it WON't be fun in a few, when wifey gets home and finds I've yakked all day and NOT finished the spackling and painting!!)

[Elsie]

No more than Joe Blow when he wrecked his car last week!

[Thatcherite]

For example one might not have heard of the Bible at all.

Then he wouldn't have an opinion; would he?

He'd have lots of opinions about the physical world if he had an enquiring mind. Do you think a race of such people, without a Bible to act as control, would come to the conclusion that "kinds" were created separately around 6000 years ago, and that there was a global flood around 400 years ago?

[Junior]

As has been pointed out, God smote someone for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant and keep it from falling.

[Junior]

Secondly, are you saying that if someone is in your opinion, arrogant or delusional they are forbidden or by definition cannot make a logical argument?

Nothing like that can be read into what I wrote. Hell, I'm arrogant and delusional, but I make logical arguments.

[Elsie]

If I provide links, you'll just ignore them. Have you ever read even one of Ichneumon's posts?

No need to check a link: here is my take on one of his many posts:

---

---

 

 

 

 

---

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

[P-Marlowe]

My first day here, and i was maligning nobody- I was sharing my opinion of that person's position. I will be sure to ping those that I speak of in the future.

Your first day here and you are already categorizing the posters? That's pretty presumptuous, don't you think?

[Paperdoll]

Jesus, "If you are not with me, you are against me." That's good enough for me. I once talked with a Catholic Priest who did not believe in the resurection and was amazed that I do. That amazed me!

[Thatcherite]

So, I think you are saying that those who have never heard of the Bible "perish apart from the law". Seems like a raw deal to me, unless "perishing apart from the law" involves an eternity spent windsurfing (substitute passion of your choice) in company with a large number of obliging scantily-clad beach-babes.

[Elsie]

Now do you understand why I've begun to consider organized religion to be a confidence game?

Well... DISorganized religion is a sucker bet!

[Mamzelle]

One of my favorite passages in the Old Testament. Very few like it--such a passionate exchange. Always makes me think of that painting by Blake.

[Elsie]

God smote someone for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant and keep it from falling.

Yup, HE sure did!

(How safe do YOU feel ;^)

[csense]

Careful the association, and credence you place in such things. It may have the unintended effect of demonstrating to people how easy it is for these clad graphics to represent bullsh*t.

On a secondary note, it seems to me the NCSE has an apt logo:

Up is down, left is right, in is out....

[Elsie]

Seems like a raw deal to me...

Hey!

Once again, folks; I didn't WRITE this stuff!

NIV Isaiah 29:16
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?