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]

Although never addressing the actual facts of P's argument, D attempts to falsify it by calling him a liar and added that he was arrogant and delusional.

Are you referring to pnsn's assertion that humans are not animals? I'd say that currently it's pnsn's job to justify that assertion, since it goes against all taxonomic classification. Thus far he has made no attempt whatsoever to do so.

My observation of delusion was not related to the claim of humans not being animals. It stands indepenent of the "humans are not animals" claim.

[freedumb2003]

In post 815 D makes reference to an assertion made by P in a previous post. Although never addressing the actual facts of P's argument, D attempts to falsify it by calling him a liar and added that he was arrogant and delusional. D also makes a potentially erroneous assumption that P claims to be God.

So calling a liar a liar is a lie? And the "erroneous assumption" is a logical conclusion.

There was obviously someone on the thread that recognized this abuse, outside the posting rules of FR and logical debate. In post 854 the Mod recognized and made note of the fallacious posts.

As I pointed out before, the AM yelled at D because they don;t like the term "Liar." Nowhere in the AM's post does he say that D is lying. Now that I know the AM doesn't like calling people liars, I ask you what term can be used to describe your complete misrepresentation of the AM's post? It ain't honest, I'll tell you that.

Later in a noble act of contrition D makes a concession (later clarified as not applicable) in 1029 that she may have been a bit accusatory.

*sigh* "a bit accusatory" is not a lie nor a logical fallacy. It also has been clarified in another post in terms of its general reference.

And finally, someone else must have passed along another abuse complaint since another Mod appears to recognize the adhominem had exceeded acceptable limits and issues a global smack down in 1059.

Again, a general admonition and no evidence of any logical fallacy or lie.

I'm sure you are aware that adhominem attacks are a logical fallacy. I know that D is aware of this fact since I've posted this to her on numerous occasions, and as documented in the first Mod slap down.

Well, you need to learn what a logical fallacy is. If I call you a jerk, that is just an insult. If I say your arguments are invalid because you are a jerk, that is ad hominem.

I see the insults (and appreciate them). The contention that the original poster is a liar is just that -- it is backed up in logic and argumentation. The other stuff is probably a certain amount of insult from frustration.

Sadly for you, neither is a logical fallacy and you have yet to meet my challenge. 1,300 posts and all you can come up with is some insults as examples of Evo's lying/LFs?

I can come up with specific CRIDer lies in the first couple of hundred.

[RunningWolf]

Likewise you ape er human being.

Just do without the poop pictures, they don't help you any heh heh.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

//1357 That's odd//

Certainly is. Thats an Aussie thing ain't it? They've got all sorts of odd things down there.

Wolf

[darbymcgill]

Shuffle ball, shuffle ball, step, step...

Shuffle ball, shuffle ball, change.... turn...

[P-Marlowe]

Actually I am sincerely wondering how you can claim to be a Christian (much less a presbyterian minister) when you seem to believe that Jesus was a mythical figure who is no more important than the mythical gods "found throughout the Eastern religions and Near Eastern mystery religions and cults long before the first century CE."

If Jesus was not a historical figure, then our faith is in vain.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16 KJV)

Seems to me that you have discounted the eyewitness testimony of the evangelists. You are in essence accusing Peter of being either a liar or another figment of the first century imagination.

So I am curious. That is why I asked those questions. Your claim to faith does not match your lack of trust in the veracity of the Word you claim to preach.

You are an enigma. Are you really a Presbyterian minister? Are you ordained or just a lay minister?

[Search4Truth]

Thanks Dave for taking the time to council me.

I just finished reading:

Why I Believe in God
By: The Rev. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D.

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html

Every word rang true for me. Not so much to my mind as to my heart. Since I've been born again, it seems to me that every moment of my waking life is now being interpreted for me by something greater than my own understanding. It is like God sees it first and then explains it to me. Then He commands me as to what I should do next. I find that I am not relying on my understanding of anything anymore.

Nothing has made that more apparent to me than my experiences of the last 6 months since hurricane Katrina destroyed my city. I was there for the whole event. I pulled two women and two children out of the flood water. They were in deep trouble, if you'll excuse the pun.

It is as if my will is not my own anymore. That I have no more will of my own. I am commanded, and I obey, without hesitation and without an any doubt, and with an absolute certainty that what I am doing is exactly what I should be doing at that moment. I could no more refuse to obey Him than I could refuse to breath.

I am interested in being able to lead men to what I have found. I am familiar with the Biblical ways of doing so. The way that Jesus did with the Samarian woman at the well is a good example. Specifically, I am interested in helping to lead an 85 year-old lady friend to the Lord. I rescued her from a drop zone and we have become good friends. The stories I could tell you about what the Lord has done for me through this disaster would make your heart soar. So many opportunities to glorify Him. Praise the Lord.

The promises of an abundant life are true. All the promises are true. And anyone who wants the free gift of a completely new life can have it - a knew heart with which to love, a new mind with which to understand, and a new meaning and purpose for their lives, today, right this minute. They don' have to wait until they die to know the free gifts of the Lord. They can have the promises fulfilled starting this very minute. And if they act now, they can get the free bonus gift of an eternal life with God. :)

So profound were the changes in my life that I left a 6 figure income as a Senior PM with IBM 5 years ago for a new life in the Lord, and have not regretted a single moment of that decision. It is difficult for me to fathom now the person that I used to be.

Thanks again for your time. What would you suggest for me next so that I can become a better witness in bringing souls to knowledge of the saving grace of Christ? I am glad to receive your reply via PM. I just wanted to share with this discussion my experience of what it means to me to be a Christian. As best as I am able to do.

In His service, Al.

[dread78645]

But say the secret word and the duck WILL descend!

Doesn't the duck give away a hundred dollars also?

If that's what you do then bible-on until rapture, rupture, or bankruptcy --whichever comes first.

[dread78645]

Everyone gets a choice: Either understand the Bible from the world's view; or understand the World from the Bible's view.

I'll have to keep that in mind next time someone berates the Moslems for living with a 7th century point of view.

[dread78645]

... there was a global flood around 400 years ago?

Whoa. that's some major 'be fruitful, and multiply, and replinish'-ing there ...

[Theophilus]

trying not to come unglued ;-)

"...God needed..."

but talk about illogical, God does not "need". God never "needs". If God "needed", God would not be God.

[dread78645]

Yeah, I saw that too. Guess that's God's preferred way of smiting.

Nah. That was just good special effects.
The preferred way is drowning (deluge & Exodus), plagues of vermin (Exodus), burning brimstone (Sodom), attacking Israelis (Karkari & Jericho).
And then there's the one-off deals: pillar of salt (Lot's wife) and death by coitus interruptus (Onan).

[dread78645]

Well, he did use that bear to eat all those laughing kids...

I forgot about that one.

[ToryHeartland]

Jesus, "If you are not with me, you are against me."

I'm not an expert on scripture by any means, and there are clearly many others in this forum who are, but I think you've got this the wrong way around. What I read (Mark 9:41) is

"For whoever is not against us is for us",

or (in Luke 9:50)

"for he that is not against us is for us."

There is a enormous world of difference!

[dread78645]

> God didn't write that, Paul did

No it was John as in John Lennon.

Lennon wrote Corinthians?

[RunningWolf]

Well Whatta,

Once I filter out all the contradictions and diatribe out of your post, I don’t have much substance to reply to.

I don’t think I am 'in bed' anywhere.

But thanks for the link to the guys web site. I read most everything, even if I don’t ultimately agree with it.

But let’s subtract all of them (appeal to authority?) out. And I ask you Whatta, and You Donh, do you think this statement unreasonable? Do you reject it? Do you think it good strong science to reject it?

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”


Wolf

[RunningWolf]

What may have looked like Corinthians to you (give you the unlikely doubt) was not.

Wolf

[ToryHeartland]

Just a quick note to thank you for posting reading recommendations--the titles sound of interest, many thanks.

[whattajoke]

Good Morning Runni,

Once I filter out all the contradictions and diatribe out of your post, I don’t have much substance to reply to.

You're right. I should know better than to mess with the king of substanceless posts. I'll be more careful in the future. But anyway, you posted, for the umpteenth time, a link to all those scientists who "don't accept evolution." Well, as you certainly have come to know, the DI completely misrepresented a large portion of that list - in the sense that the statement they asked the scientists to sign was quite benign. So I took the time to look up the very first biologist and found his site. That's all, no games. Just checking one out. So then you reply:

But let’s subtract all of them (appeal to authority?) out

Um... ok. Errr, so the conversation now ends because the entire point of our little sidebar here was based on you post which was wholly made up of an appeal to authority?! Putting the meta stamp on this conversation are YOUR words, "Once I filter out all the contradictions." I'm so confused by your intellect. Anyway...

do you think this statement unreasonable? Do you reject it? Do you think it good strong science to reject it?
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

See how clever? The word "skeptical" is a bit awkward to me, and it leads into a false dichotomy so the first sentence I don't like. But the second sentence is perfectly fine in the context of the scientific method. That's how it all works, bub. So DI's little gotcha game is yet another piddly little poke in science's eye. (Of course, it helps when the "careful examination" is carried out by "careful scientists," rather than fly by night evangelists. But that's just me again, Mr. Non-Sequitor.

[whattajoke]

1400