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

[MamaTexan]

There is a lot of dicussion and debate within the scientific community as to what that line looks like but those discussions are based purely on what is observed -- NOT external supernatural intervention.

So the scientists' guessing about what actually happened is more viable than the creationist guessing that God did it?

Sorry, I still think both sides need to be presented, just not necessarily in the same class.

Knowledge can only grow when concepts are freely exchanged and discussed.

Allowing only ONE point of view is abhorrent to a People whose entire country is built around the ideals of Freedom.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

BOOKMARK

[Oztrich Boy]

Project Steve. Over 700 "Steves," indicating 70,000 scientists support evolution. ...
Logical fallacy: Argument from Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

I'm sure this has beeb explained before (but you've probably forgotten)

It was the Creationists who tried this tactic by gathering and touting a list of "a hundred scientists whoo have doubts about evolution"

"Project Steve" is an exposing of this by showing if it comes to acientific opinion, that 100 doubters aren't that impressive as number (more scientists probably believe in ESP or UFOs than Creationism)

[DoNotDivide]

Because "Evolution" is junk from start to finish?

[Oztrich Boy]

The order is ALL WRONG and undermines God, the Fall and His order of events as well as robbing Him of the credit of how and when He created all we see and don't see.

Well we wouldn't want to put the facts over the musings of Bronze Age raghead sheepherders

[BMCDA]

I'm sure this has beeb explained before (but you've probably forgotten)

Now what did you expect?
New thread - blank slate... I mean how often have we seen this happen?

[The_Victor]

Competing scientific theories - fine, but Creationism hardly fills the bill.

Why not examine the evidence for creationism with rigorous scientific principals? I'm not suggesting that creationism be presented as truth, just examined as science. It should take all of half an hour to debunk creationism. If the point is to teach student how to think, then what are you afraid of?

Besides, the question is about public schools. Is any high school student sufficiently based in science, especially biology, to do more than a cursory examination of anything? I think not.

Expect little of your students, and that's what you will get.

[ndt]

" No, neither of the issues you raise are scientific"

Actually they both can be addressed scientifically. The holocaust though archeology and forensics. I assume you recall the push to accept homosexuality as a genetically determined trait "born gay" as it where. That is a controversy that would take place in the scientific realm and so would, by your argument, be a good addition to the curriculum.

[BMCDA]

Well, you can present as many sides as you want in the political arena but as far as science is concerned there is only one viable point of view and it ain't ID/Creationism.

[thomaswest]

Logical fallacy: Argument from Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

What about the usual argument from Biblical "authority"? The Bible says so, the Bible was written by/inspired by God, and therefore that is all one needs to know?

That is the argument made by creationists, IDists, and Noah's Flood believers.

[When_Penguins_Attack]

You mean Aldous Huxley and Jim Watson?

Yes. I got stuck on Thomas Watson in the head (who was a 16th century Puritan preacher with no relation to either of these guys). My error, as "Thomas" was stuck in the brain. If you have never made the same mistake, then I am happy for you.

As far as the James Watson statement, he certainly did make it. It was on an interview with Teri Gross on Fresh Air and ran (although it may have been an archive....) this past spring. If you wish I will try to chase it down for you.

I am truly sorry to have irritated you by the mistake in names. I know the difference between the author of "Doors of Perception" and "Double Helix" AND I know their names.

I really wasn't trying to sneer (nor libel) someone. It is simply trying to state that there are deep and personal reasons why people make the kinds of choices they do re: worldviews and they "way" they insist science be done. People who insist that these choices are made in a moral vacuum are either disingenuous or ignorant, or both. People who insist that their own moral choices are irrelevant in their "objective" pursuit of data are sadly naive or deliberately dishonest.

[ToryHeartland]

The bottom line here is that it is a debate over how science should be done, not over whether "evolution" is true or not.

Many thanks, I think you have succinctly stated my own impression of the debate, but which I had hitherto been unable to articulate.

However, I'm now worried about what does indeed happen when Penguins attack. My wife and I, on honeymoon in Ecuador, were fortunate enough to see equatorial penguins on the Galapagos Islands; we did not know that there was any particular risk involved!

[ToryHeartland]

The problem is that "mainline" churches don't back the Bible.

Well, as an Anglican (which presumably counts as a 'mainline' church), all I can offer here is to agree to disagree about this. But I take it your view confirms that the 'debate' around Darwin really isn't about the science, but about religion? I can understand that.

[When_Penguins_Attack]

I'm now worried about what does indeed happen when Penguins attack.

In short, you become FREE (like "freedom"....., but kind of like "free beer"). A few windows get smashed in the process, but Gates that have long held back progress get torn down and we can do what we wanted to all along.

Remember boys, "cute and cuddly!"

[nmh]

"Well we wouldn't want to put the facts over the musings of Bronze Age raghead sheepherders"

Excuse me?

What on earth are you mumbling about?

I'm talking about the Judeo Christian God!

[Just mythoughts]

"Anti-Ignorance, not Leftist.

On the other hand, tt is the Evil ID?Creationists that take a page out of their friend's, the Leftists, playbook by forcing their bilge on Society through the Courts."


A whole load of donkey dung revisionism, it was the leftist liberal courts that provided the limited dead wood TOE as acceptable science. An era of darkness clouded the light of creation from both sides. As Christ said these things need be.

[The_Victor]

Actually they both can be addressed scientifically. The holocaust though archeology and forensics. I assume you recall the push to accept homosexuality as a genetically determined trait "born gay" as it where. That is a controversy that would take place in the scientific realm and so would, by your argument, be a good addition to the curriculum.

Fine, then examine the evidence and you will quickly disprove the Holocaust denial perspective. I'm not sure what can be demonstrated scientifically with regard to homosexuality, but examining the science behind it certainly wouldn't hurt a science student. If you want to put those issues to scientific examination, then they belong in science class as much as creationism.

But, you initially said "holocaust denial perspective in history classes or how about homosexuality in health classes?" Those are not science classes.

[BMCDA]

Why not examine the evidence for creationism with rigorous scientific principals? I'm not suggesting that creationism be presented as truth, just examined as science. It should take all of half an hour to debunk creationism. If the point is to teach student how to think, then what are you afraid of?

To be honest, I don't think that's such a good idea.
Creationists already perceive the teaching of the ToE alone as an attack on their religion. Now if you go ahead and explicitly address Creationism/ID and show that it doesn't hold water as a scientific theory no matter how you turn and twist it, I'm sure that the proverbial fecal matter is going to hit the ventilator as you've never seen before.

[nmh]

"a leap of faith. I do not see the evidence. why do you believe this book? Can you supply proof????"

WOW!

Such open defiance of God!

I believe in God. His book reveals Him to me. As He eloquently puts it:

Rom.1:20

[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

All you have to do is OPEN YOUR EYES!

The evidence speaks for itself.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

First of all, welcome to FR. The Brits and Yanks are best of allies and we appreciate being side-by-side with you as we fight for Western civilization and culture.

To answer your question, this issue is not at all a new one. In the 19th century, Edgar Allen Poe and William Wordsworth both wrote sonnets regarding the tension between science a non-scientific view of looking at the world.

The debate goes back even further to the pre-Socratic philosophers (termed "physios" that would be the phonetic spelling, sorry, can't type the actual Greek term). Essentially, the early Greek philosophers were termed what we'd call physics-thinkers because of their attempt to understand the origin and construct of all things that exist. This led them into some trouble as it brought up the question of whether things existed for all times (and thus perhaps there were no gods) or if they had their origin in somethings. Heraclitus is said by some to have been the first to elicit the theory of evolution with his "all things are in constant flux."

Much of the hostility in these arguments arises from a misunderstanding of the terms. The term "evolution" is thrown about recklessly as well as "creationism." When these debates start, I believe that those who support ID and believe that a god began life and the universe read the term "evolution" and think "Darwinian origin." Evolution is one thing, the origin of species quite another. Even those who support the most fundamentally Biblical view of creation can not deny such a seemingly minor change as the average height of mankind over the last two millennia. Is this not a form of evolution within mankind? Yet their hostilities arise because when they hear the term "evolution" they are mistaking this for the argument that all life started accidentally in a form of primordial soup. Thus it becomes not so much an argument of ID vs. evolution, but a worldview of whether or not God exists.

The debate has been a heated one for two reasons: 1. both sides believe they are 99% correct, and 2. both sides feel threatened by their 1% of uncertainty.

Regardless of what both the most devoutly religious and the most strictly scientific claim, neither side knows for certain how everything around us began. If the religious could know this 100%, there would be no need of faith, which is essential to the religious view that God wants us to make a free-will decision to believe in him. If the scientific claimed to know with 100% certainty on any topic, it would be undermining the objective and investigative perspective and the view of potentiality that is supposed to under gird their studies.

In America, the debate is hotly contested for manifold reasons. The religious feel that faith per se has been under harsh attack for a long time as part of a European export of cynicism and nihilism (their sentiment is illustrated in Blake's "Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau"). The religious in America, especially since 9/11 have begun to find not only their voice, but the platform from which to shout it to prevent the type of European hyper-tolerance of a bloodthirsty enemy from reaching our shores. The evolution/ID debate is one such platform.

The teacher's unions in this country combined with the Left have a death grip on public education (what you'd call state education). Their agenda is extremely hostile toward American tradition and especially the Judeo-Christian principles that most believe serve as the foundation to this great structure that is our country and culture. The argument that there is no religious underpinnings to our origin and growth is just a flat-out absurdity. Those who support ID not for religious reasons believe that the purpose of education is to open minds through exposure to competing ideas. Many evolutionists ridicule ID as not being scientific. The IDers similarly point out the weak scientific aspects of Darwin's theory of origin as rendering the two ideas of equal scientific validity. The religious and those who support ID want both to be taught in public schools in order to break the singularity of the public-school curriculum.

The religious in this sense are defending the forced funding of what they view as an education system pushing a secular worldview on each generation. They don't want religion taught in school, but they do figure that if some schools in California can force their students to wear head scarves, adopt temporary Muslim names, and 'live as Muslims would' as part of a class project, then there's little contradiction in teaching the possibility that all life may not be an accident, that there may be some'thing' out there that set everything in motion and designed it to perpetuate.

While the debate from the anti-religious liberal vs. the religious conservative perspective is no surprise, what is surprising is to see so many conservatives engaged in vicious arguments. From my experience reading these threads (I've stopped posting because of the vitriol) is that the contention among conservatives breaks down to two types: 1. the same type as listed above, the science vs. non-science view of the world and the 99-1% factor, and 2. libertarian vs. conservative ideologies.

Of the first, there are those who are conservative who either do not believe in God or, if they claim to, claim that he either did not start the world or, if he did, somehow started something that has grown beyond his control (a view I find contradictory). Personally, I believe in God, believe he created the universe and that he did design life with the ability to evolve, but to evolve each within its specified genetic code (to evolve within its species, not from one species to another). I believe my view is not only not incompatible but fits in with both my scientific and religious understanding of what Aristotle termed potentiality and actuality. Those who do not believe in any God, are simply at odds with any view of religious origin and perpetuation.

Of the second, there is a critical difference between libertarians and conservatives. While we are generally aligned on most current socio-political issues, there is an ideological difference that I believe will prove to be an eventual divide between the two ideologies. The difference is this: conservatives believe that a people should be free but that their freedom is not license, that if they do not voluntary check their actions and behavior, their freedom will be forcefully checked by the iron fist of government or by outright anarchy. In other words, we believe that we must voluntarily restrain ourselves so as not to encroach upon not only the rights of others but upon their peaceful existence. There's a reason why the police are known as officers of the peace. Their objective is to keep society peaceful, not only by enforcing the laws our representatives have allegedly enacted for that cause, but also by settling disputes and preventing encroachments. Libertarians on the other hand tend to believe in unrestricted behavior, regardless what it may cost society. A good example of this is the war on drugs. Many Libertarians believe there should be little or no constraints on recreational drug usage. Conservatives believe if that were allowed, the resultant spike in drug addiction and the potentially devastating effect that would have on individuals and society-at-large render it a behavior that should not be legal.

This critical difference is intensified when religious conservatives find their source of guidance, the prohibition of their actions rooted in Biblical principles. They become defensive not only because their view of a safe and peaceful America is threatened to wander like a ship with a broken rudder, but because they believe it is another assault on the religious element of American culture. Libertarians tend to see the religious influence -- God -- as another source of authority that ought not be restricting their freedoms.

So what we have, as far as I have been able to tell, is one of those rare arguments that become bitterly contested because each side sees in the argument elements of many other debates that have been coming to a head for decades. The issue is either the canary in the mine shaft or the tip of the iceberg, if you will. Folks, please do not reply to this post contesting points of the evo/ID debate. This post is about the debate itself, not either side. And in that regard, it is a generalization of many aspects of the argument and therefore it is not comprehensive.