Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by 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
:-) Well, we don't blame you for having given George III the boot -- though strictly speaking, the Colonial American grievances over taxation and representation were actually with Parliament rather than the monarch...
Today, of course, we value the Royal Family as a generator of income as a tourist attraction!
That's certainly a valid point, but should we avoid the truth because it might hurt someone's feelings? We certainly don't shy away from teaching about the Holocaust because the Germans might be offended.
For anyone who isn't trying to define who God is and what He is capable of doing, the ToE fits just fine into religion.
Because we're limited to working with objectively verifiable evidence, it's much easier to study the world than it is to study God. If God created the world, He probably didn't create anything that is contrary to His nature. That's true of biology as well as the other sciences. They are manifestations of God's creation, not contradictions thereof. Those who say that the discoveries of science are somehow in conflict with God have some re-thinking to do. (In my always humble opinion.)
Ever hear of the "Olive Branch Petition"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition
The kings was apathetic.
Yet at one point, all the 'viable scientists' agreed the Earth was flat.
Science has shown itself to be fallible in the past. It would be the height of arrogance to think it will never be found so again. Refusing to challenge the concepts of science rather defeats the purpose of science itself.
--------
Like everyone else, your opinions are based on your perceptions. If you wish to be a product of primordial ooze, be my guest.
Personally, I find the endless variety and minute sophistication of all life on Earth to be nothing short of.......miraculous.
The hand-wringing over this matter puzzles me considering how clear-minded most FR posters are on other issues.
"Higher" education and science have spent the better part of the last half-century dedicating themselves to, if you will, a Secular Jihad.
Underlying that agenda is a no holds barred effort to undermine the precepts of Christianity and its teachings -- the very fundaments that led to the ascendency of the United States of America.
One can ask for no clearer evidence of this campaign than the war on Creationism. It absolutely befuddles me that people who call themselves conservatives sleep with the sworn enemies of Christianity.
Well stated!
If they can do so - good for them, however if they're not, that's just too bad because science is under no obligation to not contradict their religious doctrines.
In spite of all the fuss, there's really only a few radical fundamentalists naive enough to be duped by the handful of evangelicals who pretend to have religious motivations for attacking science education in America. Not to worry, once the creeps started lying in court to push their little "intelligent design" hoax, they got slapped hard and what little bit of momentum they perceived themselves having came to a grinding halt. They are now in full denial. Trust me, average religious Americans aren't the science fearing anti-evo Luddites the several trolls who infest this forum would like you to believe they are!
Thanks for your reply, which is thoughtful and interesting. And also illuminates for me some of the differences between the US and the UK on this one. The British Constitution does not separate church and state, the Church of England is the established religion (and the monarch is head of the church); achieving tolerance for other denominations and religions was a struggle in our history. Prayers in school are standard and uncontroversial -- but also, to be honest, ignored. Church attendance is 'poor' here compared to the US, but whether that is good or ill is another matter altogether.
You thin k the state of Math/Science education in this country is well and good?
Spending time debunking something when most students will graduate without understanding what a cell is is clearly a waste.
I read a few years ago where about 40% of the kids in high school couldn't find the Pacific Ocean on a map! (I kid you not - it was a Wall Street Journal editorial). And you expect rational discourse and debate in a science subject? At the high school level the best you can do is give kids a knowledge base on which to further build. Asking more than that is unrealistic, given our schools, and would only serve to further confuse.
I'm a slow reader! And working in a different time zone!
Seriously, many thanks to all for postings, all of interest.
Thanks for your posting, a very clear summary of the postions. I don't agree with the particular assertion you make here about morality, and will endeavour to formulate a proper response (it's an interesting point), but until then thanks for your courtesy and clarity, both appreciated.
The basic underlying issue is why do you so readily and easily accept the notion of evolution as a scientific fact? Are scientist unbiased and infallible? Certainly they are not they are after all, simply human.
So where are the battle lines drawn. Darwin rejected the idea of creation because of his own personal beliefs and sought an explanation that did not include a supernatural being. Those on the other side recognize that chaos simply doesn't organize itself in to every higher forms of sophistication and complexity ipso facto there must be a creator.
It is an excellent debate and the fact that one side or the other wants to ban the discussion is the obvious result of the inability of either side being able to win the battle. So sit back and enjoy, this is the kind of stuff that makes the USA a fun place to live.
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.