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
"Scripture is sacred...human interpretation of that Scripture, is not sacred"
How do you reconcile these two statements? How can "scripture", which we perceive by reading words placed on a page by man, not involve some level of interpretation? The very act of translating thoughts and concepts into language involves interpretation.
Its very difficult...I guess what I should say, is that Gods intent and purpose in setting down Scripture is sacred...how we humans, whether of old, or now, interpret that Scripture is not sacred...
Uh... did not the Jews MELT in those furnaces?? There's really nothing new under the sun!
Of course, but that doesn't explain your point in making the comparison.
Were the Nazis doing the Lord's work in melting those Jews (who you say are going to Hell)?
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
Sometimes I do prevaricate the prevaricationers and the mental vacationers, yes sir!
Thank you. Would you also say that the original writers of, say Genesis, could have been less than perfect or sacred in their work? That despite their best understanding of the concepts presumably given by God, they just didn't have the vocabulary to translate those concepts into the written or spoken word of man? Such that, say, day doesn't really mean 24 hours, insofar as the creation is concerned?
Good grief, what in the heck is your problem...I was civilly discussing something with someone else, and your blurt in with a lot of blathering...you need to calm down...
Where did I say that because of an argument over dogma or theology within different particular religions, that none of the Bible is true?...please point that out...oh, you cant...thought so...
What I said, was that different people of different faiths have different interpretations of the Bible...where in the world does that come down to saying that none of the Bible is true...are you projecting, that because someone may not believe your particular interpretation of the Bible, that somehow they cannot believe in any of the Bible...that is one lousy, illogical argument....
You have a problem understand what someone says, and you also have a problem, with twisting what they say,to suit your own purpose...thats just sad...
All for God no doubt.
BTW, Dawkins didn't say he was drawn to evolution because of it's affects for morality. He said that he found it compatible, and complementary, to his atheism. Theistic evolutionists say the same things about evolution and their belief in God and Christ.
Also, the quote I was referring to said early evolutionists; Dawkins certainly doesn't fit the bill. It was referring to the fallacious claim that either Julian or Aldous Huxley (depends on which creationist is spreading the falsehood) said they accepted evolution without evidence because it fit with their mores. I asked for some citations.... and am still hearing crickets. :)
Kaleidoscopically Phantasmagorical. Whatever drug you're taking, I want some.
It's beyond logic why there are still real scientists who want to preach this evolution drivel as gospel. Actually I think that most of them realize the mathematical impossiblities of their beliefs and are coming round...but the education mandarins do not want to rock their flimsy "holy" boat.
Forgot our meds again, did we?
Or is it *she*? Don't remember.
Forgive me for forgeting my own robust theory, BVW's Law: Darwinists have great difficulty reading subtle context and subtext in literary text and in human interaction.
An accurate count of the number of biological scientists who "realize the mathematical impossibilities of their beliefs" regarding evolutionary theory is within hollering distance of zero.
You are proposing that there is "evidence" to evaluate in choosing a world view? Indeed??!! How do you assume it is "evidence?" How do you classify that "evidence," since you bring no a priori assumptions to the table? Are you willing to accept the internal confirmation of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is the word of God as one of those "evidences," something that has been attested to by millions over the years from every known culture and language group? Or is there some reason that particular reason why the first person accounts of the resurrection of Jesus should be discounted as "evidences" of the parallel universe that exists alongside, permeates, and in fact drives this empirical universe from the inside out? What reasons do you bring to the table for dismissing this evidence, if indeed you do discount it? Finally, answer why you would feel compelled as a scientist to discount the claim that the universe does not simply bear the appearance of design (just quoting, they ain't my words), but in fact, bears the imprint of its Creator? I did not ask if you believed there WAS such evidence, but simply if "science" declares that such fields of inquiry are outside its scope?
You are correct in your slap re: etymology. It was pissy of me and I apologize.
People much less wordy than you have been confusing ... distinction between philosophical naturalism and the choice of science to deal only with tangible evidence Rather, the choice of science to declare that empiricism is the only final arbiter of true cosmological statements is a common malady among scientists who have confused their own philosophy with science. Carl Sagan's pile of unmitigated horseshit "The Cosmos is all there is and all there ever has been" is a great example of this. It is like some halfwit actor/singer who thnks that because s/he can emote, hit three chords and/or croon.., that this means they have something meaningful to say about the war in Iraq, or poverty in the Seychelles, or can be a prophet to us on the dangers of "tax cuts for the rich." If they should shut up and sing, then "science" should cease the silly posturing as though scientists alone have the ability to define the nature of the cosmos, or whether it bears the marks of a Creator
since before you were a gleam in your father's eyes.
I think the correct phrase is "b4 you were an ache in your father's crotch" but then maybe you were trying to acquiesce to my religious scruples, here. If so, thanks.
At any rate thank you for the exchange
But I must say, you for all your Darwinistic momentum, did read out the proper subtext. There IS hope for you.
you are welcome....you have indeed, posed some difficult questions, ones which I am probably not able to answer satisfactorily...this matter of the meaning of the word 'day' is an interesting one...I have seen well informed, educated people on the religious threads argue this one out, and as they have come to no firm conclusion, neither have I...its a difficult struggle...
About the men who wrote the original books of the Bible..were they more perfect and sacred in their work? If I believe, as I do, that they were inspired by God Himself, then yes, they were..., Was Gods intent to have them write into the written or spoken word for the people of that time, so that they could understand?...I must answer, I dont know..this is a daily struggle for me...
I am often astounded at how people post with absolute certainty that what they gain from the Bible is the absolute truth, and then have another poster of a differing faith, post, with again, absolute certainty that they have the truth, but they both believe different things to be the absolute truth, how is one to view that?...many of these posters are more educated, more Biblically literate than I, and yet they cannot and will not agree...as I said, its difficult...
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.