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
I am pretty sure the drug in question is Kool Aid...
|
To: Elsie
Dead babies... You don't like what's in the Book either; do you?
You like the idea of bears mauling chlldren, murdering all the first born infants of egypt in their cribs, and murdering wholesale a nations non-virgin children, and handing all the virgins over to be molested and enslaved? You must be a lot of fun at S&M parties. Why do I have to defend what is there? Oh, let me think...oh yea, because you want to re-impose the bible as the law of the land, as in the days when the church cruelly tortured and murdered it's political and philosophical opposition. You have made your choice, so live with it, as I will with mine. As I recall, I am not the one who spews out endless bible verse, of generally little or no merit pertaining to whatever is being discussed, but do seem to be specially selected to highlight the most morally objectionable, more or less disgusting parts of the bible. As long as you insist on so lowering the tone, attractiveness, and comprehensibility of these threads, you are not the only one who has to live with your supercilious, callous choices. To: donh
Dead babies... You don't like what's in the Book either; do you?
You like the idea of bears mauling chlldren, murdering all the first born infants of egypt in their cribs, and murdering wholesale a nations non-virgin children, and handing all the virgins over to be molested and enslaved? You must be a lot of fun at S&M parties. Why do I have to defend what is there? Oh, let me think...oh yea, because you want to re-impose the bible as the law of the land, as in the days when the church cruelly tortured and murdered it's political and philosophical .... Hey Dimensio! I got a LIAR for you!!! (If anyone can show where I actually typed these things, I'll take it back.) 1,688 posted on 02/23/2006 8:25:20 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
You like the idea of bears mauling chlldren, murdering all the first born infants of egypt in their cribs, and murdering wholesale a nations non-virgin children, and handing all the virgins over to be molested and enslaved?
... Hey Dimensio! I got a LIAR for you!!! Your reading comprehension skills are as sharp as ever. That was a question, which you would have known had you finished reading the sentence. Do you really think I can't go back thru your endless biblio-diaharrea and find support for biblically-based legal theory? Do you stand behind the scripture you quote, or not? Do you think the story of Genesis with it's giving of the laws, and tables of prescribed punishments and instructions to judges isn't part of the Bible? What other parts of the bible do you plan to disavow at your convenience? To: donh
That was a question...
No, it wasn't; it was a slander, disguised as one. 1,711 posted on 02/23/2006 11:37:41 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
No, it wasn't; it was a slander, disguised as one.
No, it was a question which you 1) failed, as usual, to answer in a comprehendable way, and 2) following which, you called me a liar on a public forum. The slander shoe is on the other foot. As usual. To: donh; Dimensio
The slander shoe is on the other foot. As usual.
Well then, since I was wrong (iyho) I guess you'll post where I said the things you CLAIMED I did, and then I'll retract my statement. Until then, you'd better what out for dimensio! 1,740 posted on 02/23/2006 3:43:50 PM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
| To 1728 |
|
You are the one with the problem, that is obvious...You posted to me directly, that was your doing, not mine...you are, as I said, quite sad...my remarks stand...
My pharmacological analysis in post ~1782
I think it's time to coin a new word, or phrase. Every time someone uses the term "Darwinist" to describe a person who happens to lean toward a belief in the scientific theory of natural selection, we should call them, say, a "Genesisist".
Sorry if that ain't what you WANT to hear, but that's what I said.
Were the Nazis doing the Lord's work in melting those Jews (who you say are going to Hell)?
You tell me if the Pharoh & the EGYPTIANS (No, not a rock band) were 'doing HIS work',
Were the Babylonians and Nebuchadezer 'doing HIS work',
Were the Assyrians 'doing HIS work', etc.
Sorry again, but it isn't I that says 'they are going to hell:
John 3
18. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
If YOU don't believe; you are going to hell!
Galileo predicted it: "Objects in motion remain in motion unless a force is slowing them down." The root article of this thread, the point at the center of all this verbal Brownian Motion, is a report of yet another attempt by the Establishment of Science to shunt off or shut down all possible forces that might counter the established moment of Darwinism.
Of course! You would never let them sit down, or lie down for a nap.
You are wrong...I'm not suprised. Many many scientists doubt evolution...the most absurd theory to have lasted this long.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
lame humor..
My remarks stand
..................................
Of course! You would never let them sit down, or lie down for a nap.
Nice tiny list of creationists you have there. Not even close to the number of evolutionists. :)
You are proposing that there is "evidence" to evaluate in choosing a world view? Indeed??!!
Are you proposing I need to have a particular "world view" in order to evaluate tangible evidence? Indeed??!! Let me suggest that "tangible", in this discussion, should be understood to mean pretaining to evidence that seems to more than one of us to have the same general nature, despite any discrepencies in ontological conviction we may entertain.
How do you assume it is "evidence?" How do you classify that "evidence," since you bring no a priori assumptions to the table?
If I can reach operating conjectures that have predictive value regarding the evidence, and many other scientists, even if of widely disparate, even hostile viewpoints, can make a the same predictions with the same evidence, that's what we tend to call science, rather than subjective idle musings.
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?
Water, muddied, yes? Are you willing to accept the internal confirmation of Santa Claus, as attested to by millions of 4 year olds? Do you deny that Santa Claus has a real, material affect on 4 year olds? Not to mention their parents.
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?
OH, well, like the santa theory, it sort of depends on how you frame the question. Design is a possibility, as far as science is able to say. It isn't a science until, amongst other practical limits, there is some positive forensic evidence, of significant merit to care about, with a predictive implication , of significant merit to care about, that science can seriously test.
You are correct in your slap re: etymology. It was pissy of me and I apologize.
Thank you for the civility.
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.
As I believe I previously mentioned, the non-laboratory outpourings of media-star scientists may not be taken as the philosophical touchstones of science itself.
"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
As I believe I previously mentioned, "science" has not remotely expressed any such opinion. Science is by design, only capable of having opinions about the proximate physically detectable causes of physically detectable events. No implications or explications about ultimate causes of a metaphysical nature are a part of science. It's not science's department. This is not an unusual opinion, go to the science department of your local college and ask around.
not when the supposed joke, is not even funny...you find it funny, so what?
No, I'm not wrong. Is this the same bogus list as we already dealt with on this thread, or is this a new bogus list? Even if your list isn't full of pretense, it still doesn't move the number of anti-evo scientists out of hollering range of zero.
Might has never made right.
It's about breaking down walls..the walls of stony conformity...and lies.
Sad, but true.
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.