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
Oops. That just sounded too much like an urban legend. I still have my doubts. I have requested that my post be pulled.
Ironically it was not religious beliefs but faulty scientific theory which brought the bill about.
From your own link:
"Though the claim about the Alabama state legislature is pure nonsense, it is similar to an event that happened more than a century ago. In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate."
FWIW, it does not appear that they were trying to use any kind of biblical formula. I don't see any attempt to make pi=3.
Donh stated that they tried to pass a law making pi=3. Which is not exactly true.
Some guy did some experimenting with squaring circles and figured the area was actually 3.2. The guy had a buddy who was a legislater who intoduced the bill and would give the guy royalties to anyone who used his value. Ironically, it was lousy scientific and definitely not religious.
Generally, I agree with you. Notice, however, that the above in no way conflicts with Darwin's theory. Nor does the above imply what people like Dembski and Behe call "intelligent design."
I object to scientists attempting to do a bait and switch and talk about issues outside their domeain and call it "science."
I agree, though I think most scientists do respect the boundaries of their discipline. The Dawkins of the world are a tiny minority.
Please see my response to Thatcherite for a slightly more treanchant statement of that point.,
I'd like to take a look at it. Would you mind giving me a post number?
Sounds like a slice of humble pi is in order:)
After review the actual bill it is clear that what Donh said was simply not true. Indiana did not try to redefine the formula to pi=3. That was a false statement. What Indiana tried to do was to codify a new formula for determining the area of a circle. There was no attempt to legislate the I Kings 7:23.
Don had it half right, so I can't accuse him of being a "liar" but he made an error.
Why have your post pulled?...frankly, I find the whole discussion about this subject and the different responses to it, enlightening...
I feel that it was too harsh. Don made an error, but so did I. The fact is that the Indiana Legislature did try to redefine the formula for determining the area of a circle (a rather stupid leglislative enterprise). I had assumed that was a rumor as well. But Donh interjected the rumor of pi=3 into the fact of the Indiana Legislature's bill and made the claim that the Indiana Legislature tried to redefine the formula for pi to match the alleged error in I Kings 7:23. That is not what happened.
So I think it would be best if the post were pulled. Now that we've dispensed with the silly rumors, perhaps we can get back to an intelligent discussion.
'Pi' placemarker
BTW when are we going to meet again for practice? I left the lyrics to my last song on some faraway thread and I can't find it. Since I abandoned it, I suspect it will show up on some platinum label sleeve jacket someplace.
Well, I think what was learned was that sometimes people on both sides of the issue can and do make mistakes, and perhaps this latest exchange showed the 'correct' way in which to work through it, in a civil manner...
All too often, when someone has been shown that they are in error, they refuse to admit it, and holler and scream and then run away...and often go on to repeat the very same error...
In this case now, errors made on both sides were recognized, and handled in a civil mature manner...thats a good lesson for all, I think...
Just my opinion for what its worth, and some on these threads think my opinion is worthless....I just think this exchange was an education in how to resolve things in the true FR spirit...
A quick google search will show that it was the medical establishment which rejected Semmelweiss' observations initially because it went against current scientific opinion at the time. Can't blame the *church* for that one too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
I was going to pick your post apart but then your last paragraph stopped me. Since you have your head on straight, I'll leave you alone to learn. And hopefully, your professor will do a better job explaining the fossil record to you in the future.
Good luck!
What 'reason'?
You can't even show it HERE as I have post quitely plainly ALL of your rant about me!
....just an obnoxious repeat of the original slander.
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.