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, how do YOU look at it, then, if "we" are looking at it "wrong". (I presume your pronoun 'it' in this case refers to the myriads of fossil and DNA evidence...)
No, It actually has nothing to do with "orthodox jews." The passage nowhere mentions "orthodox jews." Peter was not writing about the theological problems of Judaism and the historical people of faith vs. Gentiles and how the two are reconciled. For that problem, you would go to Romans or Galatians. Peter was writing to a group of mixed (Jew and Gentile) Christians. The passage about the "spirits in prison" has been puzzled over as to whether it meant: "spirits" of older saints who were somehow released to a fuller recognition of God by the crucifixion, demonic beings, or "who knows?" No commentator that I have ever heard of has posited that this referred to orthodox jews who were in hell.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever puts their trust in Him will never perish, but will have everlasting life."
Havent seen too much controversy on that one. I have a few more available if you want to see em.
Actually, it is quite specifically supported by any number of scriptures. Three of the critical examples are the entire BOOK of Romans, which deals with the question "if the Gentiles are now the 'people of God' just by faith in Jesus, how does that affect all the promises of God to Jews down thru the years?" To summarize, Paul argues what I just said above in the previous post...., the message has ALWAYS been that of faith, and there has always been a "remnant" within Israel who were the TRUE people of God... those of the faith of Abraham.
The message of Galatians is essentially the same, with a little bit different twist.
Finally, Jesus is represented as explaining that the entire Old Testament was about HIM, both in his dealings with the "church leaders" of his day and in explaining that the OT scriptures were written "concerning himself." (cf Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.)
There are many other passages, but these are representative of the central message that there IS one central message, about one central person, and faith in that person as the provision for redemption is the theme of the one book, comprised of many smaller "books."
Therefore, the OT Jews would have been "in heaven" when they died for the sme reason as a NT Jew (or Gentile) would be in heaven upon death., and that would have been contingent on faith in Jesus as he had been revealed as "coming" in the OT. That is the central message of the bible itself, and is echoed by every serious scholar from Athanasius, Clement (both of them), Gregory of Ny., Augustine, Cyprian, etc etc etc.
That seems fairly clear from Romans 1. God "reveals" himself to every man, and then judges that man on the basis of how s/he responds to that knowledge. The universal response of men is to turn away from that knoweldge they have, and thus are guilty. In fact, the scriptural message is that men "suppress" the plain truth about God as He has revealed Himself, because they simply don't like it (Romans 1:19 ff). The question then becomes NOT "how much light does a man have?" buy "how does man respond to the light he has?" The unflattering biblical answer is that we hate what light we have, and prefer the darkness. The judgment on "those who have never heard" is consonant with that. In that respect, the "heathen in Africa" is equal to the "heathen in America." Both get what they want.
Actually, that call for an apology was for P-Marlow, for having called you a liar for being mistaken, not for you. Unless you had earlier called someone a liar for having been mistaken, in which case, please consider it a call for you to apologize, as well!
;-)
I simply asked RWP for a reference for his allegation that there was an unnamed group in Kansas that was campainging to set the value of pi at 3 and all I got was a link to a book.
Is this text of book is available in whole to anyone on the internet? If not, your objection is specious.
So if I make an outrageous claim and then make a general reference to a book that is not on the internet, you must accept the reference without question?
I hope you are not an attorney.
Translation: "Is this text of book is..." = Is the text of this book...
An example illustrating that proof reading and editing is a good thing.
So if I make an outrageous claim and then make a general reference to a book that is not on the internet, you must accept the reference without question?
Of course not. The source must be validated.
And how was RWP's source validated?
He made a statement that there was an unnamed group in Kansas that was somehow campaigning for changing the value of pi to 3. I suspect it was either a hoax or a practical joke. I asked for the reference and I was shown a picture of a book.
Now, would you accept that as "validation"?
...and a promise that when I get home and have the book in front of me, I would give you more details. It would have been honest to acknowledge that.
...and, of course, long before you, I said it was possible the pi=3 movement was intended as dry humor. It would have been honest to acknowledge that too.
I don't multi-task well. I'll deal with secondary stuff after the primary gets taken care of.
You've not pointed out where, in this thread, I said the things you said I did.
I wonder why?
I was merely responding to those who claim that my request for further documentation was specious or that I should not question your "citation".
I am not at all concerned that you will provide the specific source. I will be extremely surprised if the advocacy group is serious. If they are serious, then I suspect that they are seriously ill.
Do you deny the veracity of this statement: "Scientists who believe in evolution look at and interpret the evidence according to their evolutionary worldview?"
Nope.
Nor do I deny the veracity of these statements...Scientists who believe in Newton's theories look at and interpret the evidence according to their Newtonian world-view? Or this statement....Scientists who believe in Einstein's theories look at and interpret the evidence according to their Einsteinian world-view.
Considering that every scientist alive would love to find evidence that contradicts Newton's and Einstein's theories, do you see a problem with these two statements?
My, you've been a busy little quote miner.
If a cubit is 18 inches and a span is 9 inches and a hand is 4 1/2 inches and you built a metal bowl with an outside diameter of 10 cubits and a thickness of one "hand", and you measured the inside circumference of the bowl, how many cubits would it be?
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.