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 was merely responding to those who claim that my request for further documentation was specious
I guess I must have missed the request for further documentation. Assuming so, my apologies.
I suppose if I stated that the earth was created in six 24 hour days and pointed you to the Bible as the source for that allegation, that you would accept it?
This is misdirection. You objected to RWP's citation because it was a book, which is beyond laughable.
Or if I provided a link to a Henry Morris book, you would be satisfied? Or would you question the source?
I might well question the source, but I would have no doubt that you had done your scholarly duty regarding citation.
Are you under the impression that New York Reform Jews inhabited the Holy Lands when Jesus was roaming around it?
You're being unduly conservative. Make the thickness equal to 0.225352 cubits, and you can have the inner circumference exactly 30 cubits.
So, since we're fudging, make the day equal to a few billion years, and Genesis won't conflict nearly so badly with science.
I objected to it because it was a general reference to a book which may or may not have contained the specific reference.
Your accusation comes awfully close to being a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but now you are sitting on two strikes.
Goodness, well, let me first of all apologize for my untimely apology. Perhaps we should have scorecards. I'd just like to issue a permanent blanket apology for every mis-statement I may make. Since I can't seem to shut up, I expect I'll make plenty more. ;)
I fail to see how referencing a list of out-of-context or -- in some cases -- fabricated quotes supports your claim. Perhaps you could reference a single quote wherein a biologist made the specific claim that you allege?
So, in other words, a jew is condemned to hell unless he violates the pieces of his orthodox teaching he holds to be fundamental: the shema and the 1st Commandment, by accepting christ as savior.
Not if you are donh
A task that only C types can do.....
Does this apply to MY request as well?
Will it apply to things you HAVE said?
Well, since he has no temple in which to do sacrifice; it's REALLY hard to follow the Lord's commands; isn't it!
It is reasonable to assume that a 10 cubit molten metal bowl would have a thickness of about a hand, which would be the perfect measuring distance if you were going to build a mold.
So I am simply using the measurment standards in existence at the time of the building of Solomon's Temple. And since a cubit is not an exact measurement but is an approximate measurement, how many cubits would you have if if you rounded the 29.85 cubits to the nearest cubit?
No.
You slandered me, and when I asked you to merely verify your opinion, which is the bone of contention, you refused to answer. Do you disavow the handing down of the laws to the judges in genesis or not? Do you oppose Rowe v. Wade on grounds of christian morality or not? It's your opinion, do you know what your opinion is, or not?
Why don't you break precedent and answer a simple question once in a while? Are orthodox jews damned because they cannot acknowledge jesus is savior with violating their basic beliefs as orthodox jews? Is that why you just caughed up an acre of anti-jewish spewings from the Gospels, or not?
Not if you are donh
Huhhh? What?
I objected to it because it was a general reference to a book which may or may not have contained the specific reference.
Very well, apparently I made the mistaken assumption that you were objecting to it because it was a book, since that's what it looked like. Let me just apologize profusely.
Your accusation comes awfully close to being a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but now you are sitting on two strikes.
Oh, sit on it. I've catered to this pasty-faced hyper-sensitivity quite enough. Does God know what a bunch of whining sissies he's got in His cheering section?
No. I am confused by your question.
You can probably pick up the thread of discussion at post #1935
This is misdirection. You objected to RWP's citation because it was a book, which is beyond laughable.
Or if I provided a link to a Henry Morris book, you would be satisfied? Or would you question the source?
So,...who, exactly, in this exchange, is it that appears to be covering his heiny with a little after-the-fact two-stepping?
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.