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
You really don't see a problem with a professor who tells students to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" an answer to a controversial question concerning religious beliefs as fundamental as the origin of humans????
My compliments on a very well written reply and analysis.
Dr. Dini did not ask about 'origin of life'. He asked: "How do you think the human species originated?"
From the article:
The Web page advises students seeking a recommendation to be prepared to answer the question: "How do you think the human species originated?"
"If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences," Dini writes.(emphasis mine)
Accept and affirm. I think this is the crux of the issue, and I'm going to put a different spin on things.
Do you think it satisfactory to answer the question "How do you think the human species originated," with the affirmation: "...by the tentative theory of evolution"
If that's bigotry, so be it.
Those are his requirements for giving a student a letter of personal reccommendation.
Doesn't he have a right to decide what criteria to us in such personal things?
If he were to say he'd only give personal letters to Dallas Cowboy's fans, wouldn't that be well within his rights?
Are you actually suggesting he should give a personal letter of reccommendation to someone he feels does not understand something he believes is important?
The theory of evolution is not in the least tentative. That is simply a false statement.
Christianity doesn't make sense to me.
From the point of view of the patient, is there a difference? I don't care if he/she is a serial adulterer.
To the extent that they are, the word tentative is redundant, no?
In context, no, it is not
His reworking of the wording is a tacit admission that he was in deep doodoo if the case went to the courts.
What are you saying?
But we're not arguing from the point of view of a patient, are we....
Indeed, yes, a very meaty and thought-provoking piece, many thanks--let me stew on it and get back to you. I think you are spot on about the Church of England--and you have a credible explanation for the gulf of incredulity which divides some aspects of conservatism. Thanks again.
So we all have to believe in the religion of evolution?
C1
Where is the tolerance? Where is the inclusiveness?
D11
The mullahs of Science need to be aware that millions of us will never bring up our children to believe that they are ape-men instead of created by God in His image.
D9
Science giants of the past have been Christians who believed that God created the world. Today's science pygmies are too insecure to have their religious ideas about evolution challenged. Whose fault is that?
C1, C13 and D2 all in one shot.
Evolution is not a religion. Science does not have to be "tolerant" or "inclusive" of unscientific ideas. Scientists are not "mullahs," and they will never force you to teach your childrean anything. Finally, science is not atheism.
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.