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
Do you think on your own, or is God pulling the strings behind every neuron? Do you, or other people, have original ideas, or are ideas implanted by God?
At what point do you require that physical processes require continuous divine intervention? Can you name the process involved in evolution that specifically requires divine intervention?
The origin of humans is most definitely not tentative. We have lots of fossil and lots of genomic evidence.
I don't consider asking a student's position on human origins to be a religious oath. One can't simply protect any bizarre opinion from challenge by claiming it's religious.
Have to run, be back later....
Exactly. Gen 1:23....And there was evening and there was morning a FIFTH day.
Gen 1:31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the SIXTH day.
Why is that so hard for some to understand? Seems 1st grade to me. To 'simple' for the 'educators'? Again, it's the little things that confound the wise (so called).
He created the whole earth in six days - they can't believe someone can do that - someone can't but an AWESOME God can and did and that's their problem. They can't understand it so they don't believe it. What kind of God would He be if we have the same intelligence as HIM, Our Creator.
I doubt it. Just because the origin of life was taught in conjunction with evolution in biology class doesn't mean that the former is a part of the latter. On the other hand I don't know exactly what was taught in your school 30 years ago but even if what you claim is true, that doesn't mean that you were taught correctly and maybe your biology books were a bit sloppy in their presentation of this topic. Alas, this is still true today in some cases.
Then a theology-philosophy class could cover both theories on the origins of life, and the students can make up their own minds as to what to believe.
As I said before, theology or philosophy classes can cover whatever they want. If the research of abiogenesis makes progress and we have more conclusive data about how life might have arisen naturally then this is going to be taught in science class and theology or philosophy classes aren't going to change that and any criticism thereof has to come from the scientific corner and not the theological or philosophical field.
af·fir·ma·tion n.
1. The act of affirming or the state of being affirmed; assertion.
Right, to get him to give you a personal letter, something he doesn't have to to at all and only does to people he knows, likes, and wants to help personally -- you have to make an assertion about how you believe the human species originated.
If he doesn't like your assertion, he doesn't have to write a personal letter.
And the problem is?
Seems pretty first grade to me as well.
5. ID has no record of carrying out scientific experiments or suggesting experiments or providing descriptive classifications or understandings. The major thesis of ID is, "Gee, it is so complicated, so we can explain this only by saying 'God did it.'." Since this idea can be applied to anything we do not understand, it lacks intellectual rigor. As in the case of Paley's The Blind Watchmaker--from which ID derives--it is fundamentally anti-intellectual and rejects the notion that human intellect can puzzle out the complexities. It is noteworthy that IDists do not attempt to apply their notion to quantum mechanics.
6. As shown in the ID document Wedge, http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html, ID adherents attribute a slew of moral and social evils to the theory of evolution, claiming that it fosters "materialism", "naturalistic explanations", and is anti-theistic. Some even go further to claim that the "naturalism" of evolution is responsible for most of the evils of the world. However, to many conservatives that ID hoped to attract, the idea of materialism is perfectly fine and not inconsistent with their theological views. The idea of an ordered social hierarchy fits with evolution and conservative, libertarian values. ID thus offers nothing attractive to these groups and the idea that a grand "designer" directly intervenes to make some people more successful, as suggested by ID, leaves social conservatives uncomforttable.
7. A major problem with ID is that it accepts supernatural forces and actions as being on the same plane with engineering and real science. Since evolution is based on an interwoven network of concepts from geology, physics, astronomy, paleontology, if ID wins wide acceptance, then all such disciplines are equally discredited. Few conservatives or liberals wish to go there. The problem is the mind-set of ID.
The mindset is superstitious in nature. There are many people who are happy to see science and rationalism debased, because they hold to views about psychic phenomena, UFOs, appearances of the Virgin Mary in weird places, astrology, dowsing, predictions of Nostradamus, hidden codes in the Bible, reincarnation, a heaven/paradise after death, and a hundred other non-rational beliefs. The fundamental issue is a rational, healthy outlook on the world, with joy in its beauties and sadness for what some people sometimes do, vs. a supernatural outlook, in which gods intervene willy-nilly, some people have "hidden psychic powers", and happiness is determined (or pre-determined) by weird forces that do not stand up to rational inquiry.
8. A major weakness of ID is the matter of implementation. It's one thing to have a design, but how does it get turned into a fabrication? Every engineer knows that a first design runs into "but we can't make that". Other design flaws frequently appear until there is sufficient reiteration between makers and designers. This may be the the ID explanation for species extinction!
But, now suppose we have an "intelligent design" for an eye. Where and when does this get implemented? Since the coding starts with the DNA of a single cell, maybe each fertilized egg is made by the god-designer. On the other hand, maybe the divine intervention comes only when cells begin to differentiate. Or maybe when humans evolved 2 million years ago and the design has been on auto-pilot ever since? And was the planet earth itself intelligently designed? These are many questions ID has no answer for.
9. ID proponents have made a number of very silly arguments that evolution is the source of moral decay, atheism, changing sexual mores, insufficient parking spaces, and almost everything they dislike. The anti-evolution thought process greatly undermines their argument.
Then where is the evidence that the beginning of life on Earth was an accident?
-------
however even with extensive compelling evidence validating a theory, scientific claims are always subject to change should contradictory evidence suddenly arise.
How much evidence is required by the scientific community before it's considered 'compelling' or 'contradictory'?
IMHO, however true Darwin's theory is that the natural world evolves over time, I'm just not willing to forgo my innate beliefs and awe for the complexity of life on the say so of an amateur naturalist on a cruise.
-------
Creationism relies on no evidence at all, and many of its proponents insist that no amount of real-world observations will make them change their views.
Yep... It's called faith.
Or, he decided that a simple wording change could solve a silly legal challenge, saving time and headaches without causing him to have to change his behavior at all, and he did so.
Like if I called some black friends the 'N' word (meaning 'dude', the way black guys use it). I don't *mean* it as a put-down, but if someone objected, I wouldn't use it with them. Not cuz I meant to be insulting, but cuz I'm a nice guy who tries to accomodate others.
And you *still* haven't addressed my point . . . this is a *personal* letter written by him for whatever reasons he wants to.
This is about his *personal* reputation that will follow him even after he retires, goes to another school, etc. He has his own requirements.
And *what* is your complaint about him having his own requirements for that?
It's god@heaven.gov but I have to warn you he uses quite a badass spam filter...
;^)
Oh puh_leez. There is not even agreement in the scientific community Neanderthals are our ancestors or not. There are more questions than answers. To say that the origin of humans is not tentative is just plain nuts.
Do you believe that God cannot operate out of Time?
Is God constrained to operate within the Time that He himself created?
No. It could very well be that God counted himself 7 days, but that millions or even billions of years were passing.
Here's an analogy. Imagine you are sitting in front of a VCR player. You press the fast-forward button and mark the time on your watch. Once the tape has finished, a few minutes of time has passed on your watch. But inside the tape, hours and hours of time passed.
To prove he wrote it, he is who he is. Not to say, "This is the opinion of this University" -- obviously, I'd say.
He is not writing the letter as an agent of the university in the name of the university.
It is his *personal* reccommendation, correct? Him writing a letter to some school saying, "I'm this person, and I think this student would be a good doctor".
That's it. And you folk are trying to force him to give a personal reccommendations to people he does not want to, using the courts to try and abridge his free speach.
Lovely.
####At what point do you require that physical processes require continuous divine intervention? Can you name the process involved in evolution that specifically requires divine intervention?####
At least some part of it would have to require divine intervention for humans to be created in God's image. Either God created the first living cell and guided it upward to create all the various life forms, with man as a special creation at the top, or God programmed the first cell to evolve upward into man. It seems hard from a theological standpoint to maintain that A) the universe is here "on its own", B) the first living cell came into existence "on its own", C) this cell evolved through random mutations "on its own" into the millions of species we see on earth, including man, but D) man is still created in the image of God.
Just curious....
Why do you make things so complicated when they aren't? Does it make you feel smart to dig and dig for answers.
READ " THE BOOK " - the answers are all there. When you purchase a car, do you look at the instruction manual that the manufacture suggests you do? You know, the creator of the auto. Same thing applies to Our Creator - He gave us all the answers.
this only by saying 'God did it"
BECAUSE HE DID! If you don't believe in God, I understand why you aren't 'getting it'.
That's a nice definition. Here's another one.
affirmation - (religion) a solemn declaration that serves the same purpose as an oath
I see an affirmation as an oath, you see it as a simple assertion. I think 'assertion' is a very weak replacement for an 'affirmation'.
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.