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 accept that the evidence supports ToE
Uh-oh! False dichotomy!
Is God posting on this thread? What's his screenname?
Maybe you should become familiar with the meaning of the word "analogy."
in your opinion.
You are correct. They are true to form.
They are really calling God a liar. Something they have to live and die with.
Imagine, bowing down to what a 'man' says - Darwin - about creation. How lowly they think of themself. No wonder they call themselves animals.
[...So, are you going to take that Python to court for swallowing that human child? No. Non-sequitur...]
Not really. You can't take an animal to court when it behaves instinctively. An animal can't make a contract. Thus the difference between Humans and animals.
So typical of the clueless. Name calling.
You call me coward for ONE REASON. YOU want me to respond to you! You think you have an audience so you can spew your silly little monkey theory.
Every time you call me a liar, you are calling God a liar BUT you don't have the guts to go that far - do you? Coward applies to you. A little projection on your part.
Like I said, I don't converse with the animals. God's Word says I have dominion over animals. What does your god say? Dig for a fossil or eat a banana?
Thanks. I'm lasy. :-)
(the last letter of the alphabet is sticking on my keyboard)
Checking Partridge's Origins, I see it originates from an old Germanic term meaning "a going" -- implying simply "a going-together, an agreement." The term must have gained a more solemn and religious connotation over time.
Still, my feel for the meaning of the word has never been exclusively religious. I've never seen the dictionary like a word bible; it tends to lag behind reality a bit.
[...He evidently couldn't forgive mankind without killing His own son...]
Nuh uh. Jesus was a volunteer. And sin put Him on that cross. My sin and your sin.
The picture however was posted at 113 as a reply and was based on a translation on Enoch which is common currency on the internet and among the "new agers" - as editor-surveyor suggests.
The more recent and accurate translation is only available (AFAIK) in written form, the Charlesworth edition of the Pseudepigrapha. How this relates to the picture is on the above link at posts 116, 122 and 129
I prematurely BINGOed. How embarrassing.
I'll just slink back to my metal folding chair now.
Great style, alternating insults and prayer.
Something Pythonesque about it I can't quite put my finger on....
What, alternating ad hominems with paternostrums? I heard those nuns were tough, but come on....
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.