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
There's too many Huxley's for the Creationoids.
The Bible was written by a bunch of Bronze age, sandal wearing goat herders (your faith of course accepts it as more and I understand that but don't agree with it).
As a blueprint for morality it is above reproach, as a tome of scientific teaching it is unsatisfactory.
"Here are two theories that do not have the facts to support them: 1) Evolution; 2) The theory that public education benefits society."
I have to agree with you, at least partialy on # 2 but let me repeat the FACTS of EVOVUTION one more time:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
It's not science vs. religion, it's age old philosophy vs. philosophy.
spelling EVOVUTION" Evolution
Me, of course.
I don't know what the situation is in the US; in the UK, all schools include RE (religious education) which covers an introduction to the major religions of the world and their associated scriptures, with particular emphasis on Western Christianity. This is considered (and I happen to agree) a valuable prerequisite to the study of history and literature as well as a contribution to individual spiritual growth
Odd. I know for a fact we were taught the first life on Earth 'slithered out of the primordial ooze' in science class. As far as I know, no one was around to observe that.
By observable, I mean that we observe (and measure and categorize, etc.) things and draw conclusions from those observations. There is a linear path between the data points (observations) and the conclusions. There is a lot of dicussion and debate within the scientific community as to what that line looks like but those discussions are based purely on what is observed -- NOT external supernatural intervention.
Why not pull your kids out of public school - I did. If the public education is as bad as you think privately educated kids like mine will have superior life skills.
I do not like public schools or weather below 70degrees. So I live in Florida and the kids go to private schools.
pro-evolution (i.e. rationalistic)
there, fixed that for you!
> Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."
Well, he's a "smart fool". He's like a scientist who knows how a snowflake is formed in the atmosphere, yet denies categorically that a higher being has had a hand in creating the forces that created the snowflake.
His selective blindness says nothing about the truth of the scientific way snowflakes are formed, and everything about his own personal spiritual poverty.
The spelling has evolved! ;)
(ps: I am on the Evo side, but it was sooo there!)
Nothing wrong with that. Most of the evolution supporters would probably agree. The conflict arises when folks want their literal interpretations of Genesis to supersede what's taught in science class. Science classes shouldn't be perverted by theology, and of course, vice versa.
I'm not Catholic so I don't pay much attention to what your leaders state. What I know is what the Bible states and it is NOT in agreement with evolution on ANYTHING.
Of which has NO scientific basis -- ONLY theory.
Of course research grants, the scientific community creating "fact" out of thin air, and it's "religion" of worshipping at the altar of 1950's science-fiction movies is a bit self-serving, isn't it?
Theories are not supported or explained by scientific facts. Theories explain the scientific facts. I'm sure this is a waste of time, but I tried :)
Thanks for your posting, but I'm not certainly I entirely understand your point. I have not seen 'evolution' presented as a religion, though I do understand that there are some who feel a conflict between their faith and modern science. But 'tolerance' and 'inclusiveness' are not, I think, particular attributes of science, at least not in the usual sense: I think the scientfic arena is much more about the competition of ideas, with those ideas that can present the better fit to the data carrying the day. Clearly, one argues about the 'fit' to the data, and new data can always bring about realignment in the credence one gives to any particular theory--that's how scientfic knowledge advances, and previous errors corrected over time. 'Inclusiveness' does seem meaningful to me in this context.
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.