Fred Spilhaus, Terry Wallace, Gregory van der Vink and Jeffrey Park present the joint AGU/SSA position statement on capability to monitor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at a press conference.
Posted on 08/04/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
Who are merely parrotting their parents' fundamentalist indoctrinations.
go believe that the earth is center of universe or that the theory of gravitation is not a law but has to gain a religious mandate to be "acceptable".
Science is not the end all. Absolute truths exist and ever so slowly science is approaching some truths in some areas. In the meantime, they still get things wrong and time will show what is wrong and what is right.
Without common sense and morals, all the learning in the world will be of no avail. Oh, as your post reveals, scientific knowledge need not do anything helpful in human relations. It is said in the NT: Out of the abundance of the heart speaketh the mouth.
Biography:
Since 1970 Fred Spilhaus, an oceanographer, has served as Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union,
******
Behind the Ignorance
Why are some groups more vulnerable to believing in Biblical accounts than accepting scientific explanations?
snip
Creationists have also become active in electing sympathizers to local and state educational agencies. In Kansas last week, for example, the state Board of Education voted to permit the teaching of creationism in local public schools.
This has prompted the American Geophysical Union to prepare a "call to arms" to member groups, encouraging them to become more involved in local and state education issues. Fred Spilhaus, executive director of the AGU released a statement last week warning, "Once again, those who value science and support the teaching of evolution but were too busy to participate in local politics lost, and science education will suffer as a result, as will science itself."
Spilhaus added, "Scientists would be well-advised to run for schools boards or, at the very least, to actively support well-informed candidates. If scientists want to see good science taught in the schools, they can't just participate as teachers. They have to get out and get into the policy making aspect of it."
******
An Unintelligent Decision
Scientists blast the Smithsonian for showing a creationist film
by Mike Martin
The Smithsonian Institution's decision to show a controversial film recently had scientists calling on the august national repository to censor itself and cancel a sponsored screening of The Privileged Planet.
“The Privileged Planet promotes creationism in the form of ‘intelligent design,’” explained American Geophysical Union (AGU) executive director Fred Spilhaus. “It fosters the idea that science should include the supernatural. This is unacceptable.”
snip
The idea of an “intelligent designer” suggests divine intervention to many scientists. By showing the film, “the Smithsonian Institution associates science with creationism and damages its credibility,” AGU's Spilhaus said.
snip
“I was not prepared for the level of venom, misinformation, and outright lies about our book and film,” Gonzalez, who has authored some sixty articles in well-respected astrophysical journals about the formation and evolution of planetary systems, told Science & Spirit in an exclusive interview.
He said that his book and film are “based entirely on widely accepted, mainstream science,” and believes the attacks were motivated by “scientific partisanship” that is distorting the definition of design.
“The only card our critics seem to keep playing is that we are 'creationists' and we are up to no good,” he said. “Intelligent design has positive theistic implications, but it is not dependent on religious assumptions.”
******
Fred Spilhaus, insisted the Smithsonian Institute reconsider and called on other researchers to file a protest on the Smithsonian-website.
In the United States, the Creationists are waging a campaign against Evolutionism - which was a reputed reason for criminality, drug misuse and wars.
The Creationists have had their successes: In many US Federal States there are juristic and political controversies upon Darwin’s ideas in schools. School book publishers excluded mention of Darwin. Draft laws insist that schools give equal treatment to Creationism and evolution – even though US-law regulates the separation of church and state. But those faithful to the Bible enjoy the backing of the U.S. “moral majority. A survey by research centre Gallup showed only 10 percent of Americans trusted the theory of Evolution, whereas 45 percent think God had created Earth about 10,000 years ago.
That would've been the case if ID had some rational or scientific basis..
After a 28 May article in the New York Times, the museum took a positive step and withdrew its cosponsorship and refunded the Discovery Institute's $16,000, on the grounds that it "determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution's scientific research." But it still plans to show the film, and it is unlikely that disclaimers, explanations, or excuses will prevent proponents of "intelligent design" from claiming legitimacy from their association with the Smithsonian Institution.
snip
This is an opportunity for you to express your point of view to members of the Smithsonian Board of Regents (http://www.si.edu/about/people.htm). The film is also being offered to PBS stations. If you notice that your local station puts it on the schedule, you may also want to contact it. It is important for each of us as scientists to speak up in the defense of the integrity of science.
--Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director
In fact, the argument from design rests solely on faith, just as acceptance of religion. Perhaps a compromise solution would be an introductory course on the history of religion and philosophy throughout the ages. The beliefs of every philosophy and religion should be presented. How else can children become educated? But History is the proper catagory for the study of the argument from design, since religion would be taught under its umbrella, not the umbrella of science. Notice: I did not take a position on the subject, I simply presented it as knowledge which must be acquired through study.
"Only 10 percent [of Americans] said they believe in evolution with no participation from God".
"Among scientists, only 5 percent hold the literal Bible view, 40 percent believe in theistic evolution and a majority, 55 percent, believe in evolution without help from God."
And is not "Project Steve" a rhetorical response rather than a scientific one?
Revival preaching is a much more profitable business. And sometimes it even gets in the news, like the Jim Jones KoolAid thing (two of us can play "guilt by association").
We are talking about the ENTIRE COUNTRY here not a selective community, such as you describe. Which is why this topic is so volatile.
So, to throw in a "depends on how you define controversy" and equate a small groups "controversy" to the larger, more debated controversy of evolution/ID hardly seems germaine.
My understanding is that IDer's disclaim evolution, they just say that some intelligent designer must have guided it (if evolution is how it happened) IDers like Behe claim that their theories on design are not specific to any one religion, though most IDers are Christian. The real enemy as far as Christians are concerned is not evolution, but naturalism.
Fred Spilhaus, Terry Wallace, Gregory van der Vink and Jeffrey Park present the joint AGU/SSA position statement on capability to monitor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at a press conference.
God created the world.
God created human beings.
God gave human beings the desire to be free.
God created freedom (the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness).
Belief that God did not create the world leads people to believe strange notions like government is god or The Supreme Court is a god with nine heads, and that our rights are given to us by government.
Rights given to us by government or by human beings can be taken away. Rights given to us by God the Creator cannot be taken away.
Lacking belief that God created the universe makes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness erode and fall apart.
Not recognizing that God created the universe (intelligent design), that's risky.
I am curious, and maybe someone here knows. When anthropologists/archaeologists unearth artifacts that they believe were used by humans in millennia past -- stones used to grind grain, that sort of thing --, are there not criteria that are used to assess whether the object really was used and/or modified for the presumed purpose (as opposed to being a random chunk that happens to look like a tool)? Wouldn't this necessarily be a test for design?
I have a theory that NASA never landed men on the moon, and the photos and videos and moon rocks are all fakes.
I feel very strongly about this.
I demand that it be given equal time!
The only thing that seperates us from those barbaric Islamo-fascists is our scientific progress.. being religious or not is immaterial here, our religion might help us lead moral and peaceful lives personally, but it shouldnt be allowed to compromise our scientific capabilities..... which is exactly what you and your ilk are trying to do, by undermining our own scientists and attacking the entire scientific establishment, and by legitimizing an anti-scientific mood all over the country.
The western civilization owes everything to science and technical disciplines. Can you imagine what would have been the situation if Osama and his filthy thugs had nukes and advanced weaponry that we have now, and we were merely living off the land like they are doing so now ??
I'm afraid its a bit cold way to put it, but its the harsh truth--> This country can do away without a thousand Grammar teachers than half a dozen scientists.
While we're at it, we should introduce the 'Theory of Astrology' to our science classes as well:
1) Lots of people believe in it today, so it must be true.
2) There are lots of old books discussing it, so it must be true.
3) Lots of famous people in the past believed in it, so it must be true.
4) It will hone those critical analysis skills even more.
lol
Getting philosophical, I see. Well, unless you want to go insane, you have to assume yesterday was truly yesterday and not a second ago. Who knows how things really are, but I just assume the way we perceive the world is true.
History has records etc....things that can be proven. Science can be testable, which provides strong evidence, but rarely can truly prove anything.
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.