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
Jesus. And, once again, a truly omnipotent God does not have to resort to theatrics.
Not aware of who my "friend" is. And, if you want to give him a link, do so yourself. No one is going to stop you (paranoia aside).
A genuine 'thank you' for this, it does indeed give me some insight. I don't subscribe to your analysis, but I accept that it is both cogent and sincere; you have given me more to think on, and that is appreciated.
Jesus willing went to the cross to die for our sins in obedience to The Father so we can have eternal life with Him.
Jesus was not innocent at death. That is the point.
"Jesus was not innocent at death. That is the point."
?? When did he sin?
What an absurd observation. The Bible has no cause to be 'scientifically prescient.' Science constantly changes, as each attempt by man to explain what is beyond human comprehension falls to the next, building upon the scrap heap of human science, while the Bible simply conveys God's message to his creation.
Does that make you feel lonely or inadequate?
Hi A-G! - We who have been here for very long know what junior is up to, and should know better than to even reply, but we all have our moments of weakness ;o)
OK. Tell me again how your empirical observations are verifiable? Tell me how you can "prove" the sensory data you "receive" is not just the product of your brain, or the delusional mix of your brain and something which may or may not be out there? Tell me now you "know" that matter behaves in a uniform way, so that water will always boil at 100 degrees at sea level. You don't "know" any of these things. All you can say is that what appear to be sets of data appear to correlate with each other. You must make a HUGE set of assumptions on "philosophical musings" which are not scientifically verifiable at all just to DO science. The brighter scientists know this and will acknowledge it. The stupid ones think that assumption (aka "faith) is in itself "proof." Thus we have idiots spouting off about "proof" and "faith" as though science belongs to one realm and religion belongs to another. The true halfwits are technical people who have no idea that their whole approach to empirical data ("science") is based on scientifically unverifiable "philosophical musings."
In what manner does "common", "informal", or scientific usage of the word "speciation" differ? Does it, or does it not mean the genetic separation of two populations so that their attempts at cross-breeding show little or no success?
" Which again proves my point that the bible just isn't scientifically prescient."What an absurd observation. The Bible has no cause to be 'scientifically prescient.'
Then maybe god-folk should stop marveling about how the bible supposedly got it right about the roundness of the Earth and so forth, years before secular science. Nothing in Job, Isiah or otherwise supports the argument that the bible indicates the correct shape of the Earth or reflects modern cosmology, yet that claim is repeatedly put forth.
You are saying that Genesis was originally written during the Exile, but Jesus attributed the Pentateuch to Moses. The sheer implausibility of the notions that either the New Testament misrepresents Jesus' words, or that Jesus was in error or lying about Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch would tend to lead one to believe that Genesis was not written at the ridiculously late date of the Exile.
Cordially,
He was without sin. That's about as innocent as you can get. And, you still haven't addressed the "theatrics" issue.
Astrology is a science? Interesting.
But hey, anyone who's been on these threads with you before knows this.
?? When did he sin?
Representational guilt is the essence of the gospel claim. Federal representation is at the core of Christianity. Thus the claim that "he who knew no sin BECAME sin on our behalf, so that we might be made the righteousness of God." Sorry to throw out bible verses. This was just one that went to the heart of the matter.
Good question.
Please explain why every genetic marker (ERV, pseudogene, etc) found in the same place in the genome of any species of Old World monkey and any species of New World monkey is also, without exception, found in the same place in the genome of all monkeys and all apes, including ourselves, and in no other species.
Please explain why every ERV found in the same place in the genome of a gorilla and a chimp will also be in ours.
...You know the drill..
The "silly little monkey theory" has a simple and obvious explanation for these and thousands of similar facts. There are many ways it could have failed, but it never has.
No, the real question is why do so many fools attribute to God things that he has not said? - Your question is a Strawman.
Actually, no. He voluntarily took evil into himself, which is about as evil as you can get.
And, you still haven't addressed the "theatrics" issue.
I apologize. I thought it was just a gratuitous slap and ignored it. I should have thought better of you. I have to confess I don't know what you mean by this. Can you help me understand what you mean by "theatrics"?
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.