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
You shudda watched the Olympics; not a re-cycled TERMINATOR movie last night!
your right.....
hey dont you just love it when the sandals are over sox???
whats with that????
I saw neither yesterday. It sounds like I did not miss much.
You seem to have solved it, in spades, despite your "theocracy".(I know it is not, but that is a jab at those who claim we would become a theocracy for teaching that Darwinism has controversy).
Anyway, I have fond memories of England, having been there in the late seventies and early eighties.
You mean we are DIFFERENT than the goathearders; not just more knowledgable??
[22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Different versions and translations use the word "sphere". It was known even then that the earth was round, or a "sphere". The inhabitants are small from where God sits. I have NO idea why other "religious leaders" didn't preach that and allowed people to believe the earth was NOT round. Galileo only backed up what the Bible has stated.
Lev. 13:46
46 All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.
What this is referring to is to quarantine a person when they have a contagious disease. How long has it taken others in the medical profession to finally discover that and accept that? LONG after the Bible clearly stated it.
Numbers 19:13-16
13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
14 This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
15 And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean.
16 And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
What this is referring to is personal hygiene. It wasn't until the beginning of the 19th century that doctors finally accepted this. The death rate among women giving birth was VERY high - I forget the number. Doctors would not wash their hands as they went from one patient to another. If someone died or they performed surgery that didn't matter - they'd just go to the next patient.
Today doctors scrub and nurses are very conscious of germs and sterilization of everything. Things are sterilized. All along this reference to being clean was in the Bible and given to His beloved people, our Jewish friends.
These are just a few of numerous examples in the Bible.
That's the way I wear 'em.
sockless feels... creepy!
ps.....When they need to borrow my vehicle, I tell my kids....sure, take the Truck or Take the 4X4. I am too much of a redneck to say I own an SUV....too soccer mom.
Funny, I thought that was St. Paul.
The things you learn on FR ...
Dawkins and Gould are both hardcore atheists and the most prominent. It is no coincidence that atheists promote a hypothesis that is not in agreement with what God has clearly stated in the Bible. I'll take the word of God over the word of man, anytime.
After a remote struggle, I was banished to the small screen to see Arnawld, while the wifey had the big screen to see ice dancers.
I have a pair that I use for WW rafting, but even THEN I have the socks on!
a little of both maybe...we are the same species, but we have changed some. Just an opinion and not a scientific observation.
"Funny, I thought that was St. Paul.
The things you learn on FR ..."
Rom. 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
God used Paul to state this. There is no St. Paul book of the Bible.
One extra Thomas is a mistake I could have made, rarely. Getting 'em both wrong, nah.
It is simply trying to state that there are deep and personal reasons why people make the kinds of choices they do re: worldviews and they "way" they insist science be done
In my interactions with creationists, i've found a more important difference between 'worldviews' is that evolutionists in general believe and act as if facts and truth are important. Creationists, evidently because their belief system is based not of facts nor on truth but on a superstition, act as if they don't care whether what they post is true or not.
Gould is dead.
I'll take the word of God over the word of man, anytime.
The only words we have were written by men.
His policy is here.
I'm NOT an America-basher, otherwise the typo here would be well-nigh irresistable bait...:-)
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.