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
All right you Calvinists and Arminians; let's FIGHT!!
[...Evolution does not advance
civility, it excuses depravity...]
I hoped SOMEONE would notice. If I'm an animal, then my
behavior is excused as "instinct". Ah, the beasts. Even they know.
Job 12:7-8 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: God's hand is the life and breath of every living thing.
Hmm, maybe he meant is as hyperbole.
But he stated this was a 'definition', then linked to a page of definitions that disagree with him. But on that page, down low, was a 'thesaurus' that refered to the term.
Maybe I was too harsh to say, "dishonest".
But I must say, it doesn't sit well with me. But maybe it was just an honest mistake.
The legacy of Christian rule in the Europe of Cromwell, the Lutheran Fathers, Calvin and Savanarolla is that Europeans recognize from experience that Christianity is NOT really a viable principle for remotely civilized government, and needs to be confined to the quaint traditions of Churches and the like......America never went through that. In America, the intense desire is still there among various Puritan elements to well and truly have a state that is founded upon and respects "Christian principles". This it the evolution argument. The public schools teaching Darwin are teaching apostasy and blasphemy, according to those who believe that the Bible is being traduced thereby. And so they seek to use their numbers to vote in people who will teach the truth as they understand it.
Well said and worth repeating.
By "assault on science" I assume you mean the support of the religion of evolution. (And welcome to FR.)
Interesting viewpoint. Thank you.
I don't worry about the Theory of Evolution being taught, of course, because I think that's what happened. And whether my daughter goes to a public school or a Catholic school, that is precisely what she will be taught in either place.
I DO worry about fiddling with the science curriculum in order to reflect beliefs of Protestant religion that I don't accept.
I think evolution is precisely how God made life and us, and that's what my daughter taught. If the public schools start teaching Protestant religion and 7 days stuff, then I'll send my daughter to the Catholic schools where she can be properly taught what I view as the scientific and religious truth. I don't think religion CAN conflict with science, if both are practiced honestly.
I am worried about a bunch of kids who aren't Catholic being handicapped in the world of science by being taught something other than evolution in science class.
I have been watching these judges, and it doesn't surprise me that Catholic judges are the ones who take a very dim view of all of this intelligent design business. Once they actually drill past the words and look at it, it doesn't look very much like science to them. Of course, that may just be their pro-Darwinian evolution prejudice arising from the religious education they got in the Catholic schools.
I think that John Paul II was right, and that evolution is how we very probably got here. Given that truth, this causes us to re-examine our understanding of Scripture. Obviously I expect this to go over like a lead balloon with my Evangelical friends.
Democratically, I think that the Evangelicals probably have the votes in a lot of areas to impose Intelligent Design and Creation science in the public schools. Since I think, personally, this is imposing scientific error and Protestant religion, I look to Catholic federal judges to put the kebosh on it all by doing, as some already have, an analysis, deciding that ID is disguised religion, and insisting upon Darwinian evolution as the proper thing to be taught. Of course, if you pull back the cloak, this is REALLY imposing the scientific view of Catholics by using the judiciary, but I've yet to see anybody view it from that angle, so I think I'll just go "Down Periscope" and shut up about it for awhile.
Well, I've been reminded (again) that arguing with creationists is like wrestling pigs; you may win, but you'll still end up wanting to take a shower.
Or, arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to it's friends to brag about its victory.
What I know about God is what has been revealed to me directly, and that ain't much.
James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
NIV Colossians 2:2-3
2. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
3. in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
NIV Philemon 1:6
I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.
No lie professor. Here's your statement. You think it is unreasonable to conclude from this statement that you think creationist physicians are inferior?
Or perhaps you're argument is with my using the word theist rather than creationist? I could accept that as an argument but calling me a liar?
LOL, every time we have a discussion you resort to ad hominem in frustration. It's entertaining! Keep it up!
By the way, would you agree that if I said that 'I would never employ an atheist physician' I could rightly be called a bigot?
AFFIRM: Web definitions for vow make a vow;
promise; "He vowed never to drink alcohol again"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
VOW: An earnest promise to perform a specified
act or behave in a certain manner, especially a
solemn promise to live and act in accordance with.
www.answers.com/topic/vow
OATH: A solemn, formal declaration or promise to
fulfill a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or
a sacred object as witness. The words or formula
of such a declaration or promise. Something declared
or promised. http://www.answers.com/topic/oath?method=6
Why, soitanly! I'm no atheist.
:assorted Bible verses:
Apparently you didn't read the rest of my post
I wouldn't take a single source for the repair record for a used Nissan -- why would I accept it for anything actually important?
And the last I heard, Billy Graham promoted ideas that weren't in keeping with the Bhagavad Gita... Scandalous, I know. But true!!!
Do you have any evidence? The existence of the world doesn't prove God's presence.
"I do NOT disbelieve in God. I just dont see him in the ramblings of the primitive people who penned the words."
I agree with this completely. All the Bible Reading in the world cannot tell you nearly as much about God as a day of fishing.
"So God told you personally that the Bible is his inspired word?"
God didn't single me out. He is inclusive. His inspired writing is available to all - even you!
You can either accept it or reject it.
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.