US Scientists enlist clergy in evolution battle

Reuters ^ | 2/20/2006 | Maggie Fox

[curiosity]

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (Reuters) - American scientists fighting back against creationism, intelligent design and other theories that seek to deny or downgrade the importance of evolution have recruited unlikely allies -- the clergy.

And they have taken their battle to a new level, trying to educate high school and even elementary school teachers on how to hold their own against parents and school boards who want to mix religion with science.

While they feel they have won the latest round against efforts to bring God into the classroom, the scientists say they have little doubt their opponents are merely regrouping.

"It's time to recognize that science and religion should never be pitted against one another," American Association for the Advancement of Science President Gilbert Omenn told a news conference on Sunday. The AAAS has held several sessions on the evolution issue at its annual meeting in St. Louis.

"The faith community needs to step up to the plate," agreed Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California.

Scott said many people held the "toxic" idea that "you are either a Christian creationist or you are a bad-guy atheist".

Recent court and electoral battles have made clear that judges and voters will reject efforts to sneak creationism into the classroom under the guise of making a scientific curriculum clearer or fairer, Scott said.

By a vote of 11 to 4, the Ohio Board of Education last week pulled a model lesson plan it had approved in 2004. The plan had permitted science teachers to encourage students to look at questions about evolution, something proponents of "intelligent design" call "teaching the controversy."

Last year in Pennsylvania, a federal court ruled the theory could not be taught in a public school and the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, which approved the teaching, was voted out.

Intelligent design proponents see the hand of God behind evolution because, they say, life is too complex to be random.

"As a legal strategy intelligent design is dead. It will be very difficult for any school district in the future to successfully survive a legal challenge," Scott said. "That doesn't mean intelligent design is dead as a very popular social movement. This is an idea that has got legs."

But pastors are speaking out against it. Warren Eschbach, a retired Church of the Brethren pastor and professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania helped sponsor a letter signed by more than 10,000 other clergy.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests," they wrote.

Catholic experts have also joined the movement.

"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer," said Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne, an astrophysicist who is also ordained. "The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."

Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association said some teachers feared losing their jobs if they taught evolution. "The pressures come from the students and the parents," he said.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Shhh. Facts are eeee-villll.

[Agamemnon]

I said: I am still waiting for js1138 to show me a "long before Darwin," pre-19th century reference to anyone formally referring to someone or themselves as a "geologist."

You replied: Already did. Here's a link.

Having more difficulty with reading comprehension, I see. The authors of the book to which you link are modern day academics, not pre-19th century authors referring to anyone as a "geologist." Are you in a competition with js1138 to see which of you can bury your argument faster?

I also notice that you conveniently ignored what your last link observed. I'll quote from it again -- just for you:

"It was thus at the turn of the 19th century that geology became an autonomous discipline, with its own concerns and study methods."

I'm not sure what you think happened after "Origin of Species" was published that formalised geology. Where did you study geology that they distort the history like this?

After “Origin…? Lyell published “Student’s Elements of Geology” around 1870. The book is a collection of uniformitarian fairytales, as expected, but it is presented as formalized study of geology from a uniformitarian viewpoint nonetheless. You are going to have to not only improve your command of medieval Latin, and basic reading comprehension, but at a minimum you’ll have to keep up with the history at least as well as me, if you are to gain the slightest traction in this discussion.

Any time prior to 1809 is a time "pre-Darwin," hence one may freely speak in the generality of a time point defined as pre-19th century as a time, "pre-Darwin." It is 100% correct.

If, as you chose to do, use published works as time reference points, Charles Lyell's three volume "Principles of Geology," manuscripts of which were first published 1830-1833, pre-date Darwin's publication of Origin... by some 26 years.

Even as js1138 continues to impale himself on his own truth-bereft commentary, you seem to be looking for every way possible to skewer your own arguments which one supposes are intended to support his. As such, it appears that you are going to Olympic efforts trying to best js1138 in the Darwin Awards special decathalon event to determine which of you wins the prized “Dullest Knife in the Drawer” recognition.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Well you can spin until the cows come home but Darwin did not publish "Origin" until 1859, not 1809.

And "Geologia ovvero de fossilibus" by Ulisse Aldrovandi,was published in the 16th century and it was a modern approach to geology.

You can deny these facts forever, but it doesn't change them. You can also keep your abitrary assertion that 1809 somehow marks the advent of modern thought. This makes no sense given the information already provided to you.

Again I ask, where were you educated?

Given your utter dependence on ad hominem, I'd have to say it was Harvard or Wellesley College.

[js1138]

"It was thus at the turn of the 19th century that geology became an autonomous discipline, with its own concerns and study methods."

That would be 59 years prior to Darwin, for those who can count.

Again, for those wit enough brain cells not to require a respirator, the geologic foundations for an ancient earth and the notion that strata are deposited in sequence was well established before Charles Darwin was out of diapers.

Evolution was also widely discussed and accepted by clergy. What Darwin contributed was natural selection.

[Agamemnon]

From your ally, "<1,000,000th's" link: "It was thus at the turn of the 19th century that geology became an autonomous discipline, with its own concerns and study methods."

You reply: That would be 59 years prior to Darwin, for those who can count.

What you originally said: "200 years places geology a bit before Darwin.

Now your problem is with what your own ally's link says! This is precious. You guys are the Keystone Cops of the evo debate team. I'll never stand in the way of two of my opponents duking it out with each other. Have fun.

Again, for those wit enough brain cells not to require a respirator, the geologic foundations for an ancient earth and the notion that strata are deposited in sequence was well established before Charles Darwin was out of diapers.

You have failed to provide any evidence of statements of the uniformitarian position by formal geologists vis a vis "ancient earth" prior to the 19th century. This so, because as your friend's link affirms, it wasn't a formal discipline of study until the 19th century.

Evolution was also widely discussed and accepted by clergy.

Evolution was discussed as far back as ancient Greece for that matter. It was not a new idea at all. I don't doubt that pre-19th century clergy may have discussed evolution. However, it is now up to you to back up your assertion that it was accepted to any degree by pre-19th century clergy.

[js1138]

What you originally said: "200 years places geology a bit before Darwin.

Twoo hundred years before today is fifty some years before Darwin, for those who can count.

You continue to ignore the history of science. It doesn't matter what label you put on it. Geology and evolution predate Charles Darwin. All Charles did was come up with natural selection as the mechanism.

If Darwin had never been born, we would be referring to Wallace as the discoverer of natural selection. Darwin was just more thorough in his documentation.

[Agamemnon]

Well you can spin until the cows come home but Darwin did not publish "Origin" until 1859, not 1809.

Pre-Darwin does not mean only prior to when he published "Origin...". Darwin was born in 1809. Any point in time prior to 1809 is pre-Darwin by definition.

And "Geologia ovvero de fossilibus" by Ulisse Aldrovandi,was published in the 16th century and it was a modern approach to geology.

You have translated this work from the medieval Latin and discovered pre-Lyellian uniformitarianism did you?

You can deny these facts forever, but it doesn't change them. You can also keep your abitrary assertion that 1809 somehow marks the advent of modern thought. This makes no sense given the information already provided to you.

It is little wonder that evolutionists who are at their core unhinged from the search for truth also find themselves unable to follow a discussion cogently. Your link benchmarked the emergence of the formal discipline of study of what is known today as geology. It is populated by those who engage in formal study of the science who are known as "geologists." As I originally stated and your own link affirmed, this formalization all happened in the 19th century – just as I said.

Again I ask, where were you educated? Given your utter dependence on ad hominem, I'd have to say it was Harvard or Wellesley College.

I completed my undergraduate and graduate studies at prestigious American institutions. Neither Harvard nor Wellesley are to be counted among them. Possibly what is a more relevant measure of the value of one’s education and knowledge is the marketplace itself. After 25 years in my career, I own a pharmaceutical-development consulting firm, where my opinions and knowledge on scientific matters are sought by clients who are only too willing to pay my $250/hr billing rate. I also hold patents in synthetic chemistries and pharmaceutical formulations, and am a published author in both areas as well as in analytical methods development.

Assuming anyone would pay you for your opinion on anything beyond possibly a focus group surveying opinions on, say, the latest in baby food cuisine, what’s your bill rate and who’s paying you how much to listen to your cut’n’paste fairytale command of “scientism”?

I suspect most wouldn't give you a bent dime for anything you’ve posted here, if for no other reason than your position is so poorly researched – not to mention how in stumbling over your own argument you wound up making mine instead.

By the way do you like to eat your baby peas: strained or pureed?

[bobdsmith]

Pre-Darwin does not mean only prior to when he published "Origin...". Darwin was born in 1809. Any point in time prior to 1809 is pre-Darwin by definition.

Actually you are totally wrong. The family name Darwin goes back hundreds of years before Charles was born. So technically Pre-Darwin refers to any point before the 1500's by definition

[js1138]

Pre-Darwin does not mean only prior to when he published "Origin...". Darwin was born in 1809. Any point in time prior to 1809 is pre-Darwin by definition.

Which Darwin? The first Darwin to write about evolution would have been Erasmus, who was born in 1731. He published his theory of evolution around 1794.

How far back would you like to go with this?

[Agamemnon]

Actually you are totally wrong. The family name Darwin goes back hundreds of years before Charles was born. So technically Pre-Darwin refers to any point before the 1500's by definition

You know perhaps you are an idiot by definition also, but that doesnt't have anything to do with the context of this discussion or thread --- at least not at the moment, though if you continue to post non-contextual inanities as you have just now, it very well could be a topic of further discussion later.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You want fear? I'll scare you to death. Wining this absurd crusade to introduce discussion on God's Creation into public school's science classrooms will have the following effects:

• The State government will write the curriculum
• The NEA will control the teachers
• The teachers will project their ideas on to the subject
• You will spend more time defending Biblical Creation and undoing the doubts introduced in the classrooms, than you ever did simply teaching your child about Genesis.

[Tench_Coxe]

"No one fears that evolution will be supplanted as a scientific theory. There is no controversy about it among real scientists.

What I (and other pro-science freepers) fear is that the teaching of ID, because it is pseudo-scientific garbage, will destroy science education in primary and secondary schools, making us lose our scientific edge, which in the long run will threaten our position as a world power.

As a conservative, I fear that the embrace by the right of ID pseudo-science will greatly damage the conservative movement politically. Indeed, it already has. Thankfully, GOP politicians, at least at the national level, seem to be fleeing this nonsense like rats a sinking ship.

As a Christian, I also fear that rejection of solid science like evolution by so many Christians will discredit Christianity educated peoples' eyes and greatly harm evangelization efforts."

Hyperbole \Hy*per"bo*le\, n.
A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.

Somebody has said of the boldest figure in rhetoric, the hyperbole, that it lies without deceiving.
--Macaulay.

(Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913))

But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself, more power to ya.

[Tench_Coxe]

I applaud your efforts, but I think they're in vain. I don't come on these types of threads often, and reading the posts--I'm not sure those responding to you are actually reading what they have written. It leads one to believe that certain individuals are not on these threads to discuss things in good faith--which then leads to the question 'Why are they here?'.
I did have one serious question I wanted to ask the Darwin Central ping list, but I think I'll refrain because I doubt I would get an honest answer.

[bobdsmith]

It was intended as a parody of what I thought you were doing. I thought you were playing semantics by changing 1/1000000%'s use of "pre-darwin" to mean before darwin born rather than before his theory. However having just read through the entire discussion between 1/1000000% and yourself I now see it was you who used the phrase first and quite clearly in terms of darwins birth and not his theory. So I got the whole thing wrong and apologize for my "parody" post to you which was not justified and was rather ridiculous in hindsight

[zipp_city]

I think I know why the Bible is to be kept out of class rooms. The parents don't want their kids comming home asking them about the things the parents are doing.

[curiosity]

I was not exaggerating. I meant every word literally.