Posted on 02/20/2006 10:58:43 AM PST by 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.
Two things wrong with this. First, Catholics do not rely on traditions of men, but Apostolic Tradition, which comes from God via the Apostles. Second, we regard the Bible and Tradition as equal. Tradition is not higher than the Bible. They are two sides of the same coin.
Besides, I the question was whether Benedict is a liberal. You may disagree with him about the relationship between tradition and the Bible, but to call him a liberal is just plain dumb.
In the interests of peacekeeping, I don't call him anything.
LOL!
One of the best commentaries on the "six days of creation" that I've seen is to be found in Leon Kass's book The Beginning of Wisdom - Reading Genesis. Too long to quote, but well worth reading. He makes clear the symbolism of "six days."
Providentially.
But out of curiosity, curiosity, which apostles preached anything other than what is to be found in the bible?
Amen.
Intelligent Design has fizzled.
The movement called "intelligent design" appears to have passed its peak of support. Started about 10 years ago and promoted with millions of dollars from wealthy supporters at the "Discovery Institute", the plan to replace the Theory of Evolution has failed to attract a strong base of support.
1. Christian evangelical churches have mostly failed to embrace ID. Although initially attracted to a philosophical position that attacks evolution, evangelicals have become split along several lines.
1a. Biblical literalists are worried that ID does not support the Genesis accounts of creation and Noah's flood. ID thus takes momentum away from traditional criticisms of evolution. ID also fails to support the so-called Young Earth Creationists (YEC) who believe that the Bible requires the earth to have been formed about 6000 years ago (usually stated as 4004 BCE, from Bishop Usher).
Fundamentalists are particularly unhappy that ID leaves scientific skepticism about the flood completely unaswered. They are aware that the flood myth is vulnerable to serious scientific critiques, doubting that it could possibly have occurred. ID is not helpful to YEC believers, and they are very disappointed.
1b. Evangelicals have also become increasingly concerned that ID never mentions Jesus Christ--the core of their faith in salvation--and ID only mentions an "intelligent designer" rather than God. They have seen what ID critics have pointed out, namely that although everyone winks and knows that the "designer" means God, it also leaves the door open for any number of supernatural entities or dieties to satisfy ID, leaving both God and Christ out of it.
Christians have become disillusioned with ID because they realize that ID allows the Islamic Allah or Hindu deities as equal candidates for the the "designer", thus dethroning Christianity as the claimant. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church has been reluctant to embrace ID, suspecting it as part of the general Protestant "heresy".
1c. Moreover, major rifts have opened within the ID community as to how to promote ID in such court cases as the Dover, Pennsylvania case. Numerous players in the anti-evolutionist groups, such as Duane Gish, tax-evader Ken Hovind of Dinosaur Parks, and others have not only not joined ID but actively promote their own views in opposition. Henry M. Morris, founder of the "Institute for Creation Research, ICR" in California has voiced his dismay that his funding is dropping off as funds shift to ID (the "Discovery Instiutute"), so the ICR crowd is not happy with ID. One major website, www.answersingenesis.com, has extensive criticisms of evolution, but is, at best, lukewarm about ID.
2. Traditional Christian churches in the major denominations have not embraced ID either, because, for the most part their members have accepted evolution as a scientifically valid description. They see no problem in considering that evolution is a fact--a good explanation of how life developed on earth. Mainstream Protestants have accepted evolution and rejected both YEC and ID. ID offers little to support their religious beliefs.
3. ID has failed to attract serious support in the scientific community, and practicing scientists find ID provides no guidance for experiments or descriptions of nature. ID has offered no explanations to explain life forms and relationships among life forms other than to say, "God did it." Moreover, ID is presented not in a smooth and compelling way that attracts people, but rather it is presented contentiously, with a chip on its shoulder against the "established evolutionists". 450 signatories to support ID in 4 years , vs 10,000
and steve-steve project.
ID's major proponents, lawyer Philip Johnson and DI's Bruce Chapman and Stephen Meyers are not scientists and have little understanding of evolution or scientific processes. ID has been promoted by authors Dembski and Behe, who have developed abstruse concepts like "irreducible complexity" having to do with mouse traps and bacterial flagella that fail to find much popular understanding or support. Complex arguments from information theory, linked to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--and in which IDists have been proved wrong ("conservation of information")--is not a topic that church-goers or school boards warm to.
From many words and essays trying to define irreducible complexity and specified complexity, ID has failed to specifically define where scientific observation and ID part company. In rejecting evolution, ID tends to agree with the "kinds"--vaguely related to species--mentioned in Genesis, but they have not been able to define what a kind is. ID also fails to account for why all mammals, for example, are remarkably similar in terms of body plan, metabolic processes, fetal development, blood, bones, and DNA---similarities which are readily explained by evolutionary theory. ID has also become trapped in accepting that some examples of evolution are routinely observed--which they accept as "microevolution"--while they reject what they call "macroevolution". ID has never been able to define a boundary between these two terms, which are not used by mainstream scientists. By accepting "micro-evolution", they have implicitly accepted the main tenents of evolution.
4. Within the informed lay communities, ID has failed to gain traction because ID adherents single out the science of evolution to apply "intelligent design" to. ID does not attack the historical and descriptive sciences of astronomy, geology, archeology on similar grounds, nor does ID try to offer its "designer" thesis as an explanation for the sciences of biology, medicine, chemistry, and physics. This serves to undermine ID's claims to a broadly acceptable point of view and allows the IDers to be portrayed as having an axe to grind solely with evolutionary science.
ID has also suffered from adopting a seriously flawed logic, namely that by attacking evolution and "disproving" it, then that shows that ID creationism must be correct. Many have been quick to point out that even if the idea of evolution is found to have flaws, then that does not make ID correct. And in fact, very large understandings in science, such as evolution or the germ theory of disease or gravity, based on mountains of evidence, are rarely thrown out wholesale, but they become modified to incorporate new ideas. (This, of course, is not always true--the philogiston and caloric theories of heat have been abandoned entirely.)
This logical flaw and a general interest in science and technology is probably why a large number of political and social conservatives not only have not embraced ID, but actively defend evolution on dozens of internet forums and boards, such as Free Republic.
There's more to ID than the "specified complexity" argument that you've summarized, but you pretty much have that part right.
The problem is that the ID people have done a fair job of pointing out serious holes in Darwinian evolution, but disproving A doesn't necessarily prove B. To argue that what we see about us couldn't have happened by strictly Darwinian incremental changes doesn't necessarily prove that what we see had to be designed. There may be alternative explanations, alternatives to both Darwin and direct creation.
I agree wwith you. Parents seeking religious education for their children should sign up for religion classes at their church. I don't know of any church that does not offer them in some form. As for introduction of religion classes in schools, I think many schools offer them. I was in high school in the early eighties and remember taking a world religions class then. I also remember studying churches and religions as a part of history and social studies classes. I don't remember the Bible in literature class, but then again, I don't remember anything about literature class.
Well the thing about science is it attempts to answer questions based on the evidence it has, not based on scripture, right? If scientists had always listened to what the Church told it to do, we really would be far behind in our knowledge and technology. Throughout history religious leaders have rejected scientific advancement because they felt it went against God. For example, look up how the lightning rod, developed by Ben Franklin, was accepted by the religious community. Since lightning was thought at that time to be a punishment from God, religious leaders warned against the lightning rod's use. Seems really silly now... but back then it was as serious as the ID debate is today.
There are many other sciences that make statements that seem to go against what the bible says. Geologists and Astronomers give the timeline of the creation of the Universe and Earth on a much larger times scale than "6 days". Would you want to ban teaching that... and teaching that the Earth goes around the Sun as well?
For me it isn't so important that evolution is correct or not, what is important is that science progresses in finding the answers to them but in a way that is based on the evidence.
Is it your assertion that only scientists attend K-12? And that a label in a book is the voice of the Church?
And I will avoid your strawman.
Would you want to ban teaching that... and teaching that the Earth goes around the Sun as well?
government schooling is about 'the perfect organization of the hive.'
Nope. You read much that is not there padawan... My point was that science attempts to answer questions based on evidence. That is all. I am not sure what you meant by your statement that I assert that only scientists attend k-12... but schools are supposed to teach science right?
No, schools teach subjects. What those subjects cover are to be decided by the community. In the present controversy, it has been the courts deciding what is to be taught.
Post #6 covers it in less time than that.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Nothing there giving the federal government a say in school curricula.
ID has also suffered from adopting a seriously flawed logic, namely that by attacking evolution and "disproving" it, then that shows that ID creationism must be correct.
Many have been quick to point out that even if the idea of evolution is found to have flaws, then that does not make ID correct. And in fact, very large understandings in science, such as evolution or the germ theory of disease or gravity, based on mountains of evidence, are rarely thrown out wholesale, but they become modified to incorporate new ideas.
Hmmm.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
IMO, God is perfectly capable of using time in His best interests. Does that put me in the ID camp, or the Creation camp?
The So Called educated many times try to use their status in life to intmidate others and again I am uninpressed. If man evolved from beast to man note there is no such link in the fossil record.
Gee my bad I thought science was a subject.
What those subjects cover are to be decided by the community. In the present controversy, it has been the courts deciding what is to be taught.
Hmmm... In Dover, PA the school board tried to put ID on the curriculum. The community in response threw the school board out. Now when the community spoke, people who supported ID like Pat Robertson said what? It would seem, the community should only choose the subjects when the subjects of their choosing matches yours.
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.