Posted on 06/21/2006 8:33:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
In a veiled attack on creationism, the world's foremost academies of science on Wednesday called on parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about evolution and the origins of life on Earth.
A declaration signed by 67 national academies of science blasted the scriptural teaching of biology as a potential distortion of young minds.
"In various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science," the declaration said.
"We urge decision-makers, teachers and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.
"Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."
Citing "evidence-based facts" derived from observation, experiment and neutral assessment, the declaration points to findings that the Universe is between 11 and 15 billion years old, and the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
Life on Earth appeared at least 2.5 billion years ago as a result of physical and chemical processes, and evolved into the species that live today.
"Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin," it said.
The statement does not name any names or religions, nor does it explain why it fears the teaching of evolution or the scientific explanation for the origins of planetary life are being sidelined.
Signatories of the declaration include the US National Academy of Sciences, Britain's Royal Society, the French Academy of Sciences and their counterparts in Canada, China, Germany, Iran, Israel and Japan and elsewhere.
It comes, however, in the context of mounting concern among biologists about the perceived influence of creationism in the United States.
Evangelical Christians there are campaigning hard for schools to teach creationism or downgrade evolution to the status of one of a competing group of theories about the origins of life on Earth.
According to the website Christian Post (www.christianpost.com), an opinion poll conducted in May by Gallop found that 46 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so.
Scientists say hominids emerged around six million years ago and one of their offshoots developed into anatomically modern man, Homo sapiens, about 200,000 years ago, although the timings of both events are fiercely debated.
Nearly every religion offers an explanation as to how life began on Earth.
Fundamentalist Christians insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, in which God made the world in seven days, culminating in the creation of the first two humans, Adam and Eve.
A variation of this is called "intelligent design" which acknowledges evolution but claims that genetic mutations are guided by God's hand rather than by Charles Darwin's process of natural selection.
US President George W. Bush said last August that he believed in this concept and that he supported its teaching in American schools.
The academies' statement says that science does not seek to offer judgements of value or morality, and acknowledges limitations in current knowledge.
"Science is open-ended and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges," it adds.
That is assuming God's interest in humans is that of a scientist for the lab rats; and assuming there are no other interested parties lurking around (angels, devils); and assuming the lab rats have no interest in the surroundings. REAL lab rats (other than Pinky and The Brain) aren't plotting back at the lab assistants.
You are skipping over a fair amount of theology and (if you will) "cosmology" with a supernatural bent...
Cheers!
But...but...Dawn is a girl's name!
Insert your own Johnny Cash joke here.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Cheers!
Nice try. He watched His own Son die by torture, so He knows EXACTLY what those parents are going through.
Cheers!
Looks like only 4% of NDE experiences are reported as hellish, at least according to these folks:
The Bruce Greyson Lecture from the International Association for Near-Death Studies 2004 Annual Conference
Peter Fenwick, M.D., F.R.C.Psych. Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, U.K. Mental Health Group, University of Southampton Retrospective Studies of NDEs
"The phenomena reported during NDEs included 66 percent who reported an out-of-body experience, 76 percent pastoral landscapes, 38 percent seeing deceased friends and relatives, 12 percent life reviews, 24 percent a barrier of some sort, and 72 percent a decision to return. Only 4 percent had hellish experiences."
http://www.iands.org/research/fenwick1.php
I'm not aware of any consensus that would apply to first life. That is my point. I'm not playing games. The definition of life is not a settled issue.
Certainly self-replication is part of any definition, but no one knows exactly what a minimal self-replicator would look like. That is another aspect of my point.
It is not theology. To treat it as if it were may provide convenient polemic, but it is to err.
Cordially,
I am not ignorant of what ID is. I have researched and discussed it here and elsewhere for years.
Read the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document". You'll learn that it is about theology, no matter what they sometimes claim.
I have read that document. That such an innocuous document could reach the level of urban legend conspiracy is evidence of a very severe case of projection on the part of philosophically naturalist evolutionists. To say that ID is about theology makes about as much sense as saying that Big Bang theories are about theology.
If people cannot distinguish the metaphysical implications of a theory from the theory itself, or distinguish the motivation of a scientist from his theory itself then that's their own problem.
It's ironic that such criticism comes from proponents of a theory for which the leading lights most beguiling arguments have always been theological (or anti-theological) rather than scientific in nature.
From Darwin to today, metaphysical arguments against creation have been repeatedly used to prop up evolution. Darwin's:
“...These are strange relations on the view that each species was independently created...”, and, “...utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation...”are just two classic examples with innumerable variants in which observed similarities arn't being used to prove evolution, they're being used to refute a particular assumption about God. Such claims are not scientific, they're metaphysical.
Cordially,
Then again, what wouldn't?
If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to hear it.
You first. You made the assertion. Let's see your "peer-reviewed" paper(s), or ANY "peer reviewed" literature, for that matter, tracing the actual evolutionary origins of, say, I dunno, just to pull something out of a hat, a bacterial flagellum, for example.
Cordially,
So God doesn't mind watching torture, even of his own son, but if you pray to him and ask that you get your taxes paid on time, or that he ease your stress because the kids are being too loud, he is likely to answer those type of prayers? Yeah, nice try.
>>Good. The next time you are feeling God's presence, could you ask him if he could stop some poor 4 year old from being anally raped, and murdered with a brick up side the skull?
...
A whole lot of people feel God's presence until something hideous happens to one of their family. Then you have to wonder....<<
It is human to doubt. Jesus doubted and was tempted.
Humans, for better or worse, have free will and that means there will be inhumanity to men, and woemen and children.
"I dunno, just to pull something out of a hat, a bacterial flagellum, for example."
Hey, God made those bacterial flagellum, and since you and he are on a first name basis, why don't you just ask? Or will God just say, "Yes, I remember ZAPPING those into existence along with everything else, don't really remember why...."
"Humans, for better or worse, have free will and that means there will be inhumanity to men, and woemen and children."
Right, so if a guy rapes 100 children, completely destroys their lives, murders most of them in some hideous way, then asks for forgiveness as he is placed in the Electric Chair, he goes to heaven. I'll take my chances. I'd get kicked out for starting crap with all the last minute saves anyway. Sounds like to me heaven is going to have its fair share of demons.
>>Right, so if a guy rapes 100 children, completely destroys their lives, murders most of them in some hideous way, then asks for forgiveness as he is placed in the Electric Chair, he goes to heaven. I'll take my chances. I'd get kicked out for starting crap with all the last minute saves anyway. Sounds like to me heaven is going to have its fair share of demons.<<
Someone who rapes 100 children may not be able to really seek forgiveness such that he will get into heaven. Saying the words isn't enough -its what's in the heart - that's why there is a limit to how well humans can judge one another.
"with a supernatural bent..."
God's not supernatural? Also, didn't he create Satan? Instead of kicking him out of heaven, why didn't he just ZAP him? Is all of this just a big game for God? He whipped up a bunch of food from 2 fish and a loaf of bread, he Zapped everything that is in 6 days, and he answers your prayers when grandma is about to get operated on by a Godless Doctor who believes wholeheartedly in evolution and the Scientific Method, but he chooses not to get in the way when an innocent child from a good Christian family is choking up their liver and gasping for one more breath? Why? And you people think Evolution is Crazy?
Your point is irrelevant. Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. Biogenesis, on the other hand, is eminently falsifiable. So, according to Popper one is science and one isn't. I disagree with that proposition but I fail to see how you can.
Start with the Journal of Anything Biological at your local University Library and continue with the rest. Should be about 2-3 floors. When you finish that you should be informed and we can have a nice talk.
Otherwise quit pretending.
You are right. ID is not theology. It is an outright political wedge intended to bring theology into the classroom pretending to be science.
He is always able to seek forgiveness. If he is truely repentant, he will get his last minute request?
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.