Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
A poor joke.
Gosh, Gore3000, what a stupendous discovery!
It is not a discovery, it's pretty obvious and pretty well established, yet your friend tried to deny it. Seems like one needs to go on and on through numerous posts before one can get some people to admit to a fairly obvious truth. Seems kind of foolish to me, no one is fooled and the credibility of a person that does that is utterly destroyed by such silly tactics.
BTW - it is interesting that while you agree with the truth of my statement and the falsity of your friend's statement you seem to have to insult me for 'telling it like it is'. Seems very Clintonian to me.
I will take the 2nd point first. As I mentioned in post# 316, Dr. Lee Spetner is a practicing Orthodox Jew. There is a long discussion between him and an evolutionist in TalkOrigins and other sites.
As to evolutionsts and Marxists. I would say that most evolutionists are not even evolutionists. They are people totally unconcerned about it, who have not examined the question either way and are just going along with the spirit of the times. There certainly have been evolutionists such as Herbert Spencer and Hitler who were not Marxists. However, most Marxists (including Marx) were evolutionists (Stalin's brief playing with another materialist theory notwithstanding). However, what all these strong proponents of evolutionism (together with Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Dawkins, Eldredge, Gould and many other famoust evolutionists) is a deep set atheism and a profound belief in scientific materialism.
The unquestionable authority is certainly not me, it is the Bible. Man was made in the image of God, he was created by God, his soul is also endowed by God. So while there is a material part to man, man does have some divine qualities. This is the belief of Christians which you find so laughable. That is your prerogative of course. However, it is because man is a special creation, shares in the divine that respect for human life is so great among Christians and so low amongst those who consider man just a few generations more evolved than a monkey, a rat, or a cockroach.
I am glad you brought that up, gives me a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Below is a rather long quote which explains both the divinity of man and why Darwinian materialist evolution is in contravention of Christain Doctrine:
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
From: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth
The key to the Pope's view is really centered on one word - 'epiphenomenon'. Epiphenomenon means a secondary phenomenon and caused by it. Certainly evolution claims man to be created by materialistic means, it also claims that man differs from monkeys only degree, not in essence. So definitely Darwinian evolution contradicts Christianity and that is why it is opposed by so many Christians and supported by so many atheists.
Funny that the slimers of evolution never quote me, almost never respond to my posts on threads directly but instead constantly mischarecterize my statements. Seems pretty dishonest to me, however, what else can you folks do when the theory you so dearly hold to is the blatant lie of a charlatan?
Alas you have said something I can agree with. If the laws of the Universe hold everywhere in the Universe then the materialistic development of life is equally unlikely anywhere else in the Universe.
No one has witnessed evolution either but you CHOOSE to believe Darwin instead of the word of God in the Bible.
This whole discussion started because you claimed to be both a Christian and an evolutionist and that there was no problem with believing in both. Yet, through this discussion your sole defense of your position has been to ridicule the Bible's meaning and now you call it a work for illiterate shepherds. Seems you have been well imbued with the arrogance of Darwinism. The arrogance that says that you are better than others. The arrogance that tells you that you are the judge of all things and can question your Maker. You have denied the special creation of man and man's uniqueness amongst the creatures of the earth which is what the Bible is all about and instead have sided with the theory of an atheist who said that man was little more than an ape. Clearly evolution and its false claim of being scientific has taken you away from your original religious beliefs and turned you into a non-believer. You know that and I know that, and that is why your posing as Catholic in order to get others to follow your path is so despicable. It seems like you want company in your misery.
The question was asked and answered in post#314. Repeating the same question gets you the same answer:
"As Bonaparte shows in the post above that is incorrect. The point is that many people who were not Christians also believed in ID..."-me-
Whether or not those in ancient times believed in ID were Christian or not has nothing to do with whether or not ID is based in a belief in God.
Of course it does. It shows that it is a scientific conclusion not arrived by religious beliefs which is what the evolutionists are FALSELY asserting.
The question is whether ID is true or false. As I have said this is scientifically verifiable therefore it is a scientific question which needs to be answered before evolution can claim itself to be true. That evolutionists instead of answering the challenge instead try to dismiss ID out of hand shows quite well that the propositions made by ID are absolutely correct - life, the Universe, the creation of species cannot be accounted for by materialistic means. That is why evolutionists whenever asked to scientifically back up their theories only answer with rhetoric and insults. There is no science to evolution. "In addition, the question of whether ID is religious or not is immaterial." Are you denying that ID is based in religion? Are you denying that the I in ID is God? "The inextricable specific complexity of organisms makes it impossible to change them by chance." Why?
If I had you would be able to give a much more pertinent refutation than this all purpose lame answer. Fact is that you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity as YOU have clearly shown. Rather than an example of the compatibility of evolution with Christianity, you have become a poster boy for how evolution leads to atheism.
Hmm. That's usually right up my alley.
When we do, you object. Remember "wildly elliptical," for instance? Or all the PH Placemarkers?
So far, you've informed us that it's objectionable when we do quote you, objectionable when we don't quote you, objectionable when we paraphrase you (although you seem somehow to have exempted yourself from all the requirements you impose so rigidly on others), and objectionable when we post opinions that fail to conform jot and tittle to yours.
Your objection, clearly, is that there are people don't think and post exactly like you. This just in: That's what people find most attractive about the world! Most of it isn't Gore3000!
Once again; in 1950, Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis stated that it is permissble for the faithful to adhere to the theory of evolution:
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
The Pontifical Academy of Science advises the pope on scientific matters. It contains a large number of eminent mainstream biologists. The pope in 1996 expanded on Humani Generis in declaring before the Papal Academy evolution to be more than a hypothesis, simply insisting that it cannot account for the soul or the human spirit.
"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
But heck, don't take my word for it, this is what Michael Behe says
"I never gave evolution a second thought, and certainly saw no conflict with Church teaching," said Behe, who attends St. Therese of the Child Jesus Parish near Bethlehem with his wife, Celeste, and their six children.
No, my friend (I've never met him, but I can live with that) denied your presumption in dictating to God the means He should have chosen to accomplish His creation. Catholics who believe in evolution don't deny God created man, they just deny the kindergarten model of creation - man shaped out of modelling clay, no doubt by a giant hand - you and your allies have inferred from an allegorical story told to people who would have had no hope of understanding (or even vocabulary for) a more complex account. And given the stupidity creationists display even about this simple tale, who can question God's wisdom? I can only speculate what you'd come up with if Genesis read like a technical manual of DNA bases and genes and fields and singularities.
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.