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.
I'm amused you advance yourself as an authority on what I and 'my evo buddies' believe. How long have you realized you had these powers?
Check this out: What the Pope said
A typical piece of dishonest creationist prevarication. Perhaps you should look at this
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
...and particularly the note at then end. This blows your entire 'mistranslation' theory out of the water.
EWTN Note on translation:
The English edition at first translated the French original as: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution." The L'Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope's statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions
I reproduce, again, the official translation as per l'Osservatore Romano English edition.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Note that, in addition, Michelangelo's source does not question the rest of the paragraph, after the first sentence, which continues the argument that evolution is not just a hypothsis, but a theory supported by a "convergence in the results of .... independent studies... (which) constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Have a good day, Michelangelo, and nice try portraying yourself as a concerned neutral observer. Alas, it appears you're just another tendentious creationist who thinks he can get by with an out-of-context quote because no one will check what he posts. Unfortunately for you, experience has taught me that if a creationist claims the sun rose this morning, it's advisable to take a quick glance out the window.
Welcome to the club.
"If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil. If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a potent purpose of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself, was preparing and evolving a power which would utterly overthrow it, and sweep earth clean of evil, moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain... (not!/link)---."
The above is typical of your mode of argument. The quote is from 1950, almost 50 years before the one under discussion and BY ANOTHER POPE. You are just trying to create confusion - as usual.
Let's review your posts - you have cited others who are not the Pope, you have argued over the name of the address which is as it clearly says at the top of the link "TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH". You have of course insulted me at every turn - and continue to do so. However the one thing you have not done is refute my post or show how my statement that in this address the Pope states that materialistic evolution (Darwinism) is unChristian is incorrect.
The quote:
Consequently, the theories of evolution which, as a result of the philosophies which inspire them, consider the spirit as emerging from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are moreover incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person.
Clearly rules out the validity of Darwinism which considers man the result of the materialistic transformation of apes (see the Descent of Man). As I stated the word epiphenomenon means a secondary phenomenon and caused by it. To Darwinists man is a secondary phenomenon of the process of evolution and caused by it. To Darwinists man is just an ape wich has evolved a bit more. To Darwin man was just a little more advanced than apes but not much different from them. Clearly man has absolutely no more dignity than an ape, a rat or a cockroach to Darwinists. So yes, the Pope was explicitly attacking Darwinism. Especially since as the address states at the top TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH and you can bet your sweet beepy that the Pope is Catholic and not an atheist like Darwin.
Here we go again, Placemarker Patrick Henry encouraging others to be as lame as himself and just go around insulting, making snide remarks and abusing opponents. You lose and you keep losing because your theory is false. You discourage your fellow evolutionists from discussion because you know that your theory is false and cannot stand up to scrutiny. So you encourage your friends to abuse, demean and insult those who disagree with you instead of discussing the facts like civilized human beings. You know very well you are promoting a lie otherwise you would not need such debased tactics. You know very well you are promoting a lie because otherwise you would not be afraid of discussion.
You seem to think that your pronouncements, your insults and imbecile statements such as saying in one and the very same thread that the Pope is not Catholic but that Hitler was a Catholic will convince anyone. It is a testimony to the imbecility of yourself and your fellows who like lemmings (and like Clintonites) eagerly follow you to the abyss which you guide them to with your unrivalled arrogance as if saying anything will make it true. And indeed that is your whole modus operandi to drown out opponents, to divert from the issues, to abuse any who dare oppose you, and to spam the thread if nothing else works. We all see what you are doing, you fool no one but yourself. All you prove, all you have ever proven on these threads is that you are not a defender of truth but a promoter of lies.
I sincerely doubt you read his link. Otherwise you would have realized you were barking up the wrong tree. The link Michael_Michaelangelo posted concluded that the translation on which you were "pontificating", was the correct translation.
Q: So, bottom line, the best rendering of the statement should be what?
A: According to the native French-speakers I have consulted, the best translation is:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
It agrees with you on that point, however it goes on to say that the Pope did not endorse evolution nor change the position of the Roman Catholic Church on it.
Q: Does this mean that the pope was endorsing evolution?
A: Actually, no. The CNS story has it right when it says: "His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research."
The native French-speakers inform me that if the pope had wanted to include himself among those endorsing evolution, French idiom would have required him to use a different construction.
According to them, the way the sentence reads in French implies only that the evidence accumulated over the last fifty years has led a group of people to a recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis, but the pope is neither including or excluding himself in that category, merely stating that it exists. If he had wanted to include himself, he would have used a different construction.
Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a hypothesis, according to the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated "leads us to recognize" (implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led to the recognition" (implying nothing about who makes this recognition).
In fact, the native French-speakers say that the way the sentence is constructed in French suggests that the pope was deliberately side-stepping the issue of whether he believes in evolution or not and was merely stating a fact about how the theory is regarded in the scientific community.
The webpage states that the RCC avoids such matters.
...while omitting to note that l'Osservatore Romano has revised the French text of the remarks used in this translation, to make them agree with the English version, whose accuracy Mr. Akin disputes!
An intellectually honest account would at least acknowledge this fact. I have contacted Mr. Akin to point this out to him.
Care to point to something giving the sequence of events so that one may come to an independent conclusion. I also see no link displaying the l'Osservatore Romano before and after French text.
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.