Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
Churches urged to back evolution By Paul Rincon BBC News science reporter, St Louis
US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in Missouri.
Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said.
Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.
As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the hand of a designer in nature.
It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other Gilbert Omenn AAAS president
There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.
At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly condemning the moves.
"Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students, parents, teachers and tax payers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn.
"It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other.
"They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."
'Who's kidding whom?'
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.
Some have already heeded the warning.
"The intelligent design movement belittles evolution. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.
"Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify - but who's kidding whom?"
Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact.
Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.
Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way.
Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would restrict the teaching of evolution.
These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools.
I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design Teacher Mark Gihring "The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.
Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution."
However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design.
"[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and the value of life... if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."
Economic risk
The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in the Dover case.
"I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms Scott.
"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."
Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.
But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.
"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
Published: 2006/02/20 10:54:16 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Freepmail me if you want on or off the list.
Thanks for your comments, which I found illuminating. I remain concerned, however, that conservatives find ways to work together internationally in the face of global challenges
If you prove him completely wrong, he'll just deny making the claim in the first place.
That is his current policy, so don't give me that lie crap. Ho hum. Dini changed his page after complaints were made. I still find his policy repugnant, but it is not as bigoted as it once was.
RE: "The Question of God"
I ran out of time to include mention of the video based on the book.
It was produced by PBS (Public Broadcasting System).
The "Question of God" DVD is very good. It has vignettes from the lives
of Freud and Lewis, portrayed by Peter Eyer and Simon Jones, respectively.
The roundtable discussions between segments range from excellent to
somewhat meandering (when the New Age member of the panel get going).
Overall, a good DVD worth the approx. 4 hour viewing time.
Here's a link to the website for the series
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/index.html
and to PBS's shop for the DVD/book
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1858288
References to his previous policy that fits your description?
So you acknowledge that nmh did, in fact, lie in my referenced postings?
You make the assumption I wish Creationism to be taught as science. I do not. You do not try to teach about apples in a class about oranges!
If you check my posts, I specifically said NOT necessarily in the same class.
There is nothing wrong with creationism in a theology/philosophy class. This is not to push religion. Like it our not, our country is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Rights untouchable by government because they were not granted by government.
This class could cover Socrates, Locke, Batiste and Montesquieu along with creationism and the Bible's role in American law. I have a set of school textbooks from the 1800's. Biblical lessons were often integrated into these books. They were just decent, moral lessons on not stealing, being honest, etc.
Guess that was before a classical education got run over by the 'progressive' one.
Because many in the scientific community are afraid of thinking outside the box; and many are deathly afraid that there is, indeed, an *Intelligent Designer.*
No argument here. In fact, I've never seen anyone on the evolution side of our debates (and I'm in touch with them all, to one degree or another) who doesn't have a deep affection for Lady Thatcher (and Reagan too, but that goes without saying).
| By Lisa Falkenberg, Associated Press, 01/30/03
DALLAS -- A biology professor who refuses to write letters of recommendation for his students if they don't believe in evolution is being accused of religious discrimination, and federal officials are investigating, the school said. The legal complaint was filed against Texas Tech University and professor Michael Dini by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom group that calls Dini's policy "open religious bigotry." "Students are being denied recommendations not because of their competence in understanding evolution, but solely because of their personal religious beliefs," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the institute. The Department of Justice asked Texas Tech in Jan. 21 letter to respond to the allegations, university officials said. Texas Tech spokeswoman Cindy Rugeley said that the university stands by Dini, and that his policies do not conflict with those of Texas Tech. "A letter of recommendation is a personal matter between a professor and student and is not subject to the university control or regulation," Texas Tech Chancellor David Smith wrote in October in response to an earlier letter of complaint. Dini, an associate professor who has been at Texas Tech for 10 years, said Wednesday he didn't know about a federal inquiry. He referred questions about his policy to a Web page that outlines it. The Web page advises students seeking a recommendation to be prepared to answer the question: "How do you think the human species originated?" "If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences," Dini writes. The legal complaint began with Texas Tech student Micah Spradling, who withdrew from Dini's class and the university in the fall and enrolled at Lubbock Christian University after learning about Dini's policy. Spradling, 22, wants to become a physician and said he needed a letter of recommendation from a biology professor but, as a creationist, he said he couldn't "sit there and truthfully say I believe in human evolution." "It's a theory. You read about it in textbooks. I could explain the process, maybe how some people say it happens, but I could not have said ... I believe in it," Spradling said Wednesday. "I really don't see how believing in the evolution of humanity has anything to do with patient care or studying science." Spradling re-enrolled at Texas Tech this semester, after obtaining a recommendation letter at the other school. Dini writes that he has the policy because he doesn't believe anyone should practice in a biology-related field without accepting "the most important theory in biology." "Good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs," he writes. Dini also says he refuses to write letters of recommendation for students he doesn't know fairly well and those who haven't earned an "A" in one of his classes. Department spokesman Jorge Martinez refused to not confirm or deny an investigation, citing department policy. |
And there are pro-abortion Catholics, so what does that have to do with anything.
Dini never had a policy requiring students to disavow a creator. The change in his policy merely requires students to explain rather than affirm a scientific origin for the human species. A scientific origin for the human species does not disavow a creatior.
So you are, indeed, a liar.
Okay, I read the article, but I could not find where it was stated that Dini required that students "to completely disavow any belief that a creator was involved". I just see a requirement that they accept evolution.
Pro-abortion catholics still beleive in a creator. It's in the Nicene Creed they recite at every Mass.
Therefore, the charge that you lied stands.
Thanks for the ping!
Maybe he just misspoke.
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html
The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.
Where we hit a snag is the assumption that the seperation of Church and State means non-religeous/materialist. IMO, governemnt and science should treat Athiesm/Materialsm the same as religion (all)/Spirituralism. That would solve the problem.
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.