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
There are several posters on this very thread who are young-earthers.
But they won't confront you. They're shy about their beliefs.
No, he is asking for an affirmation of beliefs, which is way beyond an understanding.
A quote from the article, referring to ID proponents:
####Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.####
This raises the inevitable point of contention. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution is correct and we evolved to where we are today from micro-organisms. If that occurred, did it occur "on its own", or did God control it? If it's the latter, then it's design. If it's the former, then how can you believe it and still have faith in God? We're often told here that we can be a Christian and still believe in evolution, yet the same people who tell us that insist that evolution occurred "on its own" and that it would have occurred exactly the same way whether God exists or not.
How do you account for that? Protestant culture rubbing off on them?
Rebellion against the secular left. Rallying around something/anything to use as a weapon.
That is incapatible with having to affirm a scientific explaination. To me the professor boxed kids in a corner which excluded any belief in a creator. If the professor just required that the students be able to explain the theory, fine. But to extent that to make the student truthfully affirm the answer. Give me a break.
The theory of Evolution DID cover the origins of life when I was taught it over 30 years ago.
-----------
Returning to your example, science can indeed not prove that life originated by 'accident', what it can demonstrate however, is that life could have arisen naturally under the right conditions.
Then a theology-philosophy class could cover both theories on the origins of life, and the students can make up their own minds as to what to believe.
I do in all cases where indivdual rights are not infringed. If your hypocrisy hunting you're hunting with an empty rifle Professor. As it happens, I would have preferred the case be resolved in the state court system. Would I have filed the case? No, I would have just told him he was an asshole just like I told my Philosophy Professor when I attended UCF.
Doesn't Dini, as part of his right to free speech, have the right to decide who he writes letters of recommendation for?
His free speech, as a public employee, ends at the free exercise clause Professor. So does yours. You take a check from the state, you live by their rules. I make my own rules.
And isn't the intervention of the federal government, to force someone to write a letter recommending someone, a far more egregious intrusion than a federal government preventing a school broad from adopting a certain curriculum?
No, if the free exercise clause was violated that is much more eggregious. Dimi changing the wording can be seen as a tacit admission that that was just what he was doing. If he was not doing that then both cases are equally eggregious.
The part the explains the origins of humans most definitely is. Or have you found the missing link and have it all explained now?
Yes, good point.
Because in biology, evolution is the keystone of understanding. If a student refuses to accept that, then they have missed the fundamental point. A physics undergrad that doesn't accept gravity, instead insisting on angels moving the planets and stars around is unlikely to get a recommendation either.
Mr. Spralding knew what Dr. Dini's standards were and yet he signed up for one of his courses. And since letters of recommendation are completely discretionary, Micah Spralding has no expectation of receiving one regardless.
It was a ego-stroking provocation; "Hey look at me. I'm an oppressed Christian!"
ping
You have mail
I believe human morality is inherently logical.
I think its questionable whether the original language in that criteria allowed for that conclusion but Dimi decided to change it so that it was not an affirmation of a belief. So, from where I sit, Dini saw himself as out of bounds and decided to switch rather than fight.
No one was forcing him to write any letters of recommendation. What he had to comply with is not using his position as a state employee not to require students to take his religious oaths in doing his job.
It always amuses me that those who are absolutely sure God speaks to them (and who are not paranoid schizophrenics) never want to share God's email address with the rest of us!
If it is a 'personal' letter, why does he use University Letterhead and include his position as a professor in the letter. That argument does not fly.
Not at all. It's just one more case of a judicial conservative becoming a judicial activist when his ox is being gored.
His free speech, as a public employee, ends at the free exercise clause Professor. So does yours. You take a check from the state, you live by their rules. I make my own rules.
Point me in the direction of a legal decision that says being a state employee removes my right to free speech. State employees have the same rights as you have, bud.
Nothing in my employment contract says anything about letters of recommendation. I don't have to ever write one, if I don't want to. They're entirely at my discretion. And certainly, I consider the fact that a student has religious beliefs that contradict basic science to be entirely relevant to an assessment of the student. As I said at the time, my own course of action would be to state in the letter that the student does not accept an evolutionary origin of species, and leave the decision to the medical school admissions committee, who are in the best position to decide if this will impair his abilities as a physician. But IMO, it was Dini's prerogative to decide instead not to write a letter at all.
No, if the free exercise clause was violated that is much more eggregious. Dimi changing the wording can be seen as a tacit admission that that was just what he was doing. If he was not doing that then both cases are equally eggregious.
I suspect he just didn't want to waste his time on a lawsuit.
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.