Skip to comments.Churches urged to back evolution
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."
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
Unless something changed recently, I believe you're just clearly, obviously wrong on this.
I can openly state I only write personal letters of reccomendation for white women.
It is *personal* cuz he isn't doing it as an agent of the University.
He almost certainly win in court, after spending his time and money, and dealing with the frustration.
Altho you *never* know about courts . . . it is possible you'd find some sympathetic jury that would ignore the law, as happens on occasion!
What is PAT saying?
Again you fail to take in the context. Saying 'truthfully and forthrightly affirm' is more than an assertion. Oath is a more appropriate substitution in that usage. Ignoring the context, you can make the case that an affirmation can be a simple assertion. In the context, you can not.
Just like going on trial!
Oh... unless you're OJ
No sane man would test it. I can't imagine a court finding in his favor. But he would most definitely go broke trying.
You are right, but He also speaks in many other ways....
Again, legally, clearly, YES.
I've said YES like 10 times clearly now.
He would not face any prosecution if he did so.
Now his *employer* might act, and fire him. But he would not have violated the constitution.
I'm sorry if I have been in any way obtuse on this. I am trying to state what I believe to be the obvious, as clearly as I am able.
Everyone's a constitutional lawyer on FR.
As far as I know, there is no case law at all on this matter. But, for example, Michael Levin at City College of New York has written books about the genetic inferiority of blacks. No doubt his status as a professor gives those books legitimacy. CCNY tried to prevent Levin from teaching required courses; Levin took them to court, won, and got costs.
You are right: and crazy folks who off their kids ALSO 'hear voices'!
(One must be selective on who to listen to, as the little cartoon of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other is quite correct!)
But the nice thing about having a faith that is so easily adapted to change, is that you can have modern prophets giving speeches and making money teaching and publishing. Plus, if you can make it a State religion, you get a nice thing going, for a long time, and nobody can ever contradict you, because you tell them what to think, and it's illegal for them to think otherwise if they want to buy and sell, in the marketplace. You can also label all dissenters as whacko crazies and put peer pressure on them to conform.
Logical, or (closer to my own view) pragmatic?
Time has got away from me this evening, it's late here, but you have both hit a topic of particular interest, and I think the topic that is the source of a great deal of (perhaps unnecessary?) friction in the debate. Will endeavour to address the same soon, if not on this thread than another. I strongly suspect we all share very similar core values and standards of morality; if we differ about our perception of the source of morality, that difference (I earnestly hope) need not be an acrimonious one.
You choose a church which, in effect, interprets scripture so that it's in conflict with the SPIRITUAL world.
This implies that the world was created
It was created by Our Creator, The Almighty.
He was fairly clear that he thought 'yes'.
And what about the im-morality?
"Not really. The Catholic sect of Christianity is the largest in America by a fair amount."
I believe that about 22% of Americans are Catholic, but over 65% of Americans are Protestant. The numbers vary, depending on where you look, but they move around those axes. There are between two and three times as many Protestants as Catholics in the US.
Now, it is true that the largest single denomination is Catholicism, but that is because the various forms of Protestantism are divides into smaller sects. If you add together the various Evangelical sects and you've got a huge number of people.
You're just incorrect, I'm afraid.
In fact -- look at the next defintion in Dictionary dot com:
v. intr. Law
To declare solemnly and formally but not under oath.
"But Not Under Oath".
"Solemnly and formally".
So it just means an affirmative answer that you "mean". Not said lightly, not just for fun, but you mean it solemnly and formally. But *not* an oath!!!
Now, if you wish to keep saying it's an oath, please show me some definition somewhere that agrees with you.
So no matter what creationists claim, if we have more conclusive data on abiogenesis all that will be presented in science class will be how life could have originated and not that it must have occurred that way.
The problem with creationism/ID on the other hand is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. The creator of CRE/ID isn't constrained in any way whereas naturalistic processes are.
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.