Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

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


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: bearingfalsewitness; crevolist; darwin; evolution; freeperclaimstobegod; goddooditamen; godknowsthatiderslie; idoogabooga; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; liarsforthelord; ludditesimpletons; monkeygod; scienceeducation; soupmyth; superstitiousnuts; youngearthcultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 2,341 next last
To: ToryHeartland
Intelligent explanations of the real issue here would be appreciated!

You have gotten 40 and you have yet to respond.....

41 posted on 02/20/2006 7:03:50 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30; ToryHeartland; jennyp
They are taking a tactic right out of the extreme left wing playbook.

Here's an essay -- a long one and not an easy read -- about a Brit "intellectual" who embraces ID. The author of the article rips him to shreds, correctly so in my opinion.
Steve Fuller and The Hidden Agenda of Social Constructivism.

42 posted on 02/20/2006 7:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland

Perhaps I can explain a little?

Please understand first of all that conservative Christians are not assaulting science by seeking to disprove the evolutionary model of origins.

The word science means knowledge. We do not have 'knowledge' of macro-evolution, because it (as the evolutionary model needs to be proven true) has never been observed. All we observe is the record, the record of geology (columns, layers, sediment, strata, etc.) and of fossils, among other things. We also witness ongoing mutation and micro-evolution of species, certainly, but those mutations are never incorporating the addition of positive information that wasn't there before to improve the organism, as would be necessary for evolution.

Evolutionists look at the evidence and interpret it according to their belief in evolution. Creationists look at the evidence and interpret it according to the account of creation found in the Bible.

Evolutionists look and they somehow deduce that the universe has no apparent order and everything we see today was brought about by disorder, chaos and random actions over billions of years. There are increasing amounts of evidence to disprove this idea; drastic flaws in the evolutionary arguments too innumerable to list here.

Creationists look at the evidence and see a designer written into the universe. It is puzzling how anyone could see anything else, when one takes biology and learns that the 'simplest' organism, the cell, is an incredibly complex and efficient little machine, whose processes we still don't fully understand.

Intelligent Design advocates, by the way, fall in the middle. They look at nature and see a designer, but they won't say who or what. They also say that the designer had his (or her, or its) hand in the process of evolution.

The evolutionary model is a drastic step outside of operational and observational science; it is a proposed explanation for the origination of our existence. (After all, what idea of science needs advocates to attempt to persuade the public of? What theory needs debating to convince people of, and why are there people trying to push this supposed idea of science in churches?)

Evolutionists will try to say that the evolutionary model doesn't account for the origin, but merely picks up on explaining the evolution of life soon after it began. (That's just a neat trick to avoid answering how life could have arisen from non-living matter, which is scientifically impossible.)

The Biblical idea of creation is that God created the world. A lot of people did not like that idea, and sought to find an alternative 'theory', one that did not need a supreme being as governor of our fates. They came up with the godless idea of evolution as an answer to origins. Thus, man is all there is, and is subject to no divine ruler; man can do as he will.

Of course, this opens the door to anything. If man evolved from monkeys, there is no morality (especially among monkeys) and so we can do as we will. What makes rape wrong? What makes murder wrong? What makes stealing wrong? The door is truly open to saying that any system of rules or morals is merely the invention of Man, and no man need be forced to follow another man's idea of morality.

Bottom line, both evolution and creation are faiths. They are tenets of religion. Evolution stems from humanism, IE, god does not matter even if he does exist, because man is all that matters. (The person mentioned above, Eugenie Scott, signed the Humanist Manifesto)

Creationism is a tenet of Biblical Christianity. If the humanists and secularists can get the church to accept evolution, they can continue to undermine religion and morality.

I hope I've cleared it up a little. You're right, the battles over the subject on FR do get heated. I won't say there is not fallacies galore on both sides, and I won't say there is not foul play on both sides (I've taken heat from BOTH sides, believe it or not, and I'm a creationist), but IF creation is just a religion, and its adherents are mere religious fundamentalists, then why are the evolutionists (stout supporters of a strictly scientific idea?) so vehement themselves? Why be so dogmatic about a scientific fact? Unless it isn't a scientific fact that is under fire, but a religious belief. And what is so threatening about a discussion between two religious beliefs? Evolutionists will not even permit an honest discussion of the issue.

William Rusher, writing for WorldNetDaily, put it this way. He said "The whole controversy thus becomes, as I see it, a subset of the larger dispute between those who believe in a God and those who prefer a strictly materialistic, and atheistic, explanation of the universe."

Any further questions or objections?


43 posted on 02/20/2006 7:07:52 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm currently debating a big-time peace activist. I'll post it, so ping/mail me to read it when I do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Let me tell you why Genesis 1 presents creation in terms of a 7 day period of time. Because the 7 day week was already in existence in the Ancient Near East. What Ancient Israel did during the Exile [or, at least, the leading lights of Ancient Israel] is to adopt an already existing 7-day scheme and "sanctified" it by showing that 1 day is to be set aside for the honor of the Creator--the glory of the Creator having just been outlined in the previous description. Why Creation in 6 days? because it leads up to the 7th.


44 posted on 02/20/2006 7:08:47 AM PST by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; ...
(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."



See my reply above.
45 posted on 02/20/2006 7:10:07 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm currently debating a big-time peace activist. I'll post it, so ping/mail me to read it when I do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: When_Penguins_Attack
This is certainly validated in statements by certain prominent men of science like Thomas Huxley when he claimed that he adopted a naturalistic worldview more from a desire to pursue sexual activity without guilt than from evidentiary examination, and from Thomas Watson's statement that he and Crick were driven to discover dna's structure primarily by a desire to escape a worldview which included God.

You mean Aldous Huxley and Jim Watson?

Huxley, when he said this, was setting up a position to argue against. Jim Watson was motivated by a desired to beat Linus Pauling, and has never said what you claim he said.

But hey. if you're going to libel somebody, get his name wrong as well.

And you wonder why scientists hold creationists in such contempt? How about an inability to get simple details correct? How about posting damnable lies without the slightest care whether they're true or not?

46 posted on 02/20/2006 7:12:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

A well tempered, clear and honest outline of the debate. Thenk you.


47 posted on 02/20/2006 7:14:18 AM PST by vimto (Life isn't a dry run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Being your "Always Right" please ignore the following FACTS:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
48 posted on 02/20/2006 7:15:14 AM PST by Vaquero (time again for the Crusades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Remole

What are you saying is the source of the 7 day week that "was already in existence in the Ancient Near East"?


49 posted on 02/20/2006 7:18:57 AM PST by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
 
Evangelical Christians, a group I count myself among, believe in the Biblical story of creation, which is incompatible with evolution.
 
 

As well as OTHER things troughout the Bible!
 
 
Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 
If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,
they have to decide what the following verses mean:
 
Acts 17:26-27
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
 
 
Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
 
 
If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.
 
If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.
 
If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.
 
 
Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?
 
 
The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
 
 
 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?


 
 
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
 
1 Timothy 2:13
  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  
 

 
 
Was Paul WRONG about these???
 

 
If so, is your GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

50 posted on 02/20/2006 7:19:05 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Remole
Let me tell you why Genesis 1 presents creation in terms of a 7 day period of time. Because the 7 day week was already in existence in the Ancient Near East. What Ancient Israel did during the Exile [or, at least, the leading lights of Ancient Israel] is to adopt an already existing 7-day scheme and "sanctified" it by showing that 1 day is to be set aside for the honor of the Creator--the glory of the Creator having just been outlined in the previous description. Why Creation in 6 days? because it leads up to the 7th.

That has a lot of conspiracy theory sounding stuff to it. I'm going to need some hard evidence before I'll lend that credence.
51 posted on 02/20/2006 7:19:37 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Where do I say they should be. My position is not to have intelligent design in the classroom, but to teach evolution in a way that does not assult the religous beliefs of others. What is so hard about that?

52 posted on 02/20/2006 7:20:14 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It's a mystery to those of us on the pro-evolution (i.e. rational>/b>) side too.

HMmm....

"No bias here... move along."

53 posted on 02/20/2006 7:21:17 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Project Steve. Over 700 "Steves," indicating 70,000 scientists support evolution. The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution. Statements from Religious Organizations. In favor of evolution. Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.
Logical fallacy: Argument from Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).
54 posted on 02/20/2006 7:25:16 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm currently debating a big-time peace activist. I'll post it, so ping/mail me to read it when I do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.

And yet, we are having this discussion.

I think evolutionists are pissed becaused many traditional Americans just don't see things their way. Many creationists are pissed because evolution is constantly being used as a bludgeon against Christianty and then they are told to put up and shut up because it's science.
55 posted on 02/20/2006 7:25:25 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
WOW, these folks really have brass ones.

It is EVOLUTION that undermines the church!

Evolution has NOTHING in common with Christianity and actually pushes people AWAY from Christianity. The order is ALL WRONG and undermines God, the Fall and His order of events as well as robbing Him of the credit of how and when He created all we see and don't see.
56 posted on 02/20/2006 7:25:32 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
So that you don't get the impression that the entire conservative movement in the US (and thus the Republican party) is entirely bonkers, please keep in mind certain facts. First, after the stunningly sound anti-creationist decision by a Bush-appointed Republican judge in Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al., the voters in that very conservative area demonstrated their commendable revulsion against the ignorant and theocratic school board by tossing them all out of office: Dover boots board. Since then, most Republican officials have been running away from the creationism/ID issue, realizing that it's not a winner on election day.
57 posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:07 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

A very good study of the Biblical foundations for creation. I may blog this later. If I do, would you mind if I referenced your post here?


58 posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:10 AM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
While creationism doesn't necessarily exclude evolution, evolution DOES exclude creationism.

False statement.

Creationism as generally discussed on this forum and most other says that God created Man: {poof} as literally stated in Genesis. This says that Evolution did not happen/is not happening.

Evolution is silent on what happens outside of observable evidence and events. You can believe in a God that created the Universe and set in motion all the mechanism we see (in fact I think the more we learn the more awesome God is -- creationism minimizes God).

59 posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:28 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ToryHeartland
I heard an ad this morning from evangelicals urging me to help fight global warming. No evolution message yet.

However, our fight isn't senseless. We don't want to go down the same path that Europe has chosen.

Europe has chosen extinction. Your people have decided that they're not interested in the future and they're not going to reproduce to preserve your culture.

Here in the US, we believe your demise may have something to do with the secularization of your culture and we're trying to avoid it. Even if we're not sure how.

So the crevo wars go on. ;)

60 posted on 02/20/2006 7:29:10 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 2,341 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson