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
Perhaps, but do you think God just looked around one day, saw that life had appeared and evolved on earth without His involvement, and decided to stick a soul inside of us?
[...God's inerrant word clearly states that evolution
did not happen, and the two are mutually exclusive...]
Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the
beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I
shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came
Proof text for future reference. Well done ES!
I refuse to believe that. Even your average deist believes God is less impersonal and more caring than a gov't employee. :-)
God doesn't need a domain, he is just God@heaven.
All your domain are belong to HIM!!!
By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus.
Which is true, but is irrelevant regarding the Bible. As I noted in post 590, the text, as a whole, is consistent with the view held in that part of the world contemporaneously with the time the Old Testament was written (i.e., the earth as a flat disk or rectangular shape, surrounded by ocean, capped with a canopy ("vault") of sky on which the sun, moon, planets and stars traversed.) This is inconsistent with anything approaching a modern cosmology.
I'm sure if you study your bible, you can find the references on your own.
[...Religion need not be specifically theistic to be religion...]
Excellent point. I am religious about hygiene and paying my bills.
There are plenty of "Religious" people in the world. But FAITH...
That is the question.
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless
when the Son of man cometh, SHALL HE FIND FAITH on the earth?
If you want biblical discussion on the shape of the earth, and the motion of the earth and planets, you have to go to the oldest writings:
The epistles of Enoch. There is considerable description therein, and it is all in keeping with the current general understanding of the solar system.
As to whether the earth hangs on nothing, it definately appears to hang on nothing, and to that extent, the description in Job is accurate for the purpose of the statement, and the context thereof.
Fast forward to when my son is about through high school, didn't go to college, does not attend any church regularly or read the bible, but he is a person of faith albeit imperfect. One day out of the blue, he said, "Mom, evolution just can't be true."; I can't remember the rest of the conversation, there wasn't much, because now and then I had kicked it around myself, but hadn't been able to reconcile my belief system with the theory of evolution. Now just because my son came to that conclusion doesn't make it so.
I know it is Neanderthal to believe in creation, but I do, the six days being epochs of what duration I don't know. I do not believe in evolution, but do believe in mutation and survival of the fittest. Mutation if continued unchecked seems to adversely affect any given species, making prone to slide into extinction. Some mutations appear to be positive and beneficial. Human mutations since we have been able to track them tend to be negative overall and cause untold numbers of undesirable genetic conditions at the point we are in history. Man's three score and ten have been extended by science in the west causing the actuarial tables to be revised and by unexplained phenomena in other small populations of the non-western world where average life span is longer.
To further muddy the waters, I believe that life was created by benevolent being(s) (the bible and credo claims Christ did it) and some evil force entered the picture and tampered with it, the fall being an allegorical explanation of a process no one can explain to this day.
In college, I took an anthropology class which focussed on Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, etc., wasn't convinced by it but kept quiet so I could pass the course (I may have anyway; things were more tolerant then). It was a catholic college, and I didn't have any counter arguments anyway. As a child I was exposed to some of the new ideas, saw the reassembled dinosaur in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, my father had a mastodon tusk from Alaska, but I was never swayed by any of it. When I went to high school, I don't remember any talk about evolution; we studied other things in science class and that was left alone, probably because parents at that time would have objected strenuously. There could have been hints at it along the way.
That's it. I can understand why it cannot be taught in science class, but it should be presented as theory and not fact.
I do believe that if we are allowed to continue long enough, science, abrogating the role of creator, will eventually be able to create new speciation which will be able to mate with itself and blocked from mating with the parent species or genetic manipulation will allow for inter-breeding. It will require the intervention by man to bring it about.
If science comes up with something convincing enough, I will change my position. So far they have not. We have been conditioned to accept it as fact, and they should leave the churches alone, and I suppose the churches ought to leave the state schools alone.
It's the same thread, and already the short-term amnesia's kicking in.
[...I'm sure if you study your Bible, you can find the references on your own...]
Oh no. Rules of engagement. The burden of proof is on you. Nice try.
Maybe God told you personally that the Bible is his Word. He hasn't revealed such to me. Until then, it's only men who have told me such.
If anyone could demonstrate that the world was created by God then we wouldn't be having this "discussion", such as it is.
If I look up the word "oath" in the dictionary, will the word "religious" be anywhere in the result?
I don't see how the word implies religiosity per se.
Perhaps the Bible isn't a science textbook, but a book of metaphor and ancient religious narratives?
One can take the Bible seriously without being a fideist.
[...Evolution does not advance civility, it excuses depravity...]
If I am a beast, then I am accountable to nothing but "instinct"
and my behavior is excused.
Job 12:7-8 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee;
and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: God's hand
is the life and breath of every living thing.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are
without excuse. 3:10 for they exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever.
[...substantiate your claim by pointing out specific deficiences in the evidence presented for evolution rather than relating vague anecdotal tales...]
This personal "anecdote" is a fact that I observed. Which is more than I can
say for some scientists. Evidence should be observable, repeatable and documentable.
Without context, your opinion of these references is rather meaningless, but even taking them at face value, the two that are underlined actually suggest the relationship of a [raised] point on a curve, rather than a [raised point on a straight line.
It obviously takes more than constant badgering of the mods by a bunch of lying snitching whiny crybaby losers to get someone who knows his subject banned.
Check out this thread on the very subject: Freeper Research Project: Enoch and Astronomy
It's probably a simple misreading of what America is about. It's commerce, same as England. For commerce, a deep and subtle understanding of science and philosophy is not necessary, but a knowledge of finance, marketing and engineering is required. Both science and religion are peripheral interests and can be argued and confused all daylong without affecting vital issues of commerce. We don't argue much about engineering and bank loans.
wrap some 'Beaumont rags' around em.
I yam, what I yam, what I yam. LOL!
An ape for an ancestor makes a monkey out of you and me. Ape... Monkey... Animal. When does the animal become human? If we are not created, then we a not accountable to our Creator. I'm quite happy to be subject to my God.
Wow -- what a fabulous post.
Sometimes, when I think I might be pretty sharp (or at least not a dull point), I see a post like yours and feel like I am Jethroe Bodine.
I have read it three times and and still am gleaning new information from the well-written and reasoned data posted.
Are you a historian and writer by profession?
"Keep your sacred texts dry during those world-changing floods..."
Listen up fella, last I checked this ain't your forum. It's JimRob's. And unless you happen to be a mod, your opinion means nothing to me.
And no personal beliefs (except leftism) are outlawed.
I didn't bash your Bible, so get over yourself. Even my Christian minister friend thinks I'm entitled to my own opinion.(And prays for my soul every night most likely) Your hostility towards me shows that you don't agree.
Well, bathe in your hostility, if you so desire.
Thank you for your "artist's concept" remarks.
I'm just asking for someone to prove Evolution exists. Sheesh. Is that so difficult?
I can prove God exists with every breath I take. "I am" witness to God's existence.
"An ape for an ancestor makes a monkey out of you and me."
Besides the fact we are apes, we are also human. That is specifically what we are. We are not monkeys no matter what our ancestry is.
"When does the animal become human?"
We are human animals.
" If we are not created, then we a not accountable to our Creator."
Granted. But we ARE accountable to reality. It truly is a harsh mistress.
Yeah Dimensio! Quit posting facts and exposing Creationist' lies and logical fallacies by throwing their words in their face.
I mean just because you have facts, truth and reasoning on your side, that doesn't mean you get to just SAY it!! You have to imply it or else you will insult people who have to rely on lies to debate.
Now, you knock that off ;)
This type of attitude is just nonsense, and people such as Gregor Johann Mendel, David H. Levy, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Joseph Priestley, Michael Faraday, Grote Reber, Arthur C. Clarke, Thomas Jefferson, Susan Hendrickson and Felix d'Herelle is evidnece of that. (source)
Hey, man, don't dis the Monera. They have a way of getting back at you.
Why do you say "believe in God and his creation" when you clearly mean " believe the Bible literally as true?" You can believe in God and his creation and accept evolution as well. I do.
" Please explain how breathing proves God's existence."
All burdens of proof are equal. Some are more equal than others.
Evo's don't believe in science. Why would we want to go there?
An analogy is the only way to get across the the thinking used by TOE advocates, because we don't have enough hard evidence in regard to origins or speciation to intelligently apply scientific principles.
The Theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote. Saying that the evidence only leads to the conclusion of Darwinian Evolution is like explaining the creation of a sandcastle by limiting oneself to natural phenomenon.
Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. As you can see these small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else.
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, obviously that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone. The engineering required to create the castle is far to sophisticated to have originated by purely natural means."
"Even though you have theorized that the available mechanisms could have contributed to some of the sandcastles features, when one views the integration required to create the complexity of the features, natural mechanisms fall short. Knowing what it takes to engineer features with the levels of integration evident in the sandcastles design, leads intelligent people who attempt such designs to admire the creator's success."
And life is many levels of complexity beyond a sandcastle. Self-correcting, self-healing, -- multiple inter-working systems like respiration, circulatory, musculature, waste management, fuel storage and retrieval, a veritable chemistry lab for dealing with unlocking energy from food, management of enzymes for unlocking the cell walls to allow passage of energy for use by the factories we call cells -- growth and the limits which keep replacement of dieing tissue from destroying the life form...
An attempt at denying God is making fools of our scientists. Science is entertaining and occasionally helpful.
Many animals exhibit what we call consideration for their family and group members, especially those most closely related to us, the chimps. This is a strong indicator that our 'moral fibre' stems not from some supernatural source but from our instinctive reaction to family members. However, unlike the other apes, humans can formulate and preserve rigid behaviour guidelines that ameliorate our instinctive behavior towards those outside our family/accepted group.
This is a list of some very brilliant people who were exceptional. They all spent time researching their subject matter (or exploring it once there) before entering the field. The fact they were religious people is not relevant to the discussion at hand. It is merely an interesting side point.
I am sure if Arthur C. Clarke were to weigh in on String Theory he would do a LOT of research on it and it would be on point. He would NOT go research Pastry Cooking and then try to debate the issue.
Studied opinions require that study within the field being discussed. Mythology is no more a proper foundation for discussing Evolution than baking.
Don't need to 'check out' any misleading nonsense, since I have read the writings of Enoch myself. ( not the new-age falsifications that are posted on the web)
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.