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
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)
"When does the animal become human?"
It is convenient for evolutionist to promote the acceptance of the term "human animal". We refer to sex as male and female instead of woman and man. I do not accept that we are animal. We are human. Created in the image and likeness of God. Adam named the animals. God named Adam.
See those all the time. Newbies come on, dump their "one big load," never to return and actually "debate."
I don't think they're ever prepared for the response they get.
Unsubstantiated claims are always fun.
There is not a shred of evidence that supports the queer notion of life out of nothing,
Which is why evolution does not make such claims...
More importantly, God's inerrant word clearly states that evolution did not happen, and the two are mutually exclusive.
[...I know of no rational biologist who would suggest that the placement of homo sapiens in kingdom Animalia in any way excuses or justifies any kind of behaviour...]
So, are you going to take that Python to court for swallowing that human child?
You've seen his original work? I would've thought it would've been destroyed in the Deluge. The thread in question was posted by Alamo-Girl, who no one would class as "New Age."
Or misquoted or misunderstood.
No one is attempting to deny God. This is a standard CIDer canard and strawman. Science is silent on God and attempts to explain how things work and why they work. Science depends on non-supernatural explanations.
Science is entertaining and occasionally helpful.
Remember that next time you drive a car or fly. Or use the bathroom. Or plug in your computer.
The same scienific process that has come to the conclusions of TTOE is the one that came up with electricity, aerodynamics, physics, advanced mathematics, etc.
YOUR analogy falls apart faster, since you ignore all the facts at hand. The same guys on an island are responsible for the very real science that imbues our lives as for TTOE.
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.