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
Science is limited. Accept it.
Of course it's limited BUT God isn't.
Let's branch off from that question:
Jesus was born to a woman who was descended from King David. We know from his description that David was a fair-skined redhead, and thus there is some reasonable chance that Jesus could have had freckles! :o)
Sometimes responding to the Spirit of words shows more intellect.
Can you demonstrate this?
Can you get a clue?
You're being baited by an obvious troll. Just let it go.
Instead of cracking a textbook, open up the Bible.
Right in the beginning, you will find the answer.
It's a different field of science. Little pink fairies could have put down the first cells on Earth and it wouldn't affect the ToE. Perhaps if "abiogenesis" was as loaded a term as "Darwinism" it wouldn't concern you as much.
"While creationism doesn't necessarily exclude evolution, evolution DOES exclude creationism."
That's not true. There are many scientists who believe in evolution, but also believe that at the very beginning there was a creative religious source. Not all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists, or even agnostics. Evolution does NOT exclude creationism unless you make up a definition of evolution that fits your preconceived notions of it. Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive concepts.
You can try to negate the concept of evolution as hard as you can and you would still be ignoring the fact that evidence of evolution is all around us, and has been proven by scientific hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, testing, proofs, and peer review. Do you disagree that we have the vestiges of gills and a tail in our genetic build? Where did that come from? Do you deny that humans adapt to their climates in evolutionary ways? The melatonin of blacks, the slitted eyes of Eskimoes? That there once were Neanderthals? That there were dinosaurs that are probably today's birds?
And none of that denies the existence of an original creator of the world we live in, and indeed, of the entire universe. And that creator is God who allowed for the evolution that took place. But if you "teach" that in a science course, the "lesson" would be over in about 1/2 day or less. Because about all you can say is that at the beginning of the evolutionary process, there could be the hand of God and God's intelligent design. And that the beauty and symmetry of our world is a proof of that possibility. Now, anyone who is religious and practices their religion and teaches their children about religious beliefs, knows that already. That's about it. Then it's back to teaching evolution in the classroom again, as what else can you say about creationism that wouldn't then veer into the realm of religious philosophy and belief as versus the study of analytic scientific discovery.
That's a false statement, and you know it.
The worst thing is, you will never stop saying it, and when called a liar, you'll run weeping to the mods. How pitiful.
#####It is important to pay attn to a character named Soros--who finances a lot of leftist filmmaking. The guy who made SuperSize Me is in process of making "The Republican War on Science".#####
That'll be the Michael Moorish propaganda film of the year. It'll get a lavish build-up from the New York Times, that's for sure.
Granny was my favorite.
Not sure what you mean. What are you accepting about the theory of evolution.
Recommendation letters are not an entitlement.
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.
Then you have no problem with alternate common sense explanations explaining life. Again your interpretation of the facts is the limited one. Science by definition should not be limited when such a large number of credible scientists wish to weigh in.
Remember that next time you drive a car or fly. Or use the bathroom. Or plug in your computer.
I am sure you will acknowledge that none of these "discoveries" demonstrates a speck of superiority. Having a cell phone with iTunes on it doesn't add a whit to a person's character. In fact it is an easy case to make that a person who has indulged in higher education exhibits stunted character growth.
Salvation through knowledge is beginning to fall on deaf ears as people begin to recognize the agenda of the materialists who, by definition, are forced to deny unalienable rights. The evidence of a superior intelligence contributing to the lives of His creatures is trumping the Naturalistic Only dogma!
666 AND 700. It's a good night for me.
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.