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
Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.
Tory...your article surely has generated a lot of thought, a lot of emotional outbursts, and a lot discussion...
What I wonder about is this...if one wishes to have something taught, which questions evolution as it is now taught, just what do they want taught..I mean, there is strict creationism, which as I understand it, asserts that all living things were created by God, in an instant, in the form we see today...and created in just six days...and that the earth is around 6 thousand years old...and then there is intelligent design, which is very different in that it seems to grant that some 'supernatural being'(ID, to my knowledge, never really asserts this being as God),was the initial creator of some life form, which then went on to evolve...and ID also seems to grant that the earth is millions, or billions of years old...
I guess, what confuses me, is that creationism/Intelligent Design seem to have very little in common with each other, except that they both grant the initial creation to be done by a 'being'...creationism grants the creation to God, whereas ID grants the creation to any 'powerful being', whether God, or some other being, or I suppose even aliens from outer space...so I see very little in common between Creationism and Intelligent Design...
So, if opponents to Evolution want alternatives taught, just what alternative do they want taught?...ID? Creationism?...I mean, one must admit that there is great difference between these two...they disagree on many points, and thus we see that even the opponents to evolution cannot agree on alternate competing ideas...and then, there are widely varying and differing ideas about which 'religion', supports which alternate ideas, and would adopting that religions ideas about this, then lead to trying to slip the teaching of a specific religion into public school?...
There are those that would try to claim that this would never happen...I call that, burying ones head in the sand...if one wants to present an alternate idea to evolution, based on ones own particular religions stand on this issue, then naturally, we come to teaching the religious views associated with that religion, and thus are teaching a particular religion...
There are many religions that I would never want taught to my children, and I believe that many also feel that same way...by adopting one religions views on evolution, and how they feel their views challenge evolution, it would seem to me, to necesarily be teaching a specific religion in public school...is that really what some here are advocating?
I really would appreciate the thoughts of others on this...
Since I came to this thread rather late, I have posted late, and now must leave the thread...but I am hopeful, that tomorrow, someone can answer some of my questions...
Can you tell me, in your own words, how one measures the quantity of information present in a genome?
Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.
You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars
What have I lied about? What have I misrepresented? I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something? If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.
From where/Who/what do you get your beliefs? You got a more truthful book than the Bible and a better teacher than God?
you haven't thought this through very clearly
How so?
Wrong. Your choice of ignoring the evidence -- not even bothering to refute it scientifically--doesn't make it go away. Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA"
They only check the sign up date when they suspect a troll.
Like they think we are. :-)
God is bigger than science. Science shouldn't try to deal in the spiritual or supernatural.
Basically once she tells you something is so, anytime after that you say anything different, now you are a liar.
Well that is just once piece of the demented 10,000 fragment liar kaleidoscope. It is almost impossible to not be a liar in the demented world unless you worship at the altar of darwinistic evolutionism, its main deity the flying spaghetti monster.
Wolf
I always thought it was our immortal soul that was created in God's image, not our bodies.
Let him howl. That's what he does best.
SSDD
or is it SSSS?
(same s#!+, same thread)
See the post above hers. (tee hee)
You know what, with all you babbling, you say nothing.
It stands. You are calling God a liar. God created the world and every living thing in it. If you do not accept His Word, The Bible, you have no capacity for truth.
Yet you hang onto what Kent says. A mere man who depends on God for his every breath. Why do you look up to man? How lowly do you think of yourself? Animals do that - oh I forgot - you belief humans are animals. But then again, I guess Kent's (monkey brain) is an animal too.
Remember, at one time, 'man" said the world was flat. However, those who seek truth knew better - the bible explains it - and doesn't explain it as flat.
So, keep believing man - they are always finding something new and denouncing what they said yesterday.
But God always was, always will be, and will always remain the same. TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE. On that note - no more chit-chat. I'm not into talking to animals but I do wish you all the best and may you have enough pee-pee pads for all you needs.
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.