Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[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

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 350 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[AndrewC]

senseless science vs. religion turmoil

Yes, and it has been a war on religion since prayer was removed from schools. Something that was practiced for ~150 years with the same Constitution. In any case, the science will stand if it is true. The mere fact that a label is not permitted because it establishes religion is evidence of the warfare in this nation. The Democrats like some of the 15%(or the 7% Republicans) of Americans choose to filibuster rather than accede to the wishes of the electorate. As the case in Pennsylvania shows, the people should decide, not the courts nor a minority. The outcome in Pennsylvania may not be final, however.

There exists no vehement assault on science in general, only on those areas that have claimed to have swept the field of competitors. Finally, as it is proper and fitting in a democratic form of government, all warfare should be decided at the ballot box, not in the streets or in the courts.

[PatrickHenry]

I do not understand why such an enlightened nation is embroiled in a senseless science vs. religion turmoil--and even more puzzled that some whom on other issues I recognise as fellow conservatives are, on this topic, so vehement in their assault on science.

It's a mystery to those of us on the pro-evolution (i.e. rational) side too. But now that you're here, you'll get a real taste of the turmoil.

Thanks for posting the article.

[MamaTexan]

But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.

Jut picking a nit, but it's CHURCH and State..not 'religion'.

------------

Intelligent explanations of the real issue here would be appreciated!

IMHO, the evolution vs creationism uproar is quite simple.

Evolutionists maintain that everything was created by a biomechanical process, brought about by the trial and error of nature. This makes humanity an accident.

Creationists believe the world was conceived and constructed by a higher being, brought about by His will and design. This makes humanity a miracle.

While creationism doesn't necessarily exclude evolution, evolution DOES exclude creationism.

You'd think in a land where we have the ability to freely discuss anything, we'd be able to find a middle ground.

------------

As a historical footnote, the Bible was used regularly in schoolrooms up to about 1950.

[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.

[Just mythoughts]

Typical leftist scare tactics, vanity of vanities.

[JamesP81]

Unless you can accept the Bible sometimes uses metaphoric expressions.

Hebrew is written two ways: narrative and poetic. The two are easily distinguished by the sentence structure. Narrative is intended to be taken at face value. The Levitical law is written this way. Poetic is just that: poetic. The Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and all the allegorical tales are written this way.

Genesis is written in narrative form. It's written in the same way that the levitical Law was written. The Hebrew word for day is 'yom' and every single time in the Old Testament 'yom' is used in conjunction with a number, it's talking about that number of 24-hour rotations of the Earth. While it can occasionally mean an indefinite period of time, it has never meant an indefinite period of time when used with such phrases 'and there was evening and morning'. It seems clear to me that not only is Genesis meant to be taken literally, it was written in such a way to prevent someone from taking it any other way.

Link:

Christian Answers

[Pietro]

I always find it amusing when science educators warn of the threat to education from ID. As if ID were the reason for falling scores and the dismal performance of science in American education and not the educators themselves.

The monoploistic educational bureaurcracy has difficulty when the public attempts to influence education. This explains the passionate opposition to school vouchers as well as the rise of home schooling. ID is not nearly the threat to science as is the dogma emminating from the Ivory Tower which will use the courts and the ACLU to impose their will on a recalcitrant public. In other words; how dare the peasants lecture their betters.

And finally, this ultimately goes back to the establishment clause in the US Constitution and how it should be interpretted vis-a-vis schools and religion. Since the 1960's the courts have upheld a God-free zone in the American classrooms, quite often to absurd lengths. ID is the push back.

[Dust in the Wind]

"Whose fault is that?"

Devolution!
Adaptation is a forgotten term among some ideologists.

[The_Victor]

Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said.

Teaching children to think critically NEVER threatens literacy. Scientific truth must be vetted against competing eplainations, it is part of the process of arriving at the truth. Creationism is quickly dispelled with scientific evidence, and the showing this in a science classroom is always worth the effort.

[JamesP81]

Yes, and it has been a war on religion since prayer was removed from schools. Something that was practiced for ~150 years with the same Constitution. In any case, the science will stand if it is true. The mere fact that a label is not permitted because it establishes religion is evidence of the warfare in this nation.

Too true. I've been trying to tell people this for a long time. There is, in general, a war of ideologies going on in this nation. It is being fought with pen and keyboard instead of sword and rifle, but it is a war nonetheless. That's why I've always advocated a take-no-prisoners approach to political discourse in our modern context. We can't afford to lose this one. The consequences of some of the vitriol and infighting are bad, but not nearly so bad as the consequences of losing the culture war. So don't hold anything back.

[DoctorMichael]

Anti-Ignorance, not Leftist.

On the other hand, tt is the Evil ID?Creationists that take a page out of their friend's, the Leftists, playbook by forcing their bilge on Society through the Courts.

[JamesP81]

ID is not nearly the threat to science as is the dogma emminating from the Ivory Tower which will use the courts and the ACLU to impose their will on a recalcitrant public. In other words; how dare the peasants lecture their betters

Exactly. The NEA is a bunch of elitists who think Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions.

[Remole]

But it is highly debateable that Genesis 1 is written in narrative form. Certainly the rhythms and repetitions in the text suggest that it is closer to poetry than narrative.

And anyway, the neat distinction between poetry and narrative, as is the case in English, is not at all secure in Hebrew. There are very very few passages in the narrative sections of the Genesis that one can determine are prosaic forms of expression; one such passage is the words of Esau to Jacob in regards to the red stew. See the work of Robert Alter in his translation of Genesis.

And anyway, how is one to determine the literalist vs the metaphorical meaning of a passage? To do that requires life within the culture.

And finally, even if the creationist view is correct, why did the sacred author of Genesis adopt THIS way of describing the phases of creation? Why 7 days? why not 10? or 50? or 365? [hint: this is a loaded question]

[wallcrawlr]

ToryHeartland, ...even more puzzled that some whom on other issues I recognise as fellow conservatives are, on this topic, so vehement in their assault on science.

assaulting science ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Vaquero]

a would say a majority of us don't get it either but the squeaky wheel makes the most noise and gets the most notice. I and many of my conservative compatriots here in the states have no compunction about following the proven tenants of science.

religion is for church and should remain there.

[doc30]

Most scientists are liberals who support our opponents.

I'd like to hear you back up that statement with some facts. Most of the scientists I know, including myself, are decidedly not liberal. Most people who think rationally tend to be conservatives and that includes most scientists. When it comes to evolution, the same principle applies. It's logical and supported by evidence. Being a conservative does not imply you are a conservative, although both do share certain principles.

[JamesP81]

And anyway, how is one to determine the literalist vs the metaphorical meaning of a passage?

I got much of my information from a Hebrew scholar when I attended a lecture about him. Unfortunately for me, I can't remember his name, but I know that he did one of the most exhaustive studies of the hebrew word 'yom' and Genesis 1 that has ever been done. Pretty much all Jewish scholars will tell you, whether they agree with the OT or not, that Genesis was intended to be taken as a 7-day creation. I can't verify this myself, since I don't speak hebrew.

I'll try this evening to find out this scholar's name, if you're interested in it.

And finally, even if the creationist view is correct, why did the sacred author of Genesis adopt THIS way of describing the phases of creation? Why 7 days? why not 10? or 50? or 365?

At the risk of sounding like a mystic, for some reason God seems like things in groups of 3, 7, and 12. (The 12 Apostles, 7-day week, and the Trinity are good examples). But to answer your question, I really don't know why He would choose seven days.

[doc30]

The principles behind this fight are simple. ID and creation stories aren't taught in science class because they are not science and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. There are lots of people who choose to try to shout their position to try and get it accepted. When that fails, they try to use what is essentially court ordered intellectual affermative action for their strictly religious constraints that they believe must constrain and supercede science. If it isn't in the Bible, it isn't science to these people. They are taking a tactic right out of the extreme left wing playbook.

[Always Right]

a would say a majority of us don't get it either but the squeaky wheel makes the most noise and gets the most notice. I and many of my conservative compatriots here in the states have no compunction about following the proven tenants of science. religion is for church and should remain there.

And science is for studying facts and making theories, and should not be taught in a way that makes it an assult on religious beliefs. For most, it is not a desire to get intelligent design in the classroom (although there are those who do), it is the absolute stance that science explains it all and you must accept that it does and disavow your religous beliefs that outrages people.