;^)
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
Hoaxes? Plural?
All I can think of is Piltdown. Archeoraptor was a fraud.
The question is not an ethnic issue. The question is one of righteousness. Jews are not judged any differently than any other man/woman.
Are you asking if the bible teaches that God makes some special arrangement for Jews?
Hey, let's not be insulting the mustard cult. They're fierce and pungent when roused.
*LOL*
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it.............
Best of luck with your Personal Problems.
I think you misunderstood what I wanted to convey. My point is that many Christians say that Jesus payed with his suffering on the cross for our sins.
This is what I find doesn't make sense: someone is paying with his suffering for the transgressions of someone else.
This only makes sense if you ascribe transactional value to the state of suffering itself.
You: Are you asking if the bible teaches that God makes some special arrangement for Jews?
I'm asking this very simple, straightforward question:
Are Jews who died without accepting Christ doomed to Hell. Yes or no?
Yes, this is the main point of contention I have with this interpretation of scripture: the fact that their god is said to accept suffering as some sort of transactionable goods.
The question is why has somebody to suffer in the first place and what do I gain if some other person suffers in the place of the real culprit.
I mean it just doesn't make sense, especially if this god is omniscient and omnipotent.
It's not an ethnic question. It's a religeous question, the shema, which is a fundamentally important daily prayer of an orthodox jew, asserts unambiguously, that there is only one form, substance, or essence of God. The shema denies the notion of salvation through the Son of God.
Do you know what the NT says about those who, having knowledge of the offer of salvation through Christ, refuse the offer?
LOL, I thank you for the splendid image of lizard communion! All the same, my regard for Mr. Darwin's achievements remains intact.
However, you do General Washington a grave injustice. To say as you do that "he managed to become the leader of the greatest nation on earth," you credit him with no greater an achievement than that of a Millard Fillmore, Grover Cleveland, or--dare I say it?--a Slick Willy Clinton. You don't need me to point out General Washington's brilliant role in creating your admirable nation.
And--before I return to contemplating (if I dare) just what might be involved in lizard communion, I'll hazard a pedantic note about your tagline: Victisti, Galilaee should be attributed to Theodoret, not Julian.
;^)
Thank you for helping me understand (I think). At any rate, thank you for your patience in trying to help me understand your question. From what I can tell, you are asking if there is some sort of virtue intrinsic in suffering? The answer would be "no." The concept of justice is a little different, I believe. Justice demands a payment for an infraction, whether it be a traffic ticket, robbing someone, or cosmic treason against the Creator. The universal cry of "HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THAT! shows that the concept of justice is "hard wired" into our beings. Then the question is how does that whole concept fit into the claims of Xty. If justice demands a penalty, the question then becomes what punishment is appropriate for "sin." The biblical claim is that it is far more serious than we think, far more henious and despicable than we admit even when we know it. THAT is what Christians talk about "paying" for our sins on the cross. Actually, the one of the last vocalizations recorded of Jesus on the cross was "It is finished" contained in a single Gk word "tetelestai(it may have been a translation of Aramaic). The word was actually a commercial term and means "Paid in full" and is what a merchant would expect to see on the bottom of a receipt for moneys paid.
The idea of one person substituting for another is at the core of the Xn message. The claim, as preposterous as it may sound, is that Jesus sucked down evil itself and died under its eternal curse, so that an eternal punishment was executed in Him.
This does not necessarily imply value in suffering itself, but hearkens more to the idea of the satisfaction of justice. Suffering only has value in relation to being an appropriate punishment for a moral evil.
I am only stating the position from the perspective of your question. The "problem of pain" itself has been discussed more fully in other venues.
Thank you again for your polite and gracious interaction.
I'll hazard a pedantic note about your tagline: Victisti, Galilaee should be attributed to Theodoret, not Julian.
"Accepting Christ" is not a biblical term, but some goofy emotional phrase that current evangelicals use for turning from their sins and placing faith in God's provision for our sins. Jews are like every other person. We will all be judged for whether we lived for God or self. Any Jew who can come before God and say "I lived for only and always for you in total perfection" has nothing to fear. Nor have you or I. Such a person has no need for a "Christ."
I'm thinking it's amusing that so-called conservatives support gov't "suggestions" to churches. What next? No tax breaks unless pastors objectively show their members are followers of Hitler (whoops I mean Darwin).
Sorry, but neo Darwinists are thankfully in the minority with the average guy. Thankfully, they don't have to be zombies to the faith to get a research grant or publish.
Just watch Sunday Morning TV and you'll get your answer.
Accusing other posters of being liars is not tolerable conduct and will have consequences.
Spamming the abuse button is also not tolerable and will have consequences.
Now THAT was funny! lol
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.