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
LOL - you word for the day is --- liar. Is that all you know. You are quite repetitive. Delusion, liars - that's all you talk about. Boring....
It's not my interpretation - it's what God said. YOUR NEED TO TWIST THINGS SHOWS ALOT. The Bible NEEDS no interpretation. So, bad try at calling me a liar - you can say it hundred times and it will never be. Accept the fact you are calling God a liar and repent of it.
The bible is first grade comprehension! But then again, animals can't read or comprehend. That's your problem. Like I said - it needs no interpretation. Very easy to understand. God does confuse us. It's the cults that TRY to confuse BUT they are so lame at it. Live in your own 'evolved' world. At what part of your evolution do you become human with reading comprehension skills. Did Darwin leave you instructions when they will happen to you? You serve a dead man and I serve a LIVING GOD. No wonder we disagree.
All the best - go fetch a fossil - make your master proud!
Hey, I used to throw the tarot. Ignorance can be cured.
And no one ever disagrees on interpretation! Yeah right....
Don't you believe the men that told you God wrote the Bible? Or did God tell you himself?
I hope you're not talking about me. I'm in no godless evo cult.
BTW, do you EVER have anything to offer but ad hominems? The other creationists (except for another odd poster who is at least amusing) at least put forth an argument occasionally. But never you. How come?
[...Could you please explain, concisely, how "our sins" killed God's Son?...]
Assuming this is an honest question, I proceed with a premise that all Christians understand...
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish, but would have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
God says that all sin is punishable by death.(Romans 5:12) So that we (God's creation) would not have to be separated from Him. Jesus (who had no sin) said he would take that punishment for us. Our sin put Jesus on the cross. Amazing that God could love me and you that much. Just amazing. Thank you Father.
will do everything you can to kill him in the hearts of man.
They can waste their life trying, but it will never happen. When you have the Truth, no mere man can ever take it away or animals for that matter. Truth sets you free from being deceived.
How can they understand Truth when they believe a lie? They quote Darwin a mere man who is now dead. our Jesus is alive and well and will soon return. And EVERY KNEE WILL BOW TO HIM!! Praise God.
Good night, Runningwolf. I have to take my animal for a walk - he relies on me to feed him, walk him, train him and take care of him.
Just a reminder that Satan is the accuser of the brethren and the father of lies.
You must be hitting your mark to be so vehemently ACCUSED of being a LIAR.
May God bring you rest... and peace.
His always... Jo
Now is that nice? Especially after ToryHeartland reststed the temptration to support the claim that the United States of America was built by a bunch of bums.
I confess, this was a biographical detail I did not previously know. Would it be invidious of me to point out that General George Washington (for whom, let me quickly point out, I have enormous admiration) was similarly afflicted? See http://www.si.umich.edu/spies/stories-networks-4.html; the text therein is:
Throughout most of George Washington's life he had problems of continuing deterioration of his teeth. This caused him a lot of pain, and none of the dentists he went to knew what to do besides take them out. Slowly but surely all of Washington's teeth were extracted. In 1772 Dr. Baker of Philadelphia extracted several. Finally, George had to have false teeth made. They were made out of hippopotamus ivory and cow's tooth, carved by hand, and held in his mouth with metal springs. These false teeth were a little large for his mouth, creating a peculiar expression, which is exhibited in many of his portraits. Today, the teeth can be viewed at the University of Maryland's National Museum of Dentistry.
My regard for Washington's achievements, which transformed the whole world much for the better, are nothing diminished by this particular revelation...
Good point. Your nation's Founders were keen to protect themselves from us (the Brits). And now it is us who envy you this freedom!
Here, the socialists have even banned hunting with dogs; we have an enormous task in front of us!
Agreed. Nor does "science." And that was not the point..... but we both knew that
I am familiar wit it. You aren't. Your comment was not analagous. Spin the wheeel again.
Vicomte13, I thank you for another splendid posting, very stimulating and deeply engaging; I only fear I cannot bring sufficient erudition to make a suitable reply. So take the following as 'thoughts out loud,' or work in progress...
First, I think your analysis of events following the restoration of Charles II -- the period we presumptively call 'The Glorious Revolution'-- is compelling; the chief element certainly appears to be a wholesale popular rejection of the unnatual constraints and indeed chaos wrought by the Puritain Protectorate. British Constitution still reflects a great deal from this period, defining checks and balances on both the monarchy and parliament, and some of this legal framework was subsequently transmitted to the written American constitution. That said, I would add that the British form is still marked by lots of 'fudge and mudge' compromise, which is at once the British genius and a particularly British disease!
But I am intrigued (and this really is thinking out loud, I don't have a particular position to argue here) by the manifest success of the American Revolution, which I believe marked an enormous stride forward for all mankind--and all the more remarkable in its contrast to other revolutions, which have ended in disaster. Which perhaps is my first reply to you here: I would be interested in your analysis of why the American revolution succeeded while the French, which in part drew on the American experience for inspiration, overthrew a corrupt ancien regime but ended in the Terror and Bonaparte.
Now, I had previously assumed (but this may be the legacy of half-understood school history) that the ethos of both the American and French revolutions was the Enlightment, or the Age of Reason, that the experience of American colonials (reliant on their own resources, and looking to one another to build a new society) lent them particularly receptive to the ideals of the Enlightment, and that the new Republic proved fertile ground for core values of independence, freedom, enterprise, reason, meritocracy--all of which I see as core conservative values. Whereas in Europe, revolutions failed because these same ideals did not take such strong a root, were still competing with notions of hereditary privilege, special pleading, priestly power, old corruption, etc. etc. Do you yourself see a role of Enlightenment ideals in the foundation of the American Republic?
Also, though I am not a expert on the history, I believe that there were a series of religious movements in the 19th Century United States ('The Great Awakening,' of which I think there were several waves) which altered the cultural landscape, if not also the political. Do you think these movements had their roots back in the English Civil War, or represent a singular American innovation?
Finally (before I waffle too much), my own sense is that it is pointless to argue matters of Faith; for those to whom Faith is sufficient, one cannot meaningfully disagree; it would be tragic, in my view, if arguments about Faith undermined our common cause. And it is certainly the case that misunderstanding and downright bafflement are apparent here in regarding the US, even by those who most staunchly admire America, over the public role of religion, here regarded as a personal matter that should not intrude on politics. And I would add my impression that, in the UK at least, one of the effects of 9/11 (and for us, 7/7) has been an even greater scepticism about the public display of religion--though we have been tardy in addressing various 'religious' speakers whose messages have been about anything but Faith (e.g. Abu Hamza)
That is deeply reassuring. And over there, you have never had to endure what we have here: socialist governments bent on abolishing commerce! But they haven't (and will not) win.
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.