http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/20/sc...reut/index.html

 

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (Reuters) -- American scientists fighting back against creationism, intelligent design and other theories that seek to deny or downgrade the importance of evolution have recruited unlikely allies -- the clergy.

 

And they have taken their battle to a new level, trying to educate high school and even elementary school teachers on how to hold their own against parents and school boards who want to mix religion with science.

 

While they feel they have won the latest round against efforts to bring God into the classroom, the scientists say they have little doubt their opponents are merely regrouping.

 

"It's time to recognize that science and religion should never be pitted against one another," American Association for the Advancement of Science President Gilbert Omenn told a news conference on Sunday. The AAAS has held several sessions on the evolution issue at its annual meeting in St. Louis.

 

"The faith community needs to step up to the plate," agreed Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California.

 

Scott said many people held the "toxic" idea that "you are either a Christian creationist or you are a bad-guy athiest".

 

Recent court and electoral battles have made clear that judges and voters will reject efforts to sneak creationism into the classroom under the guise of making a scientific curriculum clearer or fairer, Scott said.

 

By a vote of 11 to 4, the Ohio Board of Education last week pulled a model lesson plan it had approved in 2004. The plan had permitted science teachers to encourage students to look at questions about evolution, something proponents of "intelligent design" call "teaching the controversy."

 

Last year in Pennsylvania, a federal court ruled the theory could not be taught in a public school and the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, which approved the teaching, was voted out.

 

Intelligent design proponents see the hand of God behind evolution because, they say, life is too complex to be random.

 

"As a legal strategy intelligent design is dead. It will be very difficult for any school district in the future to successfully survive a legal challenge," Scott said. "That doesn't mean intelligent design is dead as a very popular social movement. This is an idea that has got legs."

 

But pastors are speaking out against it. Warren Eschbach, a retired Church of the Brethren pastor and professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania helped sponsor a letter signed by more than 10,000 other clergy.

 

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests," they wrote.

 

Catholic experts have also joined the movement.

 

"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer," said Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne, an astrophysicist who is also ordained. "The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."

Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association said some teachers feared losing their jobs if they taught evolution. "The pressures come from the students and the parents," he said.

 

Here comes Juggs.....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/20/sc...reut/index.html

Here comes Juggs.....

 

A victory for logic, common sense, science as a discipline and freedom of religion. I'm glad to see ID dying a quick death.

You'll note that CNN still refers to Intelligent Design and Creationism implicitly as "Theories" in the first line of that article. In other words...it ain't nearly dead yet.

While I don't have an opinion on ID, I do believe that alternatives to evolution should be mentioned in science classes.

While I don't have an opinion on ID, I do believe that alternatives to evolution should be mentioned in science classes.

 

 

I think ID is going a little far. Its place is in Sunday school not regular school. Im a very vocal proponent of allowing prayer and other religous displays in schools but I think thats going a little far.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 06:03 PM)

While I don't have an opinion on ID, I do believe that alternatives to evolution should be mentioned in science classes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree completly as long as it follows the scientific model and is not based on faith.

While I don't have an opinion on ID, I do believe that alternatives to evolution should be mentioned in science classes.

As soon as there is one, feel free to let us know.

I think ID is going a little far.  Its place is in Sunday school not regular school.  Im a very vocal proponent of allowing prayer and other religous displays in schools but I think thats going a little far.

 

i agree

 

there is no scientific proof of God, just questions that cannot be answered. a science class has enough to cover without getting into theological discussions.

Edited February 21, 200620 yr by mr_genius

As soon as there is one, feel free to let us know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

All that needs to be said is that evolution is a theory and that there is also a theory of creation.

This is unfortunate news for the Public Forum debaters because that is the national competition resolution and now basically it will come down to who wins the coin flip to determine the national champion.

All that needs to be said is that evolution is a theory and that there is also a theory of creation.

 

Sure, if you want to be dishonest and misleading.

All that needs to be said is that evolution is a theory and that there is also a theory of creation.

 

In a philosophy or comparative religion class? Fine. But ID is not science, and cannot be measured or evaluated using scientific method. Therefore it has no place in science classes.

In a philosophy or comparative religion class?  Fine.  But ID is not science, and cannot be measured or evaluated using scientific method.  Therefore it has no place in science classes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And neither does Evolution

Sure, if you want to be dishonest and misleading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I also think telling people that evolution is the only theory is being dishonest and misleading.

I also think telling people that evolution is the only theory is being dishonest and misleading.

 

That's probably because you're under the mistaken idea that 'creation' is a scientific theory despite being neither scientific nor much of a theory.

That's probably because you're under the mistaken idea that 'creation' is a scientific theory despite being neither scientific nor much of a theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually no I am not, All I am looking for is like here in Tennessee where there is a disclaimer on the book that says evolution is not a scientific fact

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:00 PM)

All that needs to be said is that evolution is a theory and that there is also a theory of creation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is a scientific theory just like the idea of the Earth revolving around the Sun.

 

The problem is these people who want ID in the class room don't know what a "scientific theory" is. It's not a "guess" like some god or space aliens created all living life.

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:02 PM)

Actually no I am not, All I am looking for is like here in Tennessee where there is a disclaimer on the book that says evolution is not a scientific fact

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty embarassing for Tennessee schools. I suppose the Physics books have disclaimers on them saying E=mc^2 is not a fact???

Actually no I am not

 

Sure you are. You said you wanted other theories taught and mentioned that creation was a theory.

 

All I am looking for is like here in Tennessee where there is a disclaimer on the book that says evolution is not a scientific fact

 

Would you also like similar disclaimers concerning Heliocentric Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Quantum Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc?

And neither does Evolution

Surely you are joking? Evolution by means of natural selection continues to hold up under scientific scrutiny and continues to be bolstered by it. Every new tool researchers turn loose on the problem ends up amassing more evidence favoring neo-Darwinian explanations as the most likely explanations for the diversity and unity of past and present biological systems.

 

It's not a political issue, despite the fundies trying to make it out to be one. And for all but the most literal of "I didn't come from no damn monkey" Christians it's not much of a religious issue as well.

 

Scientific hypotheses live out their useful lives and are refined with time or discarded if they are shown to be incorrect in the course of doing sound science. Thus far, sound science continues to add to the preponderance of evidence favoring neo-Darwinian evolution over any other less plausible mechanisms.

That's pretty embarassing for Tennessee schools.  I suppose the Physics books have disclaimers on them saying E=mc^2 is not a fact???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well they are also in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia and no it not embarrassing. Evolution is not well thought of around here. I don't see what the problem is letting the kids decide what is true and what isn't. By not putting a disclaimer on the book that makes it sound like evolution is a proven fact which it is not. I am not saying we need to teach ID or creation but at least let the kids have a choice.

Sure you are.  You said you wanted other theories taught and mentioned that creation was a theory.

Would you also like similar disclaimers concerning Heliocentric Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Quantum Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Surely you believe in god?

QUOTE(minors @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:19 PM)

Well they are also in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia and no it not embarrassing.  Evolution is not well thought of around here.  I don't see what the problem is letting the kids decide what is true and what isn't. By not putting a disclaimer on the book that makes it sound like evolution is a proven fact which it is not.  I am not saying we need to teach ID or creation but at least let the kids have a choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't imagine it's related to the Bible.

 

I'm guessing you don't have a strong scientific background unlike Flasoxxjim and myself.

The scientific theory of evolution is called that because it follows the scientific model.

You know, hypothesis, test, re-test, make conclusions and recommendations, re-test.

Evolution fits this model, so it is taught in a science class. Where would you want something like this tested? In a gym class?

 

ID is not scientific based, and it is more "well some of evolution doesn't make sense to me, and we should let our kids decide what they want to believe."

 

I suppose if I wanted 2+3=7 taught in a math class because that's what I decided to believe in I should go to my local school board and demand for them to put a disclaimer on all Math books?

 

I'll ask the $64,000 question; just why would people decide not to believe in the theory of evolution? Could it be because of their religious faith?

Evolution is not well thought of around here.

 

Probably because no one around there has any idea what it is since they have never been taught it.

 

I am not saying we need to teach ID or creation but at least let the kids have a choice.

 

A choice between what? Whether science classes should teach science or ignore it because it contradicts the religious beliefs of some people?

 

Let's teach Holocaust denial too. Kids need to hear both sides (even when there are more than two and some sides are total bulls***).

 

Surely you believe in god?

 

No. Are you going to address that post or not?

 

Would you also like similar disclaimers concerning Heliocentric Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Quantum Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc?

Probably because no one around there has any idea what it is since they have never been taught it.

A choice between what?  Whether science classes should teach science or ignore it because it contradicts the religious beliefs of some people?

 

Let's teach Holocaust denial too.  Kids need to hear both sides (even when there are more than two and some sides are total bulls***).

No.  Are you going to address that post or not?

 

Would you also like similar disclaimers concerning Heliocentric Theory, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Quantum Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am going to end this discussion by saying that I will be praying for you.