Scientists enlist clergy in evolution battle

Scientists enlist clergy in evolution battle

Monday, February 20, 2006; Posted: 9:31 a.m. EST (14:31 GMT)

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.
(snip/...)

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

I like, I like!!!

Yes, because science always trumps imaginary super-heroes!

it's Materialistic world view in the classroom and in the labratory.

Materialism and Reductionism are NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science.

Unfortunately, just as the tadpole doesn't realise it swims in water and that other environments exist, most scientists don't realise that they follow a philosophy (Materialism) that is just as unprovable as Creationism.

Teaching Evolution is one thing.

Insisting that blind chance can account for the how of natural selection is quite another.

Because if you aren't, then you've not even a passing acquaintance with modern physics, and shouldn't even attempt to discuss anything about science.

demonstrated the reason why scientists shouldn't bother debating with religious zealots--if people want to be educated they will...and if they want to play semantics games like you, they will also do that...

As the commercial once said, "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste"

mystery. The very word SELECTION in natural selection makes clear it's not "blind chance".

You'd have to be coming from a damn weird place to knowingly repeat a lie to make your case annd yet still adhere to that case.

I believe in this instance (ID v evolution) it's entirely wrong.

BUT

The corporate/scientific community IS imposing its values - or lack of them - upon society. I want to put the emphasis on the corporate part of that equation, the part that sets a strategy to profit from science.

Profiting from science depends upon control of unconstant factors. Humans being the most unconstant of all. Profiting from science demands throwing morals out the window. "We can do this, and there's a buck to be made. Therefor we will do this." And they send out their marketing and marketing research teams to persuade the unconstant - us - that it is right to.

So science is not imposing its values.

And certainly good scientists don't impose their values.

Hell, if they were we'd be doing something about global warming.

They work hard & earn good salaries.

Marketers & marketing research teams are NOT scientists.

Insisting that blind chance can account for the how of natural selection is quite another.

Once again:

Evolution is not caused by blind chance. There can be random EVENTS, but the outcome is anything but random--the shift of allele frequencies, for example, is a very demonstrable and calculated phenomenon, even in the labs I have worked in.

I'm sorry you still don't get that.

The only part chance plays is in generating the pool of genetic material (through random mutations) that natural selection then non-randomly chooses from. Randomness isn't even strictly required for the process. Some other non-random method for generating the pool of material could work just as well. It just happens to be the case that it's generated by random forces. Remember, enough random coin flips will approach 50% heads/tails.

Yeah, baby.

I hope they come to the conclusion I have that they both coexist without any problem. AND they both do not know the whole answer. There is a mystery to this thing we are experiencing.

I personally believe in god and in evolution. And I also believe that 99% of all religions are complete crap. There is a very fine line of what I consider to be accurate truth. Like anyone here gives a shit about what I think... :)

St.Aquinas laid out "first" and "secondary" causes to explain the structure of existance. God is the first cause, but secondary causes--like evolution--are things that are seen in the world but are guided by God.

So really, evolution and God isn't an impossible duo. Of course, for this atheist, she doesn't buy it, but whatever works for people.

For what that's worth. I don't hold the Catholic church in very high esteem. I had better keep my thoughts to myself before I offend yet more people around here. I don't give much credence to the peripheral philosophers. I keep it pretty much to the central core.
But involving everyone in the discussion is critical. I don't think the fundamentalist Christians have much to add to the discussion. They're way out on a limb. I'm looking for facts, not philosophies.

Most individuals, including many at DU, do not understand the scientific implications of evolution and only fear it because they believe it is in opposition to their faith. If this campaign can get people to see that you can be faithful AND follow science, all the better.

Many philosophers are listed here, but no hierarchy is evident. Can you direct me to a site that indicates which ones should be ignored?

www.iep.utm.edu/

I do believe in God but not the world Adam and Eve thing. I believe in a form of Evolution, guided by God.
Although some churches will used Adam and Eve and creation story to teach from, many non-fundamentalist churches in the UK, do not deny that Evolution is part of the structure of existence.
In my experience the fundamentalists that do believe the bible very literally, including the world was made in six days etc. It is very tough to convince them at one word of the bible it anything but the exact truth, little room for interpretation or in depth study.
When I was in High School, I had a Christian biology teacher and she was an excellent one too. When it came to Evolution, she switched classes with another biology teacher, so she didn't teach it but it was still taught. There was no comment, no fuss, she didn't ever say why she didn't teach those lessons or comment on either evolution nor creationism.Those of use that knew of her beliefs understood too. That for me is a smart way to deal with the issue. Nobody was told what was right or wrong, either.

because for most of the late70s, 80s and early 90s most scientists scoffed at debating Creationists. This unfortunately allowed the Creationists to frame the "debate" in terms that would best reach the lay person and to show scientists as aloof white tower elitists. This has lead to much of the current problem.

cryingshame please understand I am not calling you stupid or insulting you, just using your post to illustrate my point.

Where did the aliens come from? It's aliens all the way down!

"created" through hyper-nano-subatomic cascade of probabilities that was the consequence of nothing at all. Sartre develops a nice line of reasoning on phenomenological grounds which seeks to explain the importance of nothing as a "source". Negation and absence are surprisingly powerful creative forces. The old addage about nature abhorring a vaccuum seems particularly appropriate here. There is still much we don't know through our science, but there is considerably more of which religion remains ignorant or deliberately blind. As for the values imposed on scientific work, he who pays often determines the direction of the research. Public funding of science is a good idea, as it removes the "bias" that corporate funding brings.
I have only ever lived in a materialist universe. Try to live without food or water and the argument against materialism falls apart quite rapidly. But "man does not live by bread alone" and science keeps delivering incredible visions of our universe that have inspired countless intellects to strive for even more knowledge of this highly probabilistic universe. I don't see the creationists "indictment of science" as proven. Science is not limiting in any way except as limit to flights of fancy, wishful thinking and charlatanism that earmark much religious experience.

Cogito, ergo sum...Keep looking and thinking "Rene".

Sure, precepts of many of the major religions are "good", and many who believe have actual hearts that also happen to be in the proverbial right places, but the insidious encroachment of religion into all debate does not bode well.

Maybe "decent" believers can help beat back the tide of virulent selfishness, but once they've done so, the result is still not good. It is tacit admission that one NEEDS belief to do good. This will serve to further marginalize those of us who don't buy the supernatural. It will be god god god all the time, and only a "good god" can outmaneuver a "bad god", leaving all of us unencumbered by this guess to be sent packing.

ground they get so wrapped up in spreading their unprovable dogma that they become a destructive force. Every religion has this problem. In fact when threatened they become more vicious than non believers. How they can go on after the hypocrisy comes out in the open is a mystery.