61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 02:30 pm
@wandeljw,
I love that! "...controversial scientific nature..." is only in the mind of the beholder who only wish to believe in miracles and creationism.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2009 03:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Rubbish. Are you trying to say that there is nothing of a scientific nature which is not controversial?
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 01:41 am
@spendius,
I'd ask if you were dense, but we already know the answer to that question, don't we?

your article wrote:
A measure pending in the Senate Education Committee would protect teachers who want to talk about theories of a “controversial scientific nature,” including but not limited to creationism, its sponsor said.


Creationism is not a theory of a controversial scientific nature. It is resoundingly considered bullshit. If you care to whine about the consequences of any of this, go ahead and make a thread.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2009 09:03 am
@Shirakawasuna,
The more you tell a lie, it could soon become a fact. Science will never marry religion. They could remain friends with argumentative differences, but never the twain shall meet. The lunatic fringe taints the ID/Creationist movement and eventually the curtain will be ripped back and we'll find out that the all-might wizard is a fake. He can send you back to Kansas, however.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:09 am
VATICAN UPDATE
Quote:
Rome meeting snubs intelligent design, creationism
(By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press, March 5, 2009)

A Vatican-backed conference on evolution is under attack from people who weren't invited to participate: those espousing creationism and intelligent design.

The Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design research, says it was shut out from presenting its views because the meeting was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation, a major U.S. nonprofit that has criticized the intelligent design movement.

Intelligent design holds that certain features of life forms are so complex that they can best be explained by an origin from an intelligent higher power, not an undirected process like natural selection.

Organizers of the five-day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University said Thursday that they barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

While there are some Darwinian dissenters present, intelligent design didn't fit the bill, they said.

"We think that it's not a scientific perspective, nor a theological or philosophical one," said the Rev. Marc Leclerc, the conference director and a professor of philosophy of nature at the Gregorian. "This makes a dialogue very difficult, maybe impossible."

He denied the decision had anything to do with Templeton's funding for the conference. "Absolutely not. We decided independently within the organizing committee, in total autonomy," Leclerc said.

The Pennsylvania-based Templeton Foundation, which has an estimated endowment of $1.5 billion and awards some $70 million in annual grants, seeks to fund projects that reconcile religion and science.

At least three of the conference speakers, including two members of its scientific committee, serve on the Templeton Foundation's board of advisers.

The Templeton representative at the conference, Paul Wason, director of the foundation's science and religion programs, said the grant had no strings attached.

"They sent us the proposal after they had most of the speakers already. We decided to make the grant in part because it is a really good speakers' list," he said.

The foundation has criticized intelligent design in the past and says on its Web site that it doesn't support any research or programs that "deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge."

An official with the Pontifical Council for Culture, which is backing the conference, said the Templeton grant covered almost half the meeting's budget. But the official, the Rev. Tomasz Tramfe, also denied Templeton put any restrictions on who was invited to speak.

The Discovery Institute's president, Bruce Chapman, said he wasn't surprised intelligent design was kept out. But in an e-mail, he said the conference didn't speak for the Vatican as a whole, where he said evolution and intelligent design "remain in serious and fruitful dialogue."

Indeed, some influential cardinals have indicated they support intelligent design, including Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close collaborator of Pope Benedict XVI.

In addition to intelligent design, creationism has come under disdain at the conference. In his opening address, Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke dismissively of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. who want schools to teach biblical creationism alongside, or instead of, evolution.

Muslim creationists also complained about the conference.

Oktar Babuna, a representative of a prominent Turkish creationist, Harun Yahya, was denied the right to speak at the opening session Tuesday. Participants took the microphone away from Babuna when, during a question-and-answer session, he challenged them to give proof of transitional forms of animals in Darwinian evolution.

Organizers said he hadn't formulated a question and was just stating his point of view.

Babuna said afterward that the conference was clearly undemocratic. A statement from Yahya said, "Although there are discussion parts, they want this discussion to be one-sided."

Vatican teaching holds that Roman Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds. The church under Benedict has been trying to stress that, along with its overall belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason.

Pope John Paul II articulated the church's position most clearly in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, saying the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis."
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 06:24 am
Leaving aside the statement by Templeton and the Vatican that there were no strings attached to the grant, there is something more than a little ironic in a private foundation espousing a particular point of view complaining about a different private foundation espousing a particular point of view. As for the Muslim gentleman, there is something more than a little ironic about a Muslim complaining that the conference is "undemocratic." Conferences, on any subject, are not democratic institutions. Additionally, the Muslim world is not a place where democracy flourishes. Turkey is, of course, democratic--so long as one is not Kurd.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:28 am
@Setanta,
Ive had Franklin Templeton funds as a "Security". I am now reviseng the definition of financially secure to include anyone who lives beneath a cardboard shack in a Mexico City dump.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 07:29 am
@farmerman,
That's on the order of millions, if not tens of millions.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 08:59 am
@Setanta,
Security is when you are happy with the basic and simple things in life. Like plenty of grub, a good pub, a warm bed, some nut cases to take the piss out of, a decent library, either up stairs or just round the corner, digital TV and the odd spliff and the usual offices. Oh--I nearly forgot--free health care on the end of the phone. With helicopter winches if necessary.

Anything else and your pleasure knows no limit, your voice is like a meadow lark, your heart is like an ocean, mysterious and dark. Which is insecurity no matter how much money you have.

And if those who think otherwise would knock off wasting their time there would be no need for anybody to live in a cardboard shack anywhere. That's in Schopenhauer. Having a ******* boat--say. Complete waste of time. Think of the chemical toilet. Just for a moment. Never mind having to clean seafood out of the bowthrusters. (a real big-dickery giveaway if ever I saw one.) Vrooomvroom!! Mind your knuckles--this salt spray fair stings when you've skinned your knuckle skin off to near the bone. Are there no sea food repellents? It's a shame all those thousands of sea creatures, which look so stunning on the giant plasma screen with some Mozart on the sound when they are ******* about like they do, underwater, harming no one - blue colour tone--calming--- should have to get mangled in some silly sod's bowthrusters just because he's bored at home lying on the couch watching a Test Match, reading -say, Consuming Passions by Ms Philippa Pullar, having a maid bringing tea and biscuits about every hour, like Ms Mullen (RIP) played doing in the country doctor series Dr Finlay's Casebook to such good effect, strolling down to the pub reasonably exhausted and having the crack with the lads about how the government is going to stem the blood which is slow to clot pouring from our capitalist arteries, and the Captain thinks that's boring.

What do animal rights activists think about that? Or do they only do the little furry creatures which have a way of looking at the camera which melts everyone's stony heart. Lambs for example. Welsh for preference. It's the grass on the lower slopes in the valleys which gives Welsh roast lamb that bit of something else which other roast lamb can't reach. With a properly made mint sauce it is nothing short of exquisite. Ms Mullen would have been able to make the right mint sauce if the scriptwriters had told her to do. Andrew Cruickshank mimed "exquisite" for the cameras. What can't speak can't lie is what my old Dad was always saying. He didn't know Goethe had said the same thing many years previously. Which means what can speak lies. Like Omar said.

I think recessions are evolution's way of calming us down when we start looping the loop.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 09:11 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

VATICAN UPDATE
Quote:
Rome meeting snubs intelligent design, creationism
(By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press, March 5, 2009)

The Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design research, says it was shut out from presenting its views because the meeting was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation, a major U.S. nonprofit that has criticized the intelligent design movement.

The other reason it was shut out is because the Vatican recognizes a losing proposition when it sees one. Not only is ID invalid science, but it also undermines the basic foundations of religion by attempting to ground the spiritual in the physical. I suspect that the Vatican also recognizes that ID undermines the flexibility of their control over the message they want to send their followers. I'm not surprised that they reject it.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 09:58 am
@rosborne979,
Amen.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 10:08 am
@Lightwizard,
Lightwizard wrote:
Amen.

All religions really should reject ID as much as science does. By placing itself at odds with observable reality and aligning itself with religion, ID only serves to undermine the basic tenets of religion which have more to do with spirituality than physicality. It's dragging religion down into the dirt when religion really wants to be above all that.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 10:24 am
@rosborne979,
It's not terribly surprising that it's the Catholic church. They have wanted to correlated evolution with the Christian religion but in a very cautious way. Fundamentalist like Mel Gibson still insist on Latin in performing the mass, but then made fundamental mistakes in his movie by using Arabic, Latin and Hebrew. The letters of Paul and of the gospels - all written in Greek, the common tongue of the day and of the empire. ID would be repellent to the new Catholic church dogma.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 10:24 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
The other reason it was shut out is because the Vatican recognizes a losing proposition when it sees one. Not only is ID invalid science, but it also undermines the basic foundations of religion by attempting to ground the spiritual in the physical.


It is nice of ros to appraise us of Vatican thinking. Where one derives arrogance of that stratospheric nature from I cannot think.

The Vatican doesn't give a shite about losers. It is much more likely to see a serious rival in the ID movement, a heresy in the old terminology, and, like the female heart it has, it is unlikely to give publicity to such an apparition. Of course the ID movement will seek to play on such a shut-out to counter its effect and, indeed, to milk it for all it is worth. Dry.

It is also quite likely to encourage a merging of ID and creationism in the public mind and possibly pauses briefly to give thanks from time to time to all those who unwittingly promote the connection for similar reasons but who are not organised into a coherent body and are hence, superfluous in all other respects.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 10:28 am
@Lightwizard,
Lightwizard wrote:
It's not terribly surprising that it's the Catholic church. They have wanted to correlated evolution with the Christian religion but in a very cautious way. Fundamentalist like Mel Gibson still insist on Latin in performing the mass, but then made fundamental mistakes in his movie by using Arabic, Latin and Hebrew. The letters of Paul and of the gospels - all written in Greek, the common tongue of the day and of the empire. ID would be repellent to the new Catholic church dogma.

The Catholic Church is smart to keep itself above the fray. All ID does is weaken their position.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 11:22 am
@rosborne979,
They're sticking to their story, not something concocted by quasi-scientists from the cuckoo fringe of American conspiracy theorists cults.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 11:34 am
NewScientist, a British Magazine (hey, try Googling for ID organizations in Britain -- it's a wasteland) on the Texas failure of ID:

Creationism Defeated in Texas

* 17:50 26 January 2009 by Andy Coghlan

Campaigners against the teaching of creationism in science lessons last week celebrated a key victory in Texas.

In meetings to revise science standards in Texan schools, the 15 members of the Texas State Board of Education elected to get rid of wording which has allowed the standing of evolution to be attacked for 20 years in Texan science lessons.

The offending wording invites teachers and students to debate "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. In practice, this was used as a pretext to attack evolution in lessons and textbooks.

"Removing the concept of 'strengths and weaknesses', when the supposed weaknesses are completely bogus, is a real victory," says Michael Zimmerman of Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a campaigner against creationism.

"Its removal is a huge step forward," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, and a witness at board meetings last week in Austin, Texas.

Article continued at link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16485-creationism-defeated-in-texas.html
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:19 pm
@Lightwizard,
It's quite funny to see Eugenie (with the magic lamp) using "huge step forward" compared to Mr Armstrong's "one small step".

It's obvious which one feels the need to puff up the ego.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:27 pm
@Lightwizard,
The January 27 news reports about Texas were premature. The chairman of the Texas Education Board is committed to creationism. Later during the same week, he convinced a majority of the board members to approve new wording for Texas science standards:
Quote:
Analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.


So, basically, it is as if they consulted a thesaurus. "Sufficiency or Insufficiency" is not much different than the deleted "Strengths and Weaknesses".
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:30 pm
@wandeljw,
They have to play with word games, because that's all they have left.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 04:22:53