Churches Urged To Back Evolution
The BBC reports that American scientists want a stop to the undermining of evolution in American schools.
You know what? They can stuff it. If they want to teach secular nonsense, they can set up the "School for secular bollocks". I couldn't give a monkeys about whether a intelligent design undermines evolution, because:
- 1) Evolution is bollocks (at least macro-evolution is);
- 2) Intelligent design isn't - it's the truth.
Who for one minute can truly believe that a massive explosion caused a load of particles to smash in to each other, and then of their own accord, they formed an ape - an ape which then turned in to a human being. Yeah, I'm Mother Theresa.
Let's take a closer look at the article:
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.
It threatens scientific literacy? If it's so convincing, why are scientists running scared - and yes, life IS too complex to have evolved by itself.
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep the teaching of 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.
Parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, won a court battle over evolution. Some have already heeded the warning.
"The intelligent design movement belittles religion. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory.
Yes he bloody well is, amongst other things. It's not like he was wandering around the universe, stumbled across the Earth and thought, "right, I'm 'aving that! 'ow much is it, Del Boy? Two an' sixpence? Bargain!". How does reinforcing an omnipotent God belittle religion faith? It doesn't.
"Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify."
So that discounts the original design? Flawed argument.
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."
Amen! If there's no creator, there are no morals, and I may as well kill the lot of you - for we are reduced to a bunch of competing particles.
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 would 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.
At least George doesn't get everything wrong. Surely hiding your own science from criticism will hurt American science more than tackling criticism.
Basically, scientists seem afraid to show that their science isn't bollocks. Why? They can't prove it.
Bollocks is bollocks, and you can't change that.
There are currently 2 comments on this article.
mrsBenhttp://illyria.jedimoose.org
My goodness Noel! Is your collar billowing smoke?
2006-02-21 17:53:52
mrben
http://www.jedimoose.org
You know what the problem is - it's nothing to do with evolution or intelligent design (both of which have their flaws) - it's the people that want schools to only teach one. Schools should be teaching both, giving both equal weighting as theories. All of the wrangling over Intelligent Design has done NOTHING to improve peoples view of the church, not least because it's such a modernistic thing to do, and we left the modern era a long time ago.
2006-02-21 11:27:33