A+ | A- | Reset
Home

Battle of the ages: Bible versus science PDF Print
Posted by admin   
Sunday, 08 February 2009 15:03

The American Academy of Sciences has even launched a website defending evolutionary arguments which say man descended over millions of years from the apes.

By JEAN-LOUIS SANTINI, Sinchew

Two hundred years after the birth of British naturalist Charles Darwin, the debate between scientists and the religious right over the origins of man remains as heated as ever in the United States.

The controversy has even gained momentum in the United States in recent decades as creationists, who believe that God created man in His own image, have fought against only teaching evolution in the nation's classrooms.

Just last month the Texas education board adopted a resolution narrowly voting to drop references in the curriculum requiring teachers to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.

The move, which makes it harder to teach creationism in the state's schools, was hailed by the scientific community, although a final vote after public consultation is not due until late March.

"There are no weaknesses of evolution," Eugenie Scott, director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, told ScientificAmerican.com.

"That's not to say we understand everything that happened in evolution or the mechanisms that caused evolutionary change. But arguments about the details aren’t arguments about whether evolution took place. The creationists make that category error."

Texas is just the latest battleground in the conflict.

In 2005, the Kansas education board voted to allow the teaching in state schools of "intelligent design"--that all life including man is a divine creation--alongside evolution.

A similar decision in a small town in Pennsylvania a year earlier was challenged by parents who won a court decision barring the teaching of "intelligent design" in their school.

But the rise of the neo-creationist movement has scientists on their guard. The American Academy of Sciences has even launched a website defending evolutionary arguments which say man descended over millions of years from the apes.

"Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics," said David Masci, a researcher at the Pew Research Center.

"Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation's culture wars, manifest most recently in the 2008 presidential campaign," he said.

He highlighted how defeated Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin had spoken of being in favor of teaching creation science or intelligent design along with evolution.

And a recent Pew poll showed 63 percent of Americans believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being.

"Only 26 percent say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection," Maschi said.

The vast anti-evolution movement has developed over the decades, but has been sharply drawn in the courts since the famous 1925 case in Dayton, Tennessee, when a young biology teacher, John Scopes, was put on trial for teaching evolutionary theory.

The case was dramatically portrayed in the film Inherit the Wind in which Spencer Tracy played Scopes's defense lawyer. Scopes was found guilty of teaching theory that denied Divine Creation, and fined 100 dollars.

It was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban the teaching of evolution under the powers of the separation of religion and state.

In 1987, the Supreme Court then ruled it was against the constitution to force creationism to be taught in schools, as that would be promoting religion in the state education system.

Since then, creationists have adopted a different tactic presenting their movement as being suppressed by scientific thought and insisting that children should be given a choice by also being taught "intelligent design."

They contend there are "scientific alternatives to evolution--notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force," said Masci.
Comments (30)Add Comment
...
written by allangan2006, February 08, 2009 15:05:10
This is the non-Perak topic? Please re-publish some other day.
report abuse
disagree 20
agree 20
...
written by kc kua, February 08, 2009 15:06:11
Spritiual vs. Reality. In Politic,it cover Social and Public...so, Reality should come first!
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 5
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by ibabonma, February 08, 2009 15:23:44
Even if you are a human or even an ape, what difference does it make in people like Hee Yit Foong (the Kinta RM 5.00 prostitute), who looks like Zahid Hamidi.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 8
...
written by OVERLORD, February 08, 2009 15:24:17
Relax guys...MT admin just want us to take a break from all the frog bashing and whore lynching statements.... our fury might trigger the server to breakdown! what better way then to reflec on religion...hahaha..
cheers smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 14
...
written by PangurBan, February 08, 2009 15:25:18
Well this is not really irrelevant to the hot topic of the day. I mean the fact that UMNO exists is an argument AGAINST evolution.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by temenggong, February 08, 2009 15:31:44
Hee did not evolve. She remained the same monkey. That is the relevance here in the Perak Uprising!
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by tumbledore, February 08, 2009 15:41:57
take a break guys, Perak is lost!
take stock and plan the next move
I hope they won't go slack on the
legal actions.

the topic above is not irrelevant
as already said but should provoke
one to think.
we are living in the 21st. century
if we don't move forward others
would overtake us.
if you read all Petes articles carefully
you'll see many pointers. most of his
writeups could be a guide to a lot of
our malaysian people.

we should let facts lead us
but not superstition and beliefs

science is about reality
religion is virtuality
(hope I'm not wrong in saying so)
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 2
...
written by Sabahfan, February 08, 2009 15:43:00
Dear MT readers, this subject is relevant to all of us, past present and future.

firstly i say, that even the so called modern americans can be so stupid. They get sooo emotional over a topic that both sides cant prove anyway. To date, no one can prove the existence of god, all they have are numerous religious books and arguments and corrupted religous leaders, nothing more

Meanwhile the scientist are still struggling to prove their evolutionary theories. so while they are battling that out, for us ordinary folks, instead of being emotionally partisan, we should sit at the ring side seats and clap our hands waiting for the winner.
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 7
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by diablo95, February 08, 2009 16:52:56
homo eructus species dated 1.8million years ago found in Perak. homo sapiens evolved from the older species or were they dropped in?
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 3
...
written by densemy, February 08, 2009 17:37:02
This is VERY MUCH a Perak topic. The attitudes that dominate the Malaysian approach to Evolution and Creationism are the attitudes that lead to the fiasco that you call Perak

Narrow mindedness, Self Righteousness, Ignorance, Naivety, Inability to think for yourselves, Willingness to believe all you are told without question.

They are the attitudes that support Creationism and therein are the roots of the Perak fiasco
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 6
...
written by lovemalaysiarakyat, February 08, 2009 17:47:16
I believe in creationism. But I won't deny the existence of the theory of evolution. The champions are all over the world. But I won't "buy" these people over to my side to prove I am right. We should leave it to them to decide. Put forth arguments in a clear and factual way and everyone should make their own judgements.

That is important - to allow both sides to have their say. But here Perakians are not allowed to choose their own government.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 3
...
written by non conformist, February 08, 2009 18:03:26
There is absolutely no need to quarrel.

If a man chooses to believe that he descended from lower form of animals through evolution, let be so. Let him be consistent with his belief that he evolved from lower form of animals.

If a man chooses to believe that he is created in the image of God, let it be so, too. Let such a man walk humbly before the one true living God - to know Him and to glorify Him in all that he is and does.

Let the godless be themselves, and the godly be themselves too.
There is no point fighting and debating.
The great gulf between them will never be bridged.

It is either man chooses himself as god, the sole and final authority and arbiter of what is right and wrong... OR he choose His Maker as that final authority and arbiter of what is right and wrong.

If evolution be true, then who decides what is right and wrong?
The powerful says murder is right. Who is to say they are wrong?
Evolution says that MIGHT IS RIGHT - very much the behaviour of the UMNO.

If creation be true, then all men are equal under the absolute law of God, and answerable to Him.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 4
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by aryn, February 08, 2009 18:19:06
Lantak lah kamu kalau nak sangat jadi apes ke, kera ke, monyet ke!

No wonder behaviour also like apes and monyet. No boundries between morally right or wrong. And not afraid of the Creator by introducing so-called human ( should be ani-man for animal man) rights that condones every imaginable sins.

Me - A children of God.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 2
...
written by non conformist, February 08, 2009 18:46:46
There was once a great man who spoke foolishly, and he was challenged.

"1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 3
...
written by densemy, February 08, 2009 19:04:44
Believe whatever you like.... But always remember that your beliefs are actually someone else's beliefs that have been imposed on you

.. and whenever you go to the doctor, or go to buy food or go travelling or do almost anything in your everyday life... REMEMBER that all the biological and earth sciences are based on the concept of Evolution. You can no longer deny that fact and claim to be a thinking person
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 5
...
written by densemy, February 08, 2009 19:09:58
non conformist... it seems to have slipped your notice that its not up to anyone to disprove anything

In a court of law its up to the prosecutor to prove guilt, not the defense to prove innocence

In science its up to the scientist to prove his theory to his peers and the world at large. Its not up to him to disprove the opposition stand

In the world of Creationism its up to the Creationists to prove their theory... and they dont do that by disproving ( to their own satisfaction) the theories of the opposition

You cant just change the rules just because you dont like them
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 5
...
written by gorshan, February 08, 2009 19:16:11
God made the human and God made the apes. most of those in govt today are descended from the apes. habis cerita.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 4
...
written by samarlin, February 08, 2009 19:34:07
Hello Samsan,if God created us,who created God?Pls enlighten with logic and not some hogwash like end of argument,period,you sound like the Botak minister.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 6
...
written by cheekhiaw, February 08, 2009 20:29:46
Their god was created by some mud head who taught their god how to make the first man in its image by pressing some mud together and blowing some hot air over it.

Then their god was taught to make the first woman out of a bone from that mud man's rib.

After that, that mud pair made in the image of their god were taught by their god to make some more not by using mud and hot air but by humping like other wild animals which were not made in the image of their god. Just like those apes.

So easy and perfect, all mud heads also know. Only fools do not believe in it.

xxx
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by Sabahfan, February 08, 2009 21:46:44
T TEAM....M

whats wrong with my comment that stated....

whether we were created by allah, or evolved from the apes, it does not make a ffkk difference to Malaysia...

the YB still katak and the govt is appointed by corrupted people...

sooooo?????


report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by AsamLaksa, February 09, 2009 03:02:52
Chokma and the rest, the theory of evolution have been proven. There was even recently a new species of insect accepted to have evolved from the local insect over the last 10-20 years. It is no wonder the theory of evolution persists, because it is proven. Ask any biologist.

Even in the US court where the judge was said to be a very conservative one could not find fault with the teaching of evolution in US schools. There was little or no scientific basis for teaching creationist science from the little evidence they gave. Instead what the did was try to bring up doubts on evolution without providing evidence to back the doubts. Who are you trying to kid?

However the theory of evolution does not answer how life was created in the first place whereas the creationist claims they do. Creationist attempt to discredit the theory of evolution by targeting the details that evolution lack. The mechanism of evolution has been proven but not the mechanism of creationism. Not to mention that some of the creationist postulation are simply ridiculous.

Because of the ruling in USA of separation of religion from the classroom, the creationist side thus wanted to legitimise teaching creationism in schools by making it appear scientific, thus the invention of 'intelligent design'. Yup, it's about rebranding to bypass the separation of religion from the classroom. There were no new material, it's still the same stuff just leaving out direct reference to an almighty. They tried to pass off a teaching without any shread of scientific evidence as science. You'd think that they would claim that science is simply wrong but in fact the creationist lobby endorses science by trying to shape intelligent design into the scientific mould and have come up with all sorts of ridiculous scientific assumptions. Luckily the US court saw through the farce.

However this is not the end of the issue no matter how many court cases they have to go through. The creationist lobby will rebrand and try to worm their way in again. It will be the death of reason if creationist teaching as it is triumphs. I would be glad to accept any teaching as long as it can be proven via the scientific method, which is the basis of the burst of human advancement since the end of the dark ages.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 9
...
written by rpremkumar2u, February 09, 2009 08:55:44
Genesis is symbolic. The Tree of life represents the symbol of the human being if we are to look at from a pin hole camera point of view. The roots above in the head and connected via the spine (the trunk) right down to the fruit - the reproduction organs. In fact to have eaten the apple in the parlance of those days meant to have sexual intercourse. Perhaps the view of Adam being a symbol of reason and Even being symbol of feelings. When the sexual impulse is in the hormonal drive, Eve, then overcomes rational thought process being Adam. The tree trunk is the serpentine energy which courses throughout the spine which is represented as such. In essence, the sexual impulse causes the train of thought to derail. It becomes instinctively overpowering. Its the degree of balance that keeps one's behavior in check to procreate. Its nature's will to reproduce. Selective evolution is the result when weighed against the background of global happenings. It is the question of speculation to which degree is evolution and how our DNA evolved. There was a hue and cry in the USA when this issue was raised about conflicting views of science and theology as to be held in schools. Recently the DNA of the modern man was tracked back to a village in Africa. Which means the present human race originates from there.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 6
...
written by CPY, February 09, 2009 09:53:32
Well, Charles Darwin theory may be correct. A SIL and co desended from beruk while ppl like RPK, DS Nik Aziz may be 'pure' human. As for Perak, we wow to retake them!
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 4
...
written by Milo, February 09, 2009 15:37:23
Science did not state there is NO GOD...but merely state there is NO EVIDENCE of God (especially the interventionist Abrahimic version of him), which is a neutral statement. If there are sufficient proof of God's existence, there is no longer any need to debate, as it has become a fact.

Furthermore, the existence of God also depends on how you DEFINE what you mean by "God". Is God an almighty entity or just a collection of forces of the universe? You have to consider there are over few thousand sects of various religions in the world with slightly or vastly different views of who God is like. Obviously, it has to be those who made specific claims(and not the scientists) that his God is the TRUE VERSION OF HIM and that HE ACTUALLY EXIST AS CLAIMED to prove their position.

Without the need to prove a claim, it would mean you have, say, a 1/2,000 chance of getting it right, whichever religion you picked. That is quite a irrationally frightening odd, isn't it?

report abuse
disagree 0
agree 9
...
written by Milo, February 09, 2009 19:40:02
"Religion is simply irrelevant to science, and whether or not science contradicts religion may be of interest to theologians but it simply doesn't matter to scientists. What matters are the important questions science is dealing with, from the origin and future of the universe to the origin and future of life.
All this talk about science and religion gives the wrong impression, as it suggests reconciling them or not reconciling them is a big issue... it isn't. As I once put it to theologians at a meeting at the Vatican: theologians have to listen to scientists, because if they want to try to create a consistent theology (and while I have opinions about whether this is possible, but my opinions about this are neither particularly important nor informed) they at least need to know how the world works. But scientists don't have to listen to theologians, because it has no effect whatsoever on the scientific process."
LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS, a physicist/cosmologist, is Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 4

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
 
The Silent Roar
 BUY THE BOOK HERE
 **STOCKS NOW AVAILABLE**
 
** SPONSORED LINKS **
Will NATO become a global army? More..
Some Images Hosted With
Thank You ImageShack!
 BLOGGERS AGAINST ISA
People's Declaration

Powered and Optimized for:
Malaysia Today by MT-TEAM