½Å°úÇÐ/öÇÐ
Ãʽɸ®ÇÐ/ÀáÀç´É·Â
UFO/½Å¹°¸®ÇÐ
¿ÀÄÃƼÁò/¹Ì½ºÅ͸®

°úÇÐÀû, ºñ°úÇÐÀû ÀÇÇÐ
µ¿¼­¾ç ´ëüÀÇÇÐ

âÁ¶·Ð/°úÇÐÀû »ç½Ç¼º
âÁ¶·Ð/öÇаú Á¤Ä¡

½ºÄÎƽ½º/±âŸ ÁÖÁ¦
KOPSA ¹Ú¹°°ü

 

´ëÁ߸Åü ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µ
Áú¹®°ú ´ä

Åä·Ð¹æ¹ý
Åä·Ð»ç·Ê

¿¬±¸È¸¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ
¿¬±¸À§¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ

 

âÁ¶·Ð/öÇаú Á¤Ä¡
   
  ÃÖ±Ù ¹Ì±¹°ú ¿µ±¹ÀÇ ÁøÈ­·Ð, âÁ¶·Ð ±³À° ³íÀï
  ±Û¾´ÀÌ : kopsa     ³¯Â¥ : 02-03-23 13:50     Á¶È¸ : 8742    
ÃÖ±Ù ¹Ì±¹°ú ¿µ±¹ÀÇ ÁøÈ­·Ð, âÁ¶·Ð ±³À° ³íÀï 

¾à°£ ¿À·¡ ÀüÀÌÁö¸¸ 2001³â 4¿ù 11ÀÏ ±¹¹ÎÀϺ¸¿¡ ½Ç¸° "ÁøÈ­·Ð ¹Ý¹Ú ¡®Á¦2
âÁ¶·Ð¡¯ µæ¼¼"¶ó´Â ±â»ç¸¦ À¯½ÉÈ÷ º¸¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù. ÁöÀû ¼³°è·Ð(intelligent
design theory)À» Á¦2 âÁ¶·ÐÀÌ´Ï, °íµî¼³°è·ÐÀÌ´Ï ÇÏ¸ç »õ·Î¿î ±â¿îÀ̶ó°í
¼Ò°³ÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾ú½À´Ï´Ù.

1. ¹Ì ¿ÀÇÏÀÌ¿À ÁÖ ³íÀï

¿ì¸® ³ª¶óÀÇ ÁøÈ­·Ð¿¡ ¹Ý´ëÇÑ Ã¢Á¶·Ð ÁÖÀåÀº âÁ¶°úÇÐ(creation science)ÀÔ
´Ï´Ù. Çѱ¹ÀÇ Ã¢Á¶°úÇÐȸ°¡ ÁöÀû ¼³°è·ÐÀ» °ÅºÎÇÏ°í âÁ¶°úÇÐÀ» °í¼öÇÑ´Ù
´Â ³»¿ëÀº ¾Õ¼­ °Ô½ÃÇÑ ¹Ù ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¹Ì±¹¿¡¼­´Â 1987³â ¹Ì ´ë¹ý¿ø
ÀÌ Ã¢Á¶°úÇÐÀÇ µµÀÔÀ» À§ÇåÀ¸·Î ÆÇ°áÇÑ ÀÌÈÄ ÁöÀû ¼³°è·ÐÀÌ Àü¸é¿¡ ³ª¼­°í
ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

ÁöÀû ¼³°è·ÐÀ̶õ 'Æ´»õÀÇ Çϳª´Ô'(God in the gaps)À» ³Ö´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ°÷
°Ô½ÃÆÇ¿¡ 'Æ´»õÀÇ Çϳª´Ô'ÀÌ ¼³¸íµÅ ÀÖÁö¸¸, ÁöÀû ¼³°è·ÐÀÇ ±¸Ã¼Àû ¾ç»óÀº
¾ðÁ¦ (°øºÎÇÏ¿©)Á¤¸®ÇÏ°Ú½À´Ï´Ù. À̵éÀº ´ëü·Î °úÇп¡¼­ ¸»ÇÏ´Â Áö±¸ÀÇ ³ª
ÀÌ¿Í ±× ±â°£ µ¿¾È »ý¹°Ã¼°¡ ÁøÈ­Çß´Ù´Â °ÍÀº ÀÎÁ¤ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ÀÚ¿¬ ¼±
ÅÃÀÌ À¯ÀÏÇÑ ÁøÈ­ÀÇ ÈûÀ̶ó´Â °ÍÀº ÀÎÁ¤ÇÏÁö ¾Ê°í ¿¹¸¦ µé¾î º¹ÀâÇÑ »ý¹°
üÀÇ ÃâÇö¿¡ ÁöÀû ¼³°èÀÚÀÇ °³ÀÔÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

¿ÀÇÏÀÌ¿À ÁÖ ±³À° À§¿øȸ¿¡¼­´Â 2002³â ¿ÃÇØ ¾È¿¡ »õ·Î¿î °úÇÐ ±³À° ±âÁØ
À» äÅÃÇÒ °ÍÀ̶ó°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Á¾±³°è¿¡¼­ ÁöÀû ¼³°è·ÐÀ» µµÀÔÇÏ·Á°í Çϱâ
¶§¹®¿¡ ³íÀïÀÌ ¹ú¾îÁö°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ ÷ºÎÇÑ 2002³â 3¿ù 12ÀÏ ´º¿åŸÀÓ
½º ±â»ç¸¦ Âü°íÇϽʽÿÀ. âÁ¶·ÐÀÚ´Â ÁöÀû ¼³°è·ÐÀ» Á¾±³°¡ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ÁøÈ­·Ð
ÀÇ ´ë¾ÈÀû °úÇÐ ÀÌ·ÐÀ¸·Î ¿ËÈ£ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ´Â °ú°Å âÁ¶°úÇÐ ÁöÁöÀÚÀÇ Á¢±Ù
°ú ´Ù¸§¾ø½À´Ï´Ù.

2. ¿µ±¹ Á¾±³°è Çб³ÀÇ »ý¹° ±³À° ¹®Á¦ 
 
¾Æ·¡ 2002³â 3¿ù 15ÀÏ¿¡ ÀÛ¼ºµÈ Independent ±â»ç¸¦ ÂüÁ¶ÇϽʽÿÀ. ÀӸŴº
¾ó Ä®¸®Áö (Emmanuel College)ÀÇ ÁøÈ­·Ð ±³À° ¹®Á¦·Î ³íÀïÀÌ ÀÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï
´Ù. ÀÌ ±â¼ú ´ëÇÐÀº ±âµ¶±³ Àú±³È¸ÆÄ(Low Church, ¹Ì±¹ÀÇ º¹À½ÁÖÀÇÆÄ) ½Å
ÀÚÀÎ ¹é¸¸ÀåÀÚ ¹Ùµð °æ(Sir Peter Vardy)ÀÌ ½ºÆù¼­°¡ µÅ¼­ ¼¼¿ü´Ù°í ÇÕ´Ï
´Ù. ÃÖ±Ù¿¡µµ âÁ¶·Ð ÇмúȸÀÇ °°Àº °ÍÀÌ ¿­·È´Ù°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

ÀÌ ´ëÇÐ ±³¼öµéÀÌ(city technology college, teacher) »ý¹°Çп¡¼­ ÁøÈ­·ÐÀÌ
¾Æ´Ï¶ó âÁ¶·ÐÀÚÀÇ Çؼ®À» °¡¸£Ä¡´Â °ÍÀÌ ¹®Á¦°¡ µÆ½À´Ï´Ù. ¿µ±¹¿¡¼­´Â Áø
È­·ÐÀ» °¡¸£ÃÄ¾ß Çϳª µ¡ºÙ¿© âÁ¶·ÐÀ» °¡¸£Ä¡´Â °ÍÀº ÀÚÀ¯¶ó°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
ÀÌ °æ¿ì ÁøÈ­·Ðº¸´Ù âÁ¶·ÐÀ» °­Á¶ÇÑ °ÍÀÌ ¹®Á¦°¡ µÈ °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. µµÅ²½º
(Richard Dawkins) µî ¿µ±¹ÀÇ ÁöµµÀû °úÇÐÀÚµéÀÌ Á¾±³°è Çб³ÀÇ »ý¹° ±³
À°À» °¨»ç(inspection)ÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í ÁÖÀåÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. 

Åä´Ï ºí·¹¾î ¿µ±¹ ÃѸ®´Â ÀÇȸ¿¡¼­ ÀӸŴº¾ó Ä®¸®Áö°¡ âÁ¶·ÐÀ» ÁøÈïÇÏ°í
ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀÌ "¾î´À Á¤µµ °úÀåµÆ´Ù"°í ¸»ÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸µµµÆ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯ÀÚ
µµÅ²½º´Â ÀÌ Çб³°¡ °¨»ç¿¡¼­ ÁÁÀº Á¡¼ö¸¦ ¹Þ¾Ò´Âµ¥ °¨»ç°üÀÌ Á¦´ë·Î °¨»ç
ÇÏÁö ¸øÇ߰ųª ½ÇÁ¦ ¹«½¼ ÀÏÀÌ ÀÖ´ÂÁö ³ªÅ¸³»Áö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù°í Çß½À´Ï´Ù. ºí·¹
¾î ÃѸ®°¡ ÀÌ º¸°í¼­¸¸À» ¾Ë°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â ¶æÀÔ´Ï´Ù. 
 
ÀÌ ³íÀï¿¡´Â ÅÏºÒ ÁÖ±³(Bishop Michael Turnbull)ÀÇ À̸§µµ ³ªÅ¸³³´Ï´Ù.
¼º°øȸ¿Í °ü·ÃµÇÁö ¾Ê³ª »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×´Â ÀӸŴº¾ó Ä®¸®Áö¸¦ ºñÆÇÇÏÁö´Â
¾Ê°í Àç°¨»ç¸¦ ÁöÁöÇß´Ù°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ´Ü, ¾Æ¸¶µµ µµÅ²½º¿Í °°Àº öÀúÇÑ ÁøÈ­
·ÐÀÚ°¡ ¾Æ´Ñ Á߸³ÀûÀÎ °úÇÐÀÚµé·Î ÇÏ¿©±Ý ÀÌ Çб³ÀÇ »ý¹° ±³À°À» ´Ù½Ã Á¶
»çÅä·Ï ÇÑ´Ù´Â ÀÔÀåÀÔ´Ï´Ù. 

¿ì¸® ³ª¶óÀÇ ±âµ¶±³°è°¡ âÁ¶°úÇÐÀ» ÁöÁöÇÏ´Â °Í°ú ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î, Á¾±³´Â â
Á¶·Ð ÆíÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÅÏºÒ ÁÖ±³µµ âÁ¶·ÐÀ» Áö¿øÇÏ¿© "¾î¸°¾ÆÀÌ°¡ ´Ù¾çÇÑ Ã¢Á¶
ÀÇ °ßÇظ¦ ¾Ëµµ·Ï ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº °¡´ÉÇÏ´Ù"°í Çß½À´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í ÀӸŴº¾ó Ä®¸®
ÁöÀÇ ¿ì¼öÇÑ ±³À° ¼º°ú·Î º¸¾Æ "ÇлýµéÀ» ¼¼³úÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó »ç°í ¹æ¹ý
À» °¡¸£Ä¡°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ³ªÅ¸³½´Ù"°í Çß½À´Ï´Ù.

3. ¿µ±¹ ÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ °ßÇØ 

¿µ±¹ Independent´Â ÀӸŴº¾ó Ä®¸®Áö ±â»ç¿Í ÇÔ²² ¿©·¯ ÇÐÀÚµéÀÇ ½Ã°¢À»
´Ù·ç¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡ ¿ø¹®À» ÷ºÎÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù. ¸¹Àº »ç¶÷ÀÇ ¸»ÀÌ Àִµ¥, ¼Ò
¼ÓÀÌ ³ª¿Í ÀÖ´Â ºÎºÐÀ» °£Ãß·Á º¾´Ï´Ù.

Peter Atkins
Science author and chemistry lecturer at Oxford University
°úÇÐÀº Á¾±³¿Í ¾ç¸³ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Ù.

Lewis Wolpert
Professor of biology at University College London
Àß È®¸³µÈ °úÇаú Á÷Á¢ÀûÀ¸·Î ¹èÄ¡µÇ´Â °æ¿ì¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÏ°í Á¾±³ ±³À°¿¡ ¹Ý´ë
ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.

Joel Edwards
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance
ÁøÈ­·ÐÀº Çϳª´Ô¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ¿ìÁÖÀÇ Ã¢Á¶¸¦ ºÎÁ¤ÇÏÁö ¸øÇÑ´Ù.
 
Keith Porteous Wood
Executive director of the National Secular Society
Çб³´Â »ç½ÇÀ» °¡¸£Ä¡´Â °÷ÀÌ´Ù. Á¾±³´Â °¡Á¤À̳ª ±³È¸¿¡¼­ ÇÒ ÀÏÀÌ´Ù.
 
Sir Neil Chalmers
Director of the Natural History Museum in London
âÁ¶·ÐÀº ÇüÆí¾ø´Â(bad) °úÇÐÀ̸ç ÇüÆí¾ø´Â Á¾±³ÀÌ´Ù. µÑ ´Ù Çб³¿¡ ÀÚ¸®
°¡ ¾ø´Ù.

Chris Stringer
Head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London
°úÇÐ, ƯÈ÷ »ý¹°ÇÐÀ» ÀûÀýÇÏ°Ô °¡¸£Ä¡±â À§Çؼ­´Â Á¾±³ÀÇ °£¼·ÀÌ ¾ø¾î¾ß
ÇÑ´Ù.

Sir Martin Rees
Astronomer Royal and Cambridge scientist
¾î¸°ÀÌ¿¡°Ô ÁøÈ­·ÐÀ» °¡¸£ÃÄ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¸Áö ¾Ê´Ù¸é À̵éÀº ÁöÀûÀ¸·Î °áÇÌ
µÇ°Ô ¼ºÀåÇÑ´Ù.

Sir Gabriel Horn
Head of zoology at Cambridge University
°úÇб³À°°ú Çϳª´ÔÀÇ Á¸Àç¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÏÀ½Àº ¹èÄ¡µÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. Çϳª´ÔÀÇ Á¸Àç
¸¦ ³í¹ÚÇÒ Áõ°Å¸¦ Á¦½ÃÇÒ °æÇèÀû ½ÃÇè¹ýÀÌ °í¾ÈµÇÁö ¸øÇß´Ù.

Zaki Badawi
Principal of the Muslim College
Á¾±³°è Çб³¿¡¼­ âÁ¶·ÐÀ» Âü(truth)À¸·Î °¡¸£Ä£´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù. ´ë
ºÎºÐ Çб³´Â ±×°ÍÀº ÀºÀ¯(metaphor)·Î °¡¸£Ä£´Ù.
 
......................................
*¿ÀÇÏÀÌ¿À ÁÖ Ã¢Á¶·Ð ³í¶õ
Ohio debates evolution
Scientists accuse intelligent-design plan of 'trying to put God in the
gaps'
Francis X. Clines, New York Times   
Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Columbus, Ohio -- Proponents of the intelligent-design movement,
which challenges Darwin's primacy in the science classroom, argued
yesterday for equal footing in the state's new teaching curriculum,
while critics warned that speculative theories of some ultimate agent
underpinning evolution were the antithesis of true science.

Hundreds of people sat for more than two hours at a hearing on the
issue by the State Board of Education, listening to abstruse arguments
about the bacterial flagellum and the peppered moth before one of four
clashing scholars finally used the G-word that had attracted the crowd
in the first place.

"The real danger is in trying to put God in the gaps," said Lawrence
Krauss, the physics chairman at Case Western Reserve University.

Krauss argued that while much remained to be discovered about natural
selection, Darwin's theory had only grown in strength through decades
of repeated experimentation and discovery that intelligent design had
not been subjected to.

In contrast to the biblical literalism of creationists, proponents of
intelligent design acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old
and that organisms evolve over time. But they dispute that natural
selection is the sole force of evolution, arguing that life is so complex
that some sort of intelligent designer, whether called God or something
else, must be involved.

Members of the school board, which will vote this year on a new
curriculum - - the old one having come up for routine review -- asked
for the hearing yesterday despite a strong endorsement of evolution
teaching from the board's curriculum advisory panel.

"There are unanswered questions," Krauss conceded of evolution, even
as he warned that intelligent-design proponents were trying to force
"unanswerable questions" about some theoretical instigator of life onto a
school curriculum properly limited to the rigorous proofs of science.

With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute,

a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific theories,
contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian evolution
to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the classroom
curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but as a
matter of "a growing scientific controversy."

"I'm not trying to tell you who's right and who's wrong here," Wells,
a biologist and religious studies scholar, said in denying critics'
accusation that the intelligent-design movement was a new approach,
veiled in scientific trappings, to force theism into the public schools. "Is
the design that we all see real or merely an appearance?" Wells asked.

He argued that teachers should be entitled to plumb this question as a
matter of intellectual fairness for their students, based on what he
described as significant recent criticisms of neo-Darwinian theories
about random mutations and the creation of new organisms.

Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, told the board
that the state of "scientific controversy" being repeatedly claimed by the
two speakers for intelligent design was nonexistent among most
scientists. Instead, he said, it was "propped up from outside the
scientific community" in a move to pressure legislators and school
officials to overrule the scientific mainstream.

One of the best lessons a teacher can offer students is to "let them
know science has limitations," Miller said. He complained that the
theory advanced by intelligent-design advocates had not been submitted
to peer review and experimentation the way other theories must be
tested to be scientifically accepted.

"They're not a part of science," Krauss added. "What they're really
attacking here is not Darwinism but science."
 
.........................................
*¿µ±¹ ÀӸŴº¾ó Ä®¸®Áö ³íÀï
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
22 March 2002 22:07 GMT
Storm over teaching of creationism at school
Scientists and bishop enter growing debate on whether pupils should be
taught religious alternatives to Darwinism
By Ian Herbert North of England Correspondent
15 March 2002

Can religion and science ever be compatible in education?
John Rentoul: Blair's faith much misunderstood
Paul Vallely: Evolution is God's method of creation

The Bishop of Durham indicated yesterday that a school where
fundamentalist Christian teachers stand accused of undermining the
scientific teaching of biology should subject itself to further examination
by inspectors.

The Rt Rev Michael Turnbull joined the growing debate about
Emmanuel College in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, where there is
evidence to suggest Christian teachers are emphasising a creationist
interpretation of biology over Darwinian science.

Bishop Turnbull refused to criticise the city technology college ?
designated a beacon school by the Labour government and defended by
Tony Blair in the House of Commons ? but backed calls for
re-inspection, by independent scientists who did not have a Darwinian
axe to grind. "It is possible to put to children a variety of views of
creation," said Bishop Turnbull. "The good academic results of this
school suggest not that pupils are being brainwashed but being taught
to think."

The college  built with ¡Ì2m of sponsorship from Sir Peter Vardy, the
multimillionaire envangelical Christian entrepreneur who runs the Reg
Vardy car dealerships hosted a creationist conference last weekend. A
series of lectures by its senior staff have included tips for teachers on
techniques that can be used to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

Professor Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University scientist, joined a
growing group of concerned scientists yesterday, criticising the
"ludicrous falsehoods" being taught and demanding a re-inspection: "I
can only think that the inspectors overlooked or were not shown what
was going on in science teaching."

But the college's glowing Oftsed report in January 2001 rules out
reinspection unless Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education,
intervenes. Ofsted indicated yesterday it had received a letter from
Professor Dawkins but said the one-year period during which
inspectors' work could be challenged had passed without a single
complaint from parents. Only in "extreme circumstances"  such as when
a school is out of control were unscheduled inspections held.

The Ofsted report makes no reference to science teaching but, in a list
of characteristics that "please parents and carers most", it places
"Christian values and beliefs" at the top.

Within the national curriculum, schools must teach evolution but can
teach creationism as well, leaving Emmanuel's teachers free to present
evolution as a "theory" no different from the idea that the world was
made in six days. The school's prospectus states "Christian Truth must
play a vital part in any genuine attempt to educate young people, not
to force belief on people but to ensure proper consideration is given to
the Bible and its claims."

Nigel McQuoid, the headteacher, accused Professor Dawkins, and Liberal
Democrat MP Jenny Tonge, who raised the issue in the Commons, of
attempting to stifle debate. "This....is what happens sometimes when
liberalism takes over The national curriculum insists children are
confronted with the controversial issues of evolution. I am not
interested in blinding children to any one side by showing them the
other.

"I want the science to be examined and for science to speak for itself. I
want those to have a face, to ask themselves 'Does my faith have any
scientic evidence?'. In our science lessons at the moment we give more
weight to evolution because that has been in the national curriculum for
years. But we have assemblies and RE lessons so children are
confronted by biblical stories. This is controversial, I agree, but it is
not damaging for pupils to be involved in controversy."

His position does not entirely tally with the one that emerged in a
lecture to an adult audience given at the college last year by the
vice-principal, Gary Wiecek, who stated: "As Christian teachers it is
essential we are able to counter the anti-creationist position ... It must
be our duty ... to counter these false doctrines with well-founded
insights."

At the school gates, parents appeared convinced by Mr McQuoid
yesterday. "We are not a religious family, we do not go to church,"
said one. "My daughter has come home at times and said that she has
been concerned by the amount of emphasis on religion but that has
been during assemblies and such like, not during lessons. The school's
record on science speaks for itself; the results have been excellent for
years."

....................
*±³À°¿¡¼­ Á¾±³¿Í °úÇÐÀº ¹èÄ¡µÇ´Â°¡?
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
22 March 2002 22:12 GMT

Can religion and science ever be compatible in education?
15 March 2002
Storm over teaching of creationism at school

John Rentoul: Blair's faith much misunderstood
Paul Vallely: Evolution is God's method of creation

Peter Atkins
Science author and chemistry lecturer at Oxford University
"Science is incompatible with religion, regardless of what the religious,
desperate to preserve their dwindling patch, may say.

"The worst type of religion such as the junk intellectual deceitful pulp
peddled as creationism  seeks to undermine the one true way we have
of arriving at an understanding of our wonderful world, which is by
publicly shared experimentation allied with thoughtful reflection, and
undermines the ability of people to think honestly, which is what
education should be about.

"Even the more respectable forms of religion, such as institutionalised
Christianity and Islam, propagate manifest nonsense that is totally
incompatible with our scientific under- standing of the world and can
lead to the adoption of attitudes with appalling consequences.

"These religions should be taught only as a part of our cultural history,
for their impact there is undeniable, but they should be presented only
as quaint ways of disguising ignorance, propagating wishful thinking,
and exercising power over the ignorant and weak."

Lewis Wolpert
Professor of biology as applied to medicine at University College
London

"I have no objection to religious education, except when it directly
contradicts well-founded science. For example, it would be totally
unacceptable to teach the Earth was the centre of the universe and the
Sun rotated around us. With creationism it is the same ? all the
scientific evidence supports the most important idea in all of biology,
namely Darwinian evolution. While accounts of miracles may not be in
accord with science, such stories do not try to compete with scientific
explanations and they are not taught in the science curriculum; they are
part of religious studies.

"The biblical view of creation and the existence of God is, as Hume
said, based on faith and there is no attempt to put it alongside science
as an explanation of events ? it is part of religious faith."

Joel Edwards
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance

"This should not be seen as a gladiatorial confrontation be-tween
science and the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory does not 'disprove'
the creation of the cosmos by God.

"We would support Emmanuel City Technology College's right to allow
its science teachers to discuss theistic and Biblical accounts of origins
with their pupils, in combination with Darwinian and other evolutionary
models."

Keith Porteous Wood
Executive director of the National Secular Society:

"Schools should be about the teaching of facts. Science lessons should
be for teaching science, not creationism, which has as much scientific
validity as claiming the sun revolves around a flat earth. Schools
should teach about religion, in art, literature and history, and about
comparative religion. But myths and religious devotions should be a
private matter for the home or place of worship.

"The Department for Education should proscribe the teaching of
creationism as science immediately as well as the teaching of religion
as fact in all publicly funded schools."

Sir Neil Chalmers
Director of the Natural History Museum in London

"Creationism is bad science and bad religion. Neither has a place in our
schools.

"Good science reveals the evolution of life on Earth over billions of
years. Good religion will come to terms with, rather than reject, the
facts about our evolutionary past."

Chris Stringer
Head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London

"I believe that the proper teaching of science, and particularly biology,
cannot take place under religious interference. These subjects should be
kept quite separate.

"In its religious instruction classes, does the school in question try to
give equal time and balanced treatment to all the different religions
with their distinctive creation myths?"

Sir Martin Rees
Astronomer Royal and Cambridge scientist

"It's sad the dialogue between science and religion seems, in this recent
instance, to have sunk to the strident and naive level that I'd hoped
was confined to Kansas and the American deep south. The theory of
evolution ? and, indeed, current concepts of our terrestrial and cosmic
environment ? should figure in everyone's education, along with world
history.

"Children would grow up intellectually deprived if they weren't exposed
to Darwinism. As Darwin himself said: 'There is grandeur in this view
of life.'

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence against simplistic
creationism. Even the Catholic Church now officially endorses
Darwinism. Among the scientists I know, there are firm adherents of
many faiths, as well as many agnostics and some atheists. Science
need not conflict with religious attitudes and practices, which are also a
proper part of education."

Sir Gabriel Horn
Head of zoology at Cambridge University

"I see nothing incompatible between the teaching of science in schools
and belief in the existence of God. Scientists seek to understand the
universe ... through observation and experiment. Science is an empirical
discipline. So far as I am aware, no empirical tests have been devised
that provide compelling evidence to refute the existence of a God."

Zaki Badawi
Principal of the Muslim College

"Of course they are incompatible. The only way to reconcile it is to
consider one as metaphor, and the only version that can be considered
meta-phor is found inreligious books.

"Teaching religion as true would bring students into a lot of trouble
and would confuse them, because the entire education system is based
on the scientific assumptions.

"I don't think the faith schools are teaching creation as truth. Most
schools are teaching it as metaphor."
.............................