GSA's Position on Evolution (Time for "Deep Time"!);

Geological Society of America ^ | May, 2001 | Steven Stanley

[gobucks]

GSA Position Statement

Evolution — May 2001 Contributors: Steven M. Stanley — Chair

The Geological Society of America recognizes that the evolution of life stands as one of the central concepts of modern science. Research in numerous fields of science during the past two centuries has produced an increasingly detailed picture of how life has evolved on Earth.

The rock record is a treasure trove of fossils, and by 1841, eighteen years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, geologists had not only assembled much of the geologic time scale from physical relationships among bodies of rock, but they had also recognized that fossils document profound changes in life throughout Earth¹s history. Darwin showed that biological evolution provides an explanation for these changes. Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history, and biologists have continued to elucidate the process of evolution. Thus, our understanding of life¹s evolution has expanded through diverse kinds of research, much of it in fields unknown to Darwin such as genetics, biochemistry, and micropaleontology. In short, the concept of organic evolution has not only withstood the test of time — the ultimate test of any scientific construct — but it has been greatly enriched.

In recent years, certain individuals motivated by religious views have mounted an attack on evolution. This group favors what it calls "creation science", which is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation, including the idea known as intelligent design, fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.

This separation of domains does not mean that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Many scientists who conduct research on the evolution of life are religious, and many major religions formally accept the importance of biological evolution.

Misinterpreting the Bible's creation narratives as scientific statements, many creationists go so far as to attack the validity of geologic time — time that extends back billions of years. "Deep time" is the foundation of modern geology. It was actually well established, though not quantified, by geologists decades before Darwin published his ideas or most scientists came to accept evolution as the explanation for the history of life. Furthermore, thousands of geologists employing many new modes of research refined the geologic time scale during the Twentieth Century. Near the start of that century, the discovery of naturally occurring radioactive substances provided clocks for measuring actual ages for segments of the geologic record. Today, some billion-year-old rocks can be dated with a precision of less than a tenth of one percent. Moreover, modern geologists can identify particular environments where sediments that are now rocks accumulated hundreds of millions of years ago: margins of ancient oceans where tides rose and fell, for example, and valley floors across which rivers meandered back and forth, and ancient reefs that grew to thicknesses of hundreds of meters but were built by organisms that could not have grown faster than a few millimeters a year. By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life.

Acceptance of deep time is not confined to academic science. If commercial geologists could find more fossil fuel by interpreting the rock record as having resulted from a single flood or otherwise encompassing no more than a few thousand years, they would surely accept this unconventional view, but they do not. In fact, these profit-oriented geologists have joined with academic researchers in refining the standard geologic time scale and bringing to light the details of deep earth history.

Modern studies of the evolution of Earth and its life are not only aiding us in the search for natural resources, but also helping us to understand how the Earth-life system functions. Annual layers of ice in the Greenland glacier, for example, range back more than a hundred thousand years. These ice records warn that Earth¹s climate may change with devastating speed in the future. The geologic record also reveals how various forms of life have responded to past environmental change, sometimes migrating, sometimes evolving, and sometimes becoming extinct. In the present world, bacteria are now evolving rapidly in ways that render antibiotics ineffective; to respond to bacterial evolution, we must understand evolution in general.

The immensity of geologic time and the evolutionary origin of species are concepts that pervade modern geology and biology. These concepts must therefore be central themes of science courses in public schools; creationist ideas have no place in these courses because they are based on religion rather than science. Without knowledge of deep time and the evolution of life, students will not understand where they and their world have come from, and they will lack valuable insight for making decisions about the future of their species and its environment.

© 2001 The Geological Society of America top

[Markofhumanfeet]

I agree. If they are going to be chased away from the church, let the Word be preached at them. I'm sure that chases more away anyway

[Markofhumanfeet]

oh really? Tell that to the Jews who ate and are eating, manna

[gobucks]

I was taught that living a "Christ like life" was the best way to bring people to Him. I don't think Christ would sue school districts over a silly science issue.

I was taught the same thing, and believe it wholly. I'm pretty bad at implementing it still. Gotta a long way to go.

I can't but help supporting the YECs. It's quite true that some of the stuff the say about, oh let's take the Grand Canyon, is just out of this world wrong. But on the other hand, they simply see their kids being bitten by a fire they don't know how to fight using spiritual fire - so the grab the secular fire, and turn it back on the secular evolutionists and in effect, spam the crap out of them.

It won't "wake up" these stone-hearted people, but it does alert the kids themselves that the fight is indeed a spiritual fight.

Still, I grant it's not good for kids to base their faith on secular reasoning systems (though secular reasoning serves perfectly well for defending that faith). I, though, don't worry about trying to correct them. If they want to "upgrade" to my viewpoint, I'll speak to them. But, more importantly, they at least FIGHT for the hearts and souls of their kids - and too many kids today are not fought for at all.
A greater evil to not responding to this unreal tide of secular indoctrination is to be indifferent to it. No way I'm going to interfere with the efforts of the YECs - God will let them serve their purpose, as He will mine, as He will the contentious folks in the Levant.

Nope, pulling away sends the wrong message, especially to our kids. Better to fight, and adjust as new information comes along. Jesus had lots and lots of things to say when the Pharisee fanatical legalists tried to pin him down. He didn't pull back. Instead, he gave us a story about a blind man, mud from His spit, and the very interesting reaction of his parents to the investigation conducted by the Pharisees afterward...and left the choice of who we would be like to us. "I came not to bring peace, but to divide...." Ouch, how military-like that sounds. But, what can you say?

I think the creationists may make the secularists nuts - but I don't think they're more responsible for the damage suffered over the last 30 years at the hands of the secular thought police.

I think most of the damage occurs in multitudes of little drips - like when a kid is mouthing off to his mother in the store, and everyone just gets a quietly embarrassed, or frustrated, look on their face. And stay quiet. Like when drunken football fans are making life miserable for everyone around them - but no one wants to call security, and look "uncool". It's these billions of spiritual paper cuts endorsed by the priests of secular cool that should be addressed. To the YECs out there, I say I don't agree with much of the material - but your kids will learn how to stand up for the the weak later on by watching your example to day. Keep up the good work. And please account for the merit in narby's remark - the secularists are devilishly good at sowing doubt.

[gobucks]

And its better to believe in stories from a book?

Given a choice between "stories" and that's all we're really offered after all, I pick the one that promotes mercy. In Darwin's world, mercy is not the winning ticket to being "naturally selected". And I can report the secularists are passionate about that world indeed.

[rwfromkansas]

definitely more than one or two.....

A fairly good number actually.

But, I am an old Earth creationist. The Earth is old. This is extremely obvious scientifically, and it does not contradict Scripture. Scripture's account of the creation details how and when it happened, not the lapse of time from creation to now like young earth creationists seem to oddly argue.

Unlike evolution, the earth being old is one thing that all of science actually does support.

[WOSG]

"And its better to believe in stories from a book? "

Thanks for proving my point that one ought not jump to conclusions without the facts.

You shadowbox something that isnt there.

[Markofhumanfeet]

Was Adam born a baby or was he fully formed at birth? How about Eve? Was she born a little girl, or was she too "old" or fully formed? How about the animals that Adam named in the Garden? Were they babies or were they fully formed? Same with the earth, what is "young and old" in regards to it? Or is it just formed? How can creation be 'young or old" anyway? It just is, continually ongoing

[rwfromkansas]

If you attend a school in which the majority are Muslim or some non-Christian religion, your argument is valid.

Otherwise, it isn't.

There are a multitude of political views. Do you expect students to learn those hundreds of views, going way back to ancient China etc.? After all, we don't want to leave anybody's philosophy out, now do we? You obviously would not actually argue that because one political philosophy happens to be the majority in an area and gets a lot of attention that all those hundreds of views should be allowed in as well. What is so special about religion then? After all, religion and politics are twin topics they say not to talk about in casual convo like a date or something due to their controversial nature. Thus, it would seem to me that if you argue all religious views should be brought in (that will be quite the undertaking to get them all, mind you) if scientific creationism is taught, you logically would also have to argue the same about politics, that a couple views, conservative and liberal, are not enough.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[balrog666]

Well, isn't that special! Every religion that we know of stole (oh, make that borrowed or inherited, if you prefer) doctrine, rituals, and celebrations from previous religious beliefs and secular festivals.

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry lurks ...

[gobucks]

"They've obviously abandoned a literal reading of the Biblical account of creation." And what this all about regarding "any thinking Theist" acknowledging evolution as a "kind" of creation? Sounds like poorly disguised bait...

Hmm. I don't reject the creation story at all. It's a rather small fraction of the story. But, I know this. There are many evolutionists who want to destroy the inherent comprehension required for robust Christianity behind the creation story of Adam and Eve.

It's just that I know now why so much terribly distracting noise about evolution is present in today's discourse - it's to deafen the bible reader to the essential message in the Bible. If doubt, energy, time, whatever, is spent handwringing over "well, maybe it's possible we're just accidents of nature after all", then the secularists win. I believe they have to be resisted.

And though I acknowledged His hand in all things, it's the spectacular impact on my heart, and the hearts of my family that makes me just marvel....indeed, the Holy Ghost is a great mystery - but present as promised, figurable or not.

[WackyKat]

what is the reason for asserting that religious discussion doesnt belong in the public school? Do you really want American kids wholly and completely ignorant of religion totally? Why is ignorance a good thing in your book?

I asserted no such thing-stop mischaracterizing my posts.

In fact, I believe that children should learn about religions(that's plural) starting in elementary school.

They should learn the tenets and practices of all the major world religions, at least some minor and tribal religions, and mythologies of the past.

The caveat being that the religions should be studied objectively,with their doctrines and scriptures being analyzed as what they are- the creations of human beings, subject to human social, cultural, political, economic and psychological forces

[Dataman]

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution doesn't describe "matter from nothing". That's the "Big Bang" theory, which I have doubt's on myself.

While the evolutionary world view lacks such explanatory power as you profess, creationism does not. Nonetheless, you are seriously mistaken: Evolution is naturalism. IOW it looks for a naturalistic explanation for everything. Naturalists object to the supernatural so please tell us the natural way matter came into existence or humanity came from rocks.

To quote yourself, Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Dataman]

Perhaps this is why some view evolution as so anathema to Creationism: there is simply no way for mankind to have abandoned his sense of logic and reason (in favor of this kind of pure faith) and still be able to exist and evolve according to the laws of natural selection and "survival of the fittest." Man did not invent the spear because faith brought food to his table every night

Utterly and completely fallacious. Your fallacy is called "begging the question because it assumes the conclusion true in the premises. A second fallacy is that of equivocation because you have defined "faith" to suit your purposes.

Tell me some more about logic.

[Dataman]

There is no conflict between believing in Jesus and Evolution.

The law of noncontradiction says there is a conflict. You do claim to be logical, don't you?

[Modernman]

Western Civlilization would have likely worshiped Viking Gods otherwise.

The Roman Empire was about 10% Jewish in the 1st century AD, so that would have been a serious contender if Christianity had failed. Similarly, Mithraism (from which Cristianity draws some of its beliefs) was popular with soldiers, bureacrats, the nobility etc. Who knows what would have become the dominant religion in the West if Christianity had failed to spread.

[Modernman]

Have I been polite?

You have, and I hope I've done the same. I'm actually proud to say that I've never had a post pulled.