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

[WackyKat]

Just because we would present say a tradition western Christian view of things, why must there be equal time for any other particular view?

Because indoctrination into your sectarian religious views has no place in the public schools, that's why

[balrog666]

Just because we would present say a tradition western Christian view of things, why must there be equal time for any other particular view?

Buy a clue, WOSG. Christianity is not the only "western" religion, nor is there only "one true version" of Christianity.

[WOSG]

A goodly part of the "Scientific establishment" has been getting coopted by non-scientifiy politicial pugilists.

I can see it when I read the now slanted scientific American, now taking cudgels out against religion and skeptics of the new religion - environmentalism.

Michael Crichton has a great speech on the politicized version of science that has taken over activities like global warming and the search for extraterrestrials. Have a gander:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

he has other great speeches on that site btw.

[gobucks]

And indeed, I noticed that too. Pedantic.

I own a book written by a geochemist who really is a "god" in this field. Isotopic Geochronometers are actually not too bad; it's the assumptions behind the sample itself that can get dicey.

Sometimes a lot depends on the amount of the desired grant that's being applied for ("wow, it's just amazing my conclusions, see they are all right here, along with these reasonable assumptions, and, gee, with the extra grant, along with the 50 percent cut for the university (and that's a state school!), I can support more grad students, AND even get a publication out of it"!!) Humph. I guess I sound a bit jaded.

I guess it's "low" only if you think a million years is a "shallow" time, heh, heh. Heck, I'm still getting a kick out this "deep time" term. These people reveal so easily just how stupid they think people are....

[Modernman]

Just because we would present say a tradition western Christian view of things, why must there be equal time for any other particular view?

Because, if a school teaches only one religious ideology, it means that taxpayers within that school district who happen to be non-Christian are forced to see their tax dollars spent on Christian education. If you don't see a problem with that, well.....

You think we need to give equal time to free enterprise economics, communism and the "economic systems of the African pygmies".

Those concepts aren't religious concepts. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[WOSG]

Because indoctrination into your sectarian religious views has no place in the public schools, that's why"

A. It is *Not* my particlar view. I happen to agree with evolutionary theory. In your whackyKat arrogance you take anyone who disagrees with your extreme and absolutist viewpoint as being on the other extreme. Some things are not black and white. IMHO, there is nothing offensive at sharing different viewpoints with kids and you'd have to be pretty narrow-minded to think it would harm kids.

B. There is not a whit sectarian about saying something like "God created the earth". Please tell me what is sectarian about that.

C. Presenting views is not "indoctrination" - if it were, the creationists are right: Tellig them about evolution is "indoctrinating them into evolution".

D. The poster said that it would be okay to have creation theory taught in schools, under certain conditions. Do you agree? If not, argue with her.
I find the 'equal time' argument phony. Do you agree?

E. Lastly your assertion - 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?

[gobucks]

I think in fairness Spiff sees a determined effort by the evolutionists, as I do, to denigrate, and destroy a belief in God through this teaching known as "evolution".

The problem is simple - it's a teaching that actually encourages a young man or woman to see themselves as a "god". So, it's seen by us Christians as a competing faith system. But, it takes awhile to wade through the spin if you're on your own.

[King Black Robe]

I do not believe anyone is asking for a creation story to be taught in science class. They would like real debate on the strength and weaknesses of the Darwin theory and some acknowledgement that there are other scientific opinions. I can't see what everyone is so afraid of. If your argument is as solid as you claim, what's the harm in a little debate -- in class.

[WOSG]

Huh? What other "western religion" is there that guided the civilization of Europe and America for the last 1800 years?

The Wiccan neo-pagan Bullcr*p that was invented in the 1950s? See its roots debunked here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2001/01/allen.htm

Kwanzaa, invented in the 1970s? Nope!

Christianity and ... anybody, anybody ....

" nor is there only "one true version" of Christianity."

Which only magnifies my point. Why does any particular sect reqire "equal time"?

[Modernman]

C. Presenting views is not "indoctrination" - if it were, the creationists are right: Tellig them about evolution is "indoctrinating them into evolution".

You only want to present certain religious views. That equals indoctrination, in my book.

E. Lastly your assertion - what is the reason for asserting that religious discussion doesnt belong in the public school?

Because many people have no interest in having the public schools teach their kids about religion. We would prefer to handle that on our own, rather than leaving it to the tender mercies of the public education system.

Do you really want American kids wholly and completely ignorant of religion totally? Why is ignorance a good thing in your book?

I would prefer to leave the decision as to what religion, if any, their kids should learn about, to parents and their clergy of choice. Why do you insist on using my tax dollars to subsidize your religious beliefs?

[gobucks]

My calculator says 1 e9 times .001 equals 1e6...Puleasseee don't tell me i have screwed this Up!!

[Modernman]

I think in fairness Spiff sees a determined effort by the evolutionists, as I do, to denigrate, and destroy a belief in God through this teaching known as "evolution".

How so? Evolution is nothing more than the best theory science knows of to describe the process as to how species change over time. It only adresses the "how," it is completely agnostic (for want of a better word) as to the "why." The "why" is best left to theologians.

The problem is simple - it's a teaching that actually encourages a young man or woman to see themselves as a "god".

Evolution does no such thing. I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

[Modernman]

I do not believe anyone is asking for a creation story to be taught in science class.

Not yet, of course. However, creationists are not interested in simply pointing out the flaws in evolution. Rather, the long-term goal is to get evolution out of the classroom altogether.

[tx_eggman]

Only one problem from a Christian perspective and it's not with the time frame but with the method.

I have no issue with Deep Time but: scripture informs me:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned - Romans 5:12

and

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. - Romans 8:22

Evolution requires that countless billions of deaths had to occurr during the process.

Scripture says death didn't enter in until man sinned.

I haven't been able to reconcile the two, but given that I have a vibrant relationship with the author of the first proposition I think I'll stick with Him ...

[WOSG]

Because, if a school teaches only one religious ideology, it means that taxpayers within that school district who happen to be non-Christian are forced to see their tax dollars spent on Christian education. If you don't see a problem with that, well..... "

I am forced to pay for religious ideology in schools, it just goes under the PC terms of 'diversity' or other cr*p.
Christians have alos made the correct point that Secular Humanism is in effect the religion that is taught in schools today. Not to mention my forced support of other immoralities, like our local abortion clinics funded with my tax money and ad campaigns I dont agree with. So while I do understand the problem of forcing taxpayers to fund what they disagree with, I dont see how making religous people pay for irreligious education is a 'wonderful solution' to the dilemma.

You want it to be the exlusive religion taught, or that all others should be equal. I think that is bunk, because there is not equality of adherents in communities to all those views. Why not let a community that is 80% Christian make an 80% contribution to Christian viewpoint, and make it 20% for others? Throw in a Hannukah song at the *Christmas* pageant, rather than walk on eggshells about the "winterfest" - what PC cr*p, just because a cranky atheist doesnt want his tender eardrums assaulted by Silent Night. My answer: "Humbug! Merry Christmas!" :-)

The solution is school choice, not trying to fit all members of the community into on secularized box that deracinates the community of any common religious community.

The secularists hate that, of course, because they like it just fine to raise the next generation ignorant of religion and God. New agers love it too, since new-age is just pscho-babble pablum BS that takes the hokum from the old religions, removes all that is fine and good, and keeps the superstitious bunk. Old wine in new skins, without that odor of "judgment". You couldnt 'sell' that product unless you had young kids, thoroughly ignorant of our 3000 year old rich heritage of wisdom, spirituality, saintliness, and piety, yearning for some "meaning" in our crass materialistic life.

... ah, but I rant.

The solution also is not ridding the schools entirely of any mention of religion. That IMHO is ignorant, stupid and blind, mis-educating children in the worst way by denying them any context in moral education.

The solution, again, is CHOICE. Letting kids know that Creation Science is out there, beleived by (some) Christians, is one way to give them a choice in this matter. Remember, evolution doesnt work without choice!

[WOSG]

E. Lastly your assertion - what is the reason for asserting that religious discussion doesnt belong in the public school? Because many people have no interest in having the public schools teach their kids about religion

I have no interest in my kids being taught sex education in schools. None. Zero. Waste of time.

By your logic, we should forbid sex education throughout the land. Do you agree?

[Physicist]

creationist ideas have no place in these courses because they are based on religion rather than science.

More to the point, creationist ideas have largely been proven false.

[balrog666]

Huh? What other "western religion" is there that guided the civilization of Europe and America for the last 1800 years?

If you think western civilization started 1800 years ago, you need to go back to history class.

As for your further hysterical rantings, please try and make a coherent sentence out of what you posted and I will try to reply.

Why does any particular sect reqire "equal time"?

Well, gee, how about: I pay taxes too and want a voice in how my money is spent.

Or: I want that only my brand of religion be taught (and it isn't the same as yours).

Or, maybe: I don't want my children exposed to your religious idiocy and advocacy before they learn to think for themselves.

Or, even: Satan deserves equal time.

Or, how about: Keep all mythology out of science class.

Feel free to pick any two.

[Modernman]

You want it to be the exlusive religion taught, or that all others should be equal. I think that is bunk, because there is not equality of adherents in communities to all those views. Why not let a community that is 80% Christian make an 80% contribution to Christian viewpoint

I don't want any religion taught in schools. I prefer not to have the government involved in religion in any way, shape, or form.

By allocating, say, 80% of any religious teaching to a Christian viewpoint, the government would be implying that Christianity is the most important religion. That is NOT the role of government. Imagine schools in Dearborn, MI, or some places in NJ where the majority of the community may be Muslim. Would you want sharia law taught there?

And if your solution is school choice, you won't find a bigger supporter than me. However, barring such choice, I have no desire to see my tax dollars used to teach a religion I may or may not agree with.