Posted on 06/21/2006 8:33:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
In a veiled attack on creationism, the world's foremost academies of science on Wednesday called on parents and teachers to provide children with the facts about evolution and the origins of life on Earth.
A declaration signed by 67 national academies of science blasted the scriptural teaching of biology as a potential distortion of young minds.
"In various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science," the declaration said.
"We urge decision-makers, teachers and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.
"Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."
Citing "evidence-based facts" derived from observation, experiment and neutral assessment, the declaration points to findings that the Universe is between 11 and 15 billion years old, and the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
Life on Earth appeared at least 2.5 billion years ago as a result of physical and chemical processes, and evolved into the species that live today.
"Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin," it said.
The statement does not name any names or religions, nor does it explain why it fears the teaching of evolution or the scientific explanation for the origins of planetary life are being sidelined.
Signatories of the declaration include the US National Academy of Sciences, Britain's Royal Society, the French Academy of Sciences and their counterparts in Canada, China, Germany, Iran, Israel and Japan and elsewhere.
It comes, however, in the context of mounting concern among biologists about the perceived influence of creationism in the United States.
Evangelical Christians there are campaigning hard for schools to teach creationism or downgrade evolution to the status of one of a competing group of theories about the origins of life on Earth.
According to the website Christian Post (www.christianpost.com), an opinion poll conducted in May by Gallop found that 46 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so.
Scientists say hominids emerged around six million years ago and one of their offshoots developed into anatomically modern man, Homo sapiens, about 200,000 years ago, although the timings of both events are fiercely debated.
Nearly every religion offers an explanation as to how life began on Earth.
Fundamentalist Christians insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, in which God made the world in seven days, culminating in the creation of the first two humans, Adam and Eve.
A variation of this is called "intelligent design" which acknowledges evolution but claims that genetic mutations are guided by God's hand rather than by Charles Darwin's process of natural selection.
US President George W. Bush said last August that he believed in this concept and that he supported its teaching in American schools.
The academies' statement says that science does not seek to offer judgements of value or morality, and acknowledges limitations in current knowledge.
"Science is open-ended and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges," it adds.
I suspected as much, bit I'm gald to have a second opinion confirming it.
So do you believe evolution is provable?
On what basis would a creationist argue that Piltdown was a fake? What kind of evidence would he use?
No theory is "provable". That is not how a theory works in science.
The same basis anyone would use to argue Piltdown was a fake. The facts.
Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud back in 1953. Where were you?
OK - read your link re: About 29 lines of evidence agree. Sorry, but I still dis-agree.
That basically proved to me that talking with an EVO is not much different that reading more of their 'conclusions.' Simply and continually jumping to conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence.
Basically I'm left with "how can (macro) evolution be considered a fact (?) when no one can explain how it works!!!" Where's the empirical evidence?
Also are you in any way linked with the Wesayso corp.? /sarc/
This is completely false and ridiculous.
"the Big Bang Theory... unproven and essentially unprovable, given the scale of the issue.
The theory is backed up by facts.
festival of the B-Team anti-Evos placemarker
Piltdown is considered a fake because it is incompatible with evolution. My question was, on what basis would a creationist argue it is a fake?
No links, perhaps some regurgitation of doctrine will be considered.
But "the facts" in question are what evolutionists say they are. You accepting evolutionists as auhorities now?
http://background.uchicago.edu/
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
:-)
Not so. It is possible to accept convention to the point that the original questions are forgotten.
Piltdown is considered a fake because by studying it, it was deduced to have been a fabrication. It has nothing to do with it being inconsistent with any theories.
Prior to the discovery that it was a hoax, why was it trumpeted by Charles Dawson, champion of evolution who discovered it, if it was incompatible with evolution?
I ask no such thing. I DO ask that you demonstrate some level of scientific literacy before I take seriously your grandiose (and utterly false) proclamation that "evolution and creationism are both faiths."
I have no doubt that you are unable to accurately post a statement of the theory of evolution. I'm equally confident that this will have no effect on your continued mischaracterizations of the theory of evolution.
Thanks :)
Might be kind of hard to grasp if standard fluid dynamics poses a problem though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.