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.
Anyone who accepts the argument that Piltdown is a fake accepts the fact of evolution.
In an attempt to break out of this C/E dimension, we might say that faith is only one dimension and that there are others. Both E and C could be seen as convention.
"Obviously we could continue this on and on, but I won't. Please don't put words in my posts and I'll try and not do that to you.
"
My intention was not to put words into your post. I apologize if that was the impression you got from it.
I tend to use a bit of sarcasm in these threads...something I do not normally do in other threads.
What I meant to indicate is pretty much the same thing you were saying. Of the hundreds of creation stories bandied about by the hundreds of religions of man, they're all equally unbelievable, for me, since they all posit something supernatural ocurring.
For a person who believes in a particular religion, they all sound unbelievable, except the one they believe, on faith.
Evolution is an attempt to explain speciation, using scientific methods. Thus, it is taught in science classes as the best explanation currently available for speciation.
Science cannot teach religious stories. It's all that simple. Religion, being the wildly variable set of beliefs it is, must be taught elsewhere, since no two people I know share precisely the same religious beliefs.
Science is what it is. Is it correct? I don't know. I do know that current teaching makes sense, as far as it goes, and that's not far in our primary and secondary schools. Origins and evolution are taught briefly, then moved beyond to get at the hard scientific stuff that we can demonstrate.
I can see no possible way to teach any of the religious creation stories in public school classrooms. In every single classroom, you will find a variety of religious doctrines represented among the students. The Hindu child has one story, the Jewish or Christian kid has another, the Buddhist another, and so on.
It's an impossible task. Religion is for parents to teach their children and for their parents' choice of religious institutions to teach.
"Not so. It is possible to accept convention to the point that the original questions are forgotten."
It's also possible not to do that, and to question current scientific thinking. That's how science progresses. Those who succeed in scientifically demonstrating that a current theory is incorrect end up with Nobel Prizes.
My question is, on what basis would a creationist argue that Piltdown is a fake?
The most credible guess concerning the motives for Piltdown is that it started as a joke, but was taken seriously by some Brits, because they were jealous of German fossil finds. It just got out of hand, and the jokers were afraid of admitting their guilt.
No one ever admitted it was a fabrication, so on what basis would a creationist argue it is a fake?
Speciation has been observed. Do a web search for "Observed Instances of Speciation" and you'll turn up some links.
But, more important, your thinking is flawed. You imply that if speciation hasn't been observed then the theory can't be considered confirmed. That isn't the way science works. A scientific theory is confirmed if *any* prediction it makes is validated by testing. The more varied and independent these confirmations, the more strongly we should accept the theory. (Note: I'm not saying the theory is true - no scientific theory is knowably true - only that the strength of our acceptance of a theory is based on the strength of its confirmations.)
In the case of evolution, there have been many confirmations even from the very beginning. Genetic evidence is only the latest in a long line.
I will give an example from another discipline. I expect you're familiar with the Big Bang theory. One prediction of this theory is that the universe should be suffused with radiation having a blackbody spectrum. Scientists fiddling with antennas for satellite communications observed this predicted cosmic microwave background. In short order, this confirmation propelled the Big Bang theory to the forefront and swept its principal competitor from the scene.
The point is that, even without having reproduced the Big Bang itself, we accept the theory because we have confirmed its predictions.
Possibly because he was the one responsible and wanted to be famous? But you still leave a question open, what would lead a creationist to suspect that Piltdown Man as a fake?
"Scientists" will gain nothing by attacking religion.
Most of these "scientists" can't see the point of traditional religion, because they are sheltered from reality.
These "scientists" and many of the passionate attackers of traditional religion who post here would get religion fast if they were forced to live in the real world.
"These "scientists" and many of the passionate attackers of traditional religion who post here would get religion fast if they were forced to live in the real world."
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. As far as I can tell, I live in the "real world." Maybe you define it in a different way than I do. If so, could you explain what about my world isn't real?
I guarantee you that every evolutionist will at some point personally see the folly of evolution. I just hope that their realization happens on this side of their breath.
Obadiah:
Well put...We have always said the Master will say to them "I never knew you." (Since they say, I never knew the Master.)
Thanks to both of you for the object illustration of the religious extremism, deviancy, particularism and divisiveness frequently associated with antievolutionism.
Other FReepers should take note that, not five posts into the thread, we already have two antievolutionists reversing two thousand years of Christian doctrine, and gainsaying the assurances of Jesus Christ Himself, by suggesting that which scientific theories one accepts or rejects, or what one believes about the particularities of earth history, are salvational issues.
Certainly not mutually exclusive. God is the creator; evolution is (one of) the engines of His creation.
It indeed is, considering that the fake was discovered in the long run by evolutionary scientists because it didn't fit biogeographically with real fossil hominids that were later discovered.
Not the most shining example of speedy science in action, but the mistake has been retracted, nonetheless, and is no longer used to support evolutionary theory (we now have hundreds of thousands of other fossils and a vast body of evidence from other lines of inquiry that do that - surely you're not suggesting that they are all faked?) Science corrects its mistakes; as a result we now have a more refined picture of evolutionary biology than we ever have, even though much still remains to be learned.
In the meantime, when do creationists plan on retracting some of their several hundred commonly used debunked and nonsensical claims? I don't expect it will ever happen - which is why evolution remains an outstanding example of a successful scientific theory while creationism sits on the wayside, continually gasping for air, despite its utter failure to account for any existing data.
That is an argument based on evolution as a fact. Creationists do not agree with each other as to which fossil skulls belong to apes and which to humans. On what basis would a creationist suspect that Piltdown is a composite.
The staining is evidence of an alteration, but on what basis would a creationist think to check? Piltdown was around for a long time and no creationist thought to look. It was only checked when Piltdown became a problem for evolution.
On what basis would a creationist argue that a skull in a series belongs to a human or an ape?
They're not human beings before they're born?
Cordially,
It is very difficult to ignore convention or even see it since convention is arrived at by many who are well-qualified to think about the subject. It was Bridgman's goal to reorient scientific thinking so that a disruption such as followed Einstein's reappraisal of the nature of physics in the electromagnetic realm would not be possible. Bridgman did not live long enough or didn't think fast enough to accomplish that reorientation, but his suggestion that those involved in physics stand back a little and take a good look at their conventions can still be taken.
"Takes about 9 months, though.
They're not human beings before they're born? "
OK, then, it takes only a small amount of time. Suit yourself. Still, they create a human being out of almost nothing at all. And have fun doing it, most of the time.
I think a more accurate way to put it was that evolution became a problem for Piltdown Man!
(From the link in my earlier post):
This plausibility [of mixed features] did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries.
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.