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.
Radiocarbon dating can be calibrated against tree-rings from standing dead bristlecone pines. By matching up the rings from one tree to the next, a sequence can be made which currently goes back 12,600 years. Radiocarbon dates are done every ten years, and this creates a calibration curve that accounts for variations in the atmosphere.
This curve has been shown to be quite accurate by dating things of known age from, for example, Egyptian tombs where an age can be ascertained independently.
You may not believe this, but this is what science shows.
Those people are being illogical. Evolution is neither proof of a God or no God.
However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point.
This is also a fallacy. How a theory is used does not affect the validity of the theory itself.
God gave you logic. Don't let other's sophisms direct your thinking.
Calling someone irrational is an insult.
I love it when posters insult people while complaining about insults. I've yet to see an evo do it, however. I wonder why?
Can you tell us how they were wrong?
Gotta tell ya.
LOVE the screenname.
(Make a good name for a punk band as well)
Agnostic? I was one once. Now I'm a Gnostic.
Maybe it'll happen for you someday.
We all must make a choice - simply not believing that there is anything beyond our life here is not enough to make it not true.... I truly am sorry that you apparently have made your choice.
Some people just don't understand the logical inconsistencies it poses...
I'm tempted to say that if they were bothered by logical inconsistencies, they wouldn't offer religious doctrine when asked for scientific evidence. ;-)
"A 4.5 billion year old Earth and 2.5 billion year old cellular life aren't facts,"
Sure they are. Where have YOU been?
"Scientists could use evidence to support a 4.5 billion year old Earth or 2.5 year old cellular life."'
They do; they have lots of it to use too. Again, where have YOU been?
"Furthermore, shouldn't scientists be in support of a debate on Creation/evolution;"
Scientists support debate, but creationists don't want to play by the rules of science.
This is determined by scientists. Not, I hasten to add, simply by what scientists affirm or believe, but by what they DO. Also "scientists" means those who are actually DOING science, not just or necessarily those who hold certain formal credentials.
So, to put that in a single sentence:
The content of science is determined by what scientific theories and principles working scientists fruitfully use or crucially implicate in ongoing, original scientific research.Macroevolution should only be a hypothesis, not a theory.
Arguably it's neither. Macroevolution just describes a subset of evolutionary change, namely evolution above the species level. There's no uncertainty, however, that it occurs. The evolution of a new species, for instance, is macroevolution by definition, and the evolution of new species has been observed. Sometimes the term is reserved for the evolution of higher taxa, such that you would have to have a new genera at least, not just a new species. However the evolution of new genera has been observed too, although admittedly this involves "special cases" such as polyploidy in plants.
Anyway "macroevolution" is not a theory in itself, although there may be (and are) theories of macroevolution. The question of whether macroevolution requires unique, additional or seperate mechanisms vis-a-vis microevolution has been much debated and continues to be.
The scientific method cannot be applied to it
Huh? Sure it can. The claim of "common descent" for instance -- that all living things are ultimately related by normal reproduction -- is a very significant claim RICH in all sorts of empirical implications. (In other words, if this claim is true there are many, many specific things that we should observe in consequence, and many other things that we should NOT observe.)
(nor can it to Creationism).
This would be correct if you mean something like a general religious doctrine of creation, which might take any number of specific forms. You're wrong however if you mean "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism", i.e. the American version of antievolutionary creationism promoted for instance by the Institute for Creation Research. It also makes significant claims (e.g. young earth, global flood) with many empirical implications. Therefore it can also be addressed with the scientific method. The problem is it's massively and decisively falsified when you do so.
Itelligent Design, however, is problematic because excessively vauge.
I'm guessing he's agnostic. If God shows himself to him, he'll believe.
Belief in the "foolishness" of the gospel does not happen because of a natural process of hearing both sides and concluding that the biblical answer makes the most sense.
You got that right. Fortunately, I Know logic is God's creation, so that made my decision about the gospels rather easy.
Maybe that's true for the parts of the genome that do something. But it can't account for things like the shared error that prevents people, chimps, et al, from synthesizing ascorbic acid. The shared remains of viruses (ERVs) are another thing that is awkward for the anti-evolution activists. Were they deliberately inserted for some inscrutable purpose? Then why is it that if one is common to the two species of Asian apes (gibbon and orangutan) it is inevitably found in all African apes, including us? Why is it that if one is common to Old World monkeys and New World monkeys, it will also be found in all apes, including us?
The fact is, the precise pattern of genetic markers across species faithfully reflects the phylogenetic tress that had previously been constructed on anatomical, biogeograohic, etc, grounds.
I place my trust in evidence; it has never let me down yet. As for putting together an accurate Bible, the oldest extent NT documents date from the Second Century -- and even at that point they show differences between them. Most NT documents date to the Fourth Century at the earliest, meaning that there were at least 350 years of copying between them and the originals. The entire Bible is based upon copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, with all the innaccuracies that entails.
Now, you are perfectly free to place your faith in the accuracy of the Bible, but such faith would be based upon nothing more than wishful thinking.
I'll take cold, hard evidence any day of the week -- at least I can then back up any of my contentions.
Thanks RA. I appreciate your honesty and respect.
BTW - lots of evidence exists supporting the uniqueness of the Bible - I have posted a few links on my profile. I have come to my current beliefs slowly - over 25 years - of trying to sift the truth in science and faith - most notably bc I've read of several scientific types who have come to faith in Christ while trying to disprove the Bible.
No, the debate was settled over a centruy ago. You need new evidence to reopen it.
Big Wonder Warthog fan back then too....Gilbert Shelton - it's like a flashback!
Hmm.
Place marker...
I'm beginning to think Buddha was wrong...
Some things DON'T change....
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.