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.
And that's wonderful. Faith is a beautiful thing.
Faith is not the sum total of existence, though. And since you admit that the Bible contains factual errors, it is folly to pretend that it's a science textbook.
Scientific truths do not require "context to be taken into account."
Says you - I believe my profile page asserts my position(s) rather succintly.
Also I think the biggest divide between creation/evolution arguments is simply - Do you believe in God? After that many assumptions kick in to supposed 'rational' thought processes.
Lastly, I've reviewed much evolution evidence and don't benefit at all from summaries nor philosophies. I do appreciate anything that links to cold-hard facts. Stuff that sticks to the scientific methods and shows all the work. I know no proof is conclusive but it's nice to see all the facts that lead any scientist to a conclusion - no matter what his/her bias. Even better is when they can also openly state their assumptions.
Not for me it isn't. It's like wearing waders filled with water. Cumbersome.
I know there is a God. Now what?
Rmember a few months ago Tiktaalik was found? Not only was it an animal predicted by evolution, the paleontologists used evo to decide where to dig. Sounds like it passed yet another test.
OK - I don't have much background with ERV nor shared DNA errors but is it possible that these could be attributed to shared living conditions? Is their only one way for these shared errors and gentic markers to appear in DNA?
Why don't you actually read it?
Again, if you hopes to know you have to open your eyes.
The next step is up to you. I think you might want to re-examine the Gospels to see if maybe you were mistaken rather than assuming errors with God's Word. I have seen/heard several apparent contradictions that were/are easily explained by those willing to study God's Word more in depth (i.e. learning Hebrew/Greek for starters).
So it is clear that at the time, leading evolutionists such as Woodward championed the discovery of Piltdown man as evidence of the theory of evolution being right.
No, it was supposed to be evidence for the highlighted theory about human origins. The ToE itself was not in question.
And you're just thumping chest and pointing to your home page? Hello? What's your home page against the science of the last 150, 200 years?
BTW, being a YEC means you don't have a problem with just evolution or even just biology. You don't like geology, astronomy, nuclear chemistry, paleontology to name a few things. A lot of findings from a lot of disciplines say the Earth and universe are old. (About 4.5 and 13.7 billion years, respectively.)
I won't even bother posting all the evidence for THAT stuff. It's wasted on the people who don't need it and also on the people who do.
Man!! That's got to be Freudian.
For a great discussion of Ann Coulter AND creationist misstatements on the peppered moths, try the Panda's Thumb review of Godless. Jonathan Well's treatment has all the same problems, BTW.
No, some of them, like Hovind, are clever in a Clintonseque sort of way. I'd say they need the other gifts of the Wizard, courage and a conscience.
I brought up Behe's book because the evolutionary explanantion(s) for macro-evolution just don't fit with the number of 'miracles' required. I'm sorry VadeRetro if you think I'm not allowed to reference a book if I don't agree with the author 100%.
Clearly, the advances in microbiology leave evolution wanting.
As a practicing microbiologist with many years experience, I can assure you all recent advances (and old ones too from Pasteur on) fit quite firmly and comfortably within the framework of Evolution. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to hear it.
Einstein deduced the constancy of c from his assumption that physical laws do not depend on the inertial frame. Assuming this, if you measure the constants that are used in Maxwell's equations you will get the same values no matter how fast you are moving. Then Maxwell can be used to calculate c.
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.