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.
If they are so sure of themselves, why not openly attack?
They have to hide behind their burkhas???
I've got a fairly decent memory and did fairly well in school. My memory says they were taught as one and the same at that time, that they always were connected. You didn't see one without the other.
I wish I could find the texts. My old zoology teacher sang at my wedding (great baritone), but he has since passed away.
Here's another revelation--If I run up and poke you in the eye for no reason, you still yelp!
"Crevo threads. LOL."
So Crevo, instead of Creo? LOL! Ha! Boy what a screw up! Those dang Evo's!
Who doesn't?
Hmmmm, I guess I got tripped on some kind of syntax issue that I'm not aware of.
In science the definitions are a little different than what you might guess based on common usage. People often think that a law is a model supported by the highest level of evidence, while a theory is just kind of guessing. Actually in science a law is a very narrow observation of what happens, like the law of gravity and Newton's laws of motion. Each makes a very specific statement about something very limited. A theory is a model of reality that takes these laws into account and tries to explain them. Newton's law of gravity is subsumed by Einstein's theory of relativity, for example.
A theory can never be proven because we have no way of knowing that we tested every possible variable. If it were possible to prove a theory that would then place it outside the bounds of science, because there would be nothing else to be tested about it.
The theory of evolution has good support from a variety of avenues and is tested every day. We don't have a deep understanding of some things since they happened so long ago (I would love to have samples of DNA from extinct groups, for intance) but the evidence that we do have from radiometric dating, the fossil record, isotope studies, and studies of genetic divergences all piece together an amazingly detailed picture.
"Illogical captain... If there was no universal dissatifaction for inevitable mortality and lack of a connection to something eternal, why does it matter to humans at all?"
I don't see many scientists saying that Creo's (I like Creo I think I'll keep using it) are totally nuts. Mainly because no one knows where we actually came from. But to be so dense as to ignore the obvious, the things like thinking the earth is only 6000 years old, or that instead of things being created in a long process that they were actually ZAPPED into the present state in 6 days is beyond ridiculous. Scientists are not saying that evolution is the be all and end all and are VERY open to scholarly debate. But the one thing that the CREO'S can't stand is that ZAP has no weight or interest because after ZAP who cares? If it was all just ZAPPED instantaneously, then why search any further. All we should do is ask God to ZAP us some cancer cures, and ZAP us plenty of food, and to ZAP anyone off the planet who doesn't follow our particular brand of religion. So, to get back to your thought on a connection to something eternal, why does it matter to be human if all we are is a big aquarium where a God tests our ability to handle different stresses? In that case, aren't we just lab rats?
I think I lived those words through most of the 1970's.
Massive intellects. Like yours.
Few here know about the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.
_________
That was the source of my amusement and amazement. That several freepers besides myself were tossing that around.
That is what I thought.
Does that mean folks should call abiogenetic researchers names because they seek knowledge through their hypotheses? I certainly don't think so.
You must be right. God was Jeanie. ZAP! No primordial soup, no anything just ZAP! There are no such thing as neurons. God doesn't need them. He just ZAPS and it is done. You really don't see what a simpleton you are do you? Look at the bright side though. If you beleive the bible word for word, you get to go to heaven. Then you and God can decide on everyone else's fate. Creo. No, I think I may even change that to Cro.
And I didn't waste my time explaining your questions because you don't even understand what you are asking. You get aroused when I take the 'v' out of Crevo, I can't expect anything but a complete meltdown if I go much further than that.
It must irk you no end that a dreaded creo has forgotten more science than you are likely to know. :-}
And I'm just a blue collar "creo". LOL
burkha placemarker
I believe that the Bible that is available today contains zero errors of fact or content. Any possible errors are strictly related to printing/typographical errors.
Is a bat a bird? Or is that a "printing/typographical error"?
One thing a scientist understands is that all measurements can only be approximations. The goal is to reduce the errors in the measurements.
"I've got a fairly decent memory and did fairly well in school. My memory says they were taught as one and the same at that time, that they always were connected. You didn't see one without the other.
"
Actually, I have an old biology text from the 60s. It's the one used in my high school at that time. It does include the "primordial soup" business in a few paragraphs.
Noteworthy is the fact that it says that life MAY first have appeared in this primordial soup. It does not say that it DID appear. It states the hypothesis, but does not claim it to be a fact.
Seems OK to me. Perhaps your memory doesn't include that.
"I think I lived those words through most of the 1970's."
Many of us did. I gave all that up in 1974, settling down to a near-normal life.
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.