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.
"That was the source of my amusement and amazement. That several freepers besides myself were tossing that around.
"
There's a bunch of us old farts around here, I think.
| Date | Author | Method | Result (km/s) | Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1676 | Olaus Roemer | Jupiter's satellites | 214,000 | |
| 1726 | James Bradley | Stellar Aberration | 301,000 | |
| 1849 | Armand Fizeau | Toothed Wheel | 315,000 | |
| 1862 | Leon Foucault | Rotating Mirror | 298,000 | +-500 |
| 1879 | Albert Michelson | Rotating Mirror | 299,910 | +-50 |
| 1907 | Rosa, Dorsay | Electromagnetic constants | 299,788 | +-30 |
| 1926 | Albert Michelson | Rotating Mirror | 299,796 | +-4 |
| 1947 | Essen, Gorden-Smith | Cavity Resonator | 299,792 | +-3 |
| 1958 | K. D. Froome | Radio Interferometer | 299,792.5 | +-0.1 |
| 1973 | Evanson et al | Lasers | 299,792.4574 | +-0.001 |
| 1983 | Adopted Value | 299,792.458 |
Old fart? Moi?
Just becasue I know about the Freak Brothers doesn't mean I fall into that demographic. I think I learned about them from my (much) older sister. Oh wait... I forgot I don't have one. There must be something else I'm forgeting. Hmmm...
How to spell "because" would be one thing that comes to mind.
"(I like Creo I think I'll keep using it)
I prefer Genesisist. It has lots of hissing, and it's harder to spell....
The old Ape-man vs Dawn-Man argument: fun while it lasted.
But Creationists won't let it die, too easy to argue "look these two groups of scientist prove each other wrong, why not just believe the Truth of Middle-Eastern Mythology"
Ah, But is the reason environment or heredity?
So, then, yes....the connection is upheld.
Thanks.
Adorable babies.
What that has to do with the validity of the evolutionary process (the understanding of which does not require 'faith', only knowledge of the data), I have no idea. Plenty of us who aren't 'bigoted' can recognize the beauty of a newborn baby & God's role in life and still properly recognize the boundaries between proper science and religion (something proponents of intelligent design seem to have problems with).
Congratulations, though, they truly look precious.
If I was a betting man, I would wager that that same junior high science book you remember also talked about clouds. And light bending through a prism. And the mechanics of fire. Are they therefore related in some way to the theory of evolution, too?
"I prefer Genesisist."
Hmm, can I use that too? I've noticed that posting the truth gets more and more agitating to the Kreeots, so any missspellled word or word that I use that is not in their narrowly defined dictionary is what they like to jump on to prove they are right.
Genesisist. I like that. It is sort of like Philanderererer, you just can't quite end it.
Be my guest!
specific reference, please...
There is indication of global flood in the geological evidence. It's all in how you look at the evidence.
Doesn't follow.
You might look through the posts again, too. I don't think I said Jr. Hi. Ping me if you find it.
The global flood is supposed to have occurred ca. 2350 BC.
Evidence from that time period is not geological, it is archaeological and sedimentological, that is, in the soils not in the rocks.
This is an easy time period to examine. Archaeologists examine this time period day in and day out. I have done so for quite a few years in the western US.
There is no evidence for a global flood. There are nice local floods in eastern Washington (google 'channeled scablands'), but it is pretty well understood in terms of date, origin, and extent. If we can understand these floods, at the end of the glacial episode, some 10-12,000 years ago, just think how easy it would be for us to study a bigger flood only 4300 years ago.
Instead, what we see is cultural continuity across this time period. The soils are not discontinuous, as you would expect. The mtDNA of people before and after this date are limited to the five founding Native American haplogroups, with no sudden change to Middle Eastern (e.g., Noah's family) mtDNA. The fauna and flora also are continuous.
In summary, no evidence for a global flood in the areas in which I work.
Leviticus 11:19, according to my KJB.
Is that a typo that creates a factual error, or just a factual error?
Mea Culpa - you didn't say Jr. High.
Of course, that's where generally one sees the introduction to the theory, so you can understand my belief.
By the way, when WERE you first taught the theory?
"Crevo" as in "creation-evolution." Thus, "a crevo thread."
"Creo" for creationist. I believe I first saw jennyp using it. My reaction was, "That's fantastic! The Latin for 'I believe' and a decent contraction to boot."
Alas! It's the Spanish for "I believe." A guy with a Latin screenie can embarrass himself making goofs like that.
What typo or "factual error"?
Part of the "law" given to God's people - what problem wtih "bat" do you have? Are you saying that there are not bats in that geographical area, or weren't any at that time in history? "Fowls" in that time period included all flying creatures. Are bats not flying creatures? I fail to see any problems, but I'm sure you will dig up something to try to convince me otherwise...
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.