Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

The Royal Society ^ | 11 Apr 2006 | Staff (press release)

[PatrickHenry]

A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.

The statement points out that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world".

It concludes: "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

Professor David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, said: "We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries. The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence. But there have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in north-east England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution."

The Royal Society statement acknowledges that many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe and life on Earth developed. But it indicates that "some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence".

It states: "For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago."

The Royal Society statement emphasises that evolution is important to the understanding of many medical and agricultural challenges: It states: "The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them."

The statement also criticises attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence: "Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not."

The statement is published ahead of a public lecture today at the Royal Society by Professor Steve Jones on Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong'. The text of the statement follows.

A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

April 2006

The Royal Society was founded in 1660 by a group of scholars whose desire was to promote an understanding of ourselves and the universe through experiment and observation. This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. It has led to major advances of understanding over more than 300 years. Although there is still much left to be discovered, we now have a broad knowledge of how the universe developed after the 'Big Bang' and of how humans and other species appeared on Earth.

One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.

The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them.

Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a 'creator' is fundamental to many religions. Many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed. Creationism is a belief that may be taught as part of religious education in schools, colleges and universities. Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith.

However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.

Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.

Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.

[Echo Talon]

if evolution theory is so important teach it in college.

[Thatcherite]

Miraculous explanations are nothing more than examples of spasmodic omphalism. If you adopt naturalism as a useful general policy, why would you abandon it in special instances, those instances remarkable only because they are the ones that survived from an earlier, less naturalistic age, by being more difficult to challenge?

Incidentally, that is a remarkable argument that in my honest opinion smacks the nail firmly on the head. I've known about omphalism for a couple of years now, but that simple point hadn't occurred to me. Thank you.

[PatrickHenry]

Your posts can't be from the real Patrick Henry who was a creationist.

I've never claimed to be channeling the original PH. As for his creationism, that's not very surprising. It's difficult to see how the original PH could have known about the theory of evolution. After all, he died in 1799, which was 60 years before Darwin published Origin of Species.

As for your "quotes," the first large one ("the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate...") was taken out of context, in a discussion of the imperfection of the fossil record. Nice try. Your "quote" after that isn't from Darwin.

You're not very good at this stuff, are you?

[Thatcherite]

Is it considered ... what's the word ... "Christian," perhaps? ... to gloat over the supposed eternal torment of others? I mean, do you tell people you're trying to convince, "Join us so you too can revel in the eternal damnation of the heathens, heretics, and schismatics? Seems like an odd approach to me, but I'm always interested in new persuasive techniques.

The Al Capone school of witnessing.

[Right Wing Professor]

Well, in my defense, I said many IDers are engineers, not most engineers are IDers.

I have a pop-psych explanation, if you can stand it. Enginners live in a world of design; they create things from simpler elements. So seeing and admiring something intricate and complicated, they tend to admire the designer. Scientists tear things apart; and when we try to understand complicated processes, we look for explanations in terms of simple components. So evolution appeals to our prejudices, where it conflicts with engineers'.

[Thatcherite]

if evolution theory is so important teach it in college.

A winning principle!

Let's see...

If mathematics is so important teach it in college.

If reading is so important teach it in college.

Presumably you don't mean that. You are worried by the religious implications of people knowing about evolution. Therefore you'd rather limit instruction about it to a minority who take college-level biology?

Ignorance is strength?

[Gumlegs]

Creationism itself is zero treat threat, scientifically.

It was fine the way it was.

[elkfersupper]

if evolution theory is so important teach it in college.

It is important for it to be taught whenever and wherever necessary as demanded by the content and context of the area of study.

[Echo Talon]

What is a Jr.HS or HS kid going to do with TOE and how is it going to better his life or how can he use it when he graduates to be a productive citizen? Don't teach it in jr.HS and in HS if you teach it at all make it an elective. They would be better served learning chemistry and biology, TOE never even needs to enter the equation. They can learn that in College.

[Echo Talon]

It is important for it to be taught whenever and wherever necessary as demanded by the content and context of the area of study.

As i said in the previous post, how is TOE going to help a kid that doesn't even go to college? Answer it isn't. All it does is take time away from learning more important stuff, chemistry and biology. Don't tell me you need to know TOE to learn HS biology or chemistry.

[andysandmikesmom]

Excellent...'the Al Capone school of witnessing'...thats priceless...I have been looking for a phrase that describes exactly, those folks who do enjoy gloating over the eternal damnation of others...

I have run into many of the students of this school on these threads...I think they graduated with honors, as they take such grim delight in what they perceive to be the terrible fate of others...

[Echo Talon]

Ignorance is strength?

No people wasting endless hours on this theory is a waste.

[Right Wing Professor]

Don't tell me you need to know TOE to learn HS biology or chemistry.

You need to know TOE to learn HS Biology.

[Echo Talon]

Presumably you don't mean that. You are worried by the religious implications of people knowing about evolution. Therefore you'd rather limit instruction about it to a minority who take college-level biology?

Why try and indoctrinate them at such a young age? Do you fear rejection?

[Echo Talon]

You need to know TOE to learn HS Biology.

BS, My teacher never talked about TOE in Biology class.

[Right Wing Professor]

You need to know TOE to learn HS Biology.

BS, My teacher never talked about TOE in Biology class.

I think my point is proven.

[Echo Talon]

they taught that in science class, along with chemistry which i think they should stick with exclusively

[andysandmikesmom]

I think you have things exactly backwards...Its those who insist on creationism or ID being the only feasible explanation for life on earth, that fear the teaching of evolution will cause their children to question their religious faith...its as if, they think, that no one can maintain a religious faith, and still support evolution...they do seem to think, narrowly, that one can support only evolution or only God, but never the two together...they have a great fear, that in questioning their religious beliefs, they will reject those religious beliefs....

To me, thats one great big mistake...

[Echo Talon]

I think you have things exactly backwards...Its those who insist on creationism or ID being the only feasible explanation for life on earth, that fear the teaching of evolution will cause their children to question their religious faith...its as if, they think, that no one can maintain a religious faith, and still support evolution...they do seem to think, narrowly, that one can support only evolution or only God, but never the two together...they have a great fear, that in questioning their religious beliefs, they will reject those religious beliefs....

To me, thats one great big mistake...

I think TOE is a waste of time, but im glad that are sensitive enough to Almight Darwin to mold your faith to fit mans theory. I mean hey it's only God right?

[longshadow]

hanging curve ball placemarker