Posted on 04/13/2006 6:51:19 PM PDT by 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.
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.
Oh sure, it looks easy from the bleachers :-)
Your argument applies to pretty-much everything learned in HS. 99% of citizens don't need biology, chemisty, math beyond simple arithmetic, geography, history, physics, or much of anything that you learn after about the age of 11. But you want to specifically exclude (for religious reasons) one particular well-established scientific theory from the curriculum. One can only speculate as to your motives. I prefer students to be well-educated and for those who go on to college to be well-prepared.
I'm sorry, but when you have several hundreds, if not thousands, of people double checking your findings any personal biases are going to disappear.
Do you fear that having them learn well-established science will weaken their faith? Perhaps we should avoid teaching the germ theory of disease too, after all if we examine the bible epidemics appear to be under God's control, and not happenstance determined by sanitation and luck.
You aren't the first one to notice this correlation ;)
-> Salem hypothesis
No people wasting endless hours on this theory is a waste.
I note that your response doesn't specifically address my suggestion that you'd prefer to leave students ignorant of the theory of evolution, perhaps lest their faith in the exact same interpretation of the Bible that you promote be affected.
Further I am not aware that anyone proposes "endless hours" on the theory of evolution. I guess that most high school biology curricula spend a few hours at most on ToE, which is after all the unifying principle of biology. That is out of maybe 15,000 hours of education received by each child before college-level.
Please tell me, why do you think, that anyone who supports evolution, has to also read the Bible and interpret it exactly as you do?...you interpret in one way, I may interpret in another, someone else will find a different interpretation...how else does anyone account for all the various Christian religions?...I mean, if everyone read and interpreted the Bible in the same way, would not there be only one Christian religion?....you do not have a corner on what the truth of the Bible says, nor do I, nor does anyone else...
Its the absolute dogmatic belief of many, that one must either support evolutionn and reject God, or accept God and dismiss evolution, that is so often projected on these threads...I find that to be an absolutely narrow, closed, and wrong way of thinking...
Millions of people,who love God, and understand and read the Bible, also support evolution...My faith is not molded to fit any mans theory...if anything, my support of evolution, reinforces my belief in a God, who I believe, used evolution as His creative force, and I am in wonder of Him, for it...
You chose not to see God in this way...thats fine, thats what works for you...but for millions of others, we maintain our love of God, our understanding of the Bible, and we still support evolution...and no, we dont believe as many creationists would have us believe, that we are risking Hell for that belief...
You think TOE is a waste of time...so, then, dont waste your time on it...thats simple enough...but others find it a fascinating, worthwhile study...and it has nothing to do with whether one has faith in God or not...it just has to do with a difference in peoples fields of interest...
To each his own...
Believe it or not, this (the development of experimental science, calculus, capitalism, alchemy, and code breaking) is all presented in a thrill ride of a series of three very long and enjoyable novels that also feature the English Civil War, the Restoration, the Siege of Vienna, the Thirty Years War, the Corsair Pirates, stolen gold, Russian assassins, and the Hannoverian monarchy. And no, I am not the author nor do I own any stock in the publishing company.
That has been change and revised how many times? What about all the people taught "wrongly" did they all of sudden drop to the floor and die?
Nope. The presence of the heavens and the earth is verifiable evidence. The presence of organized matter that performs specific functions on a scale beyond human capacity and invention is reasonable evidence from which to infer an almighty Creator. Those who dismiss such ideas do not argue from science, but from personal predilections which are also faith based. Faith rarely has no object.
Faith in a Creator, and in the idea that the Creator is responsible for bringing about and sustaining the physical universe, is not without verifiable evidence, but it is beyond the ability of science, let alone human reason, logically to prove.
I have save the article and will read it at a later time...glad to see that you make the remark that the second part was a joke....but in all seriousness, there are too many that would make that remark, and mean it, not as a joke, but as a threat....
As someone else said on either this thread or another thread, that comes straight from the 'Al Capone school of witnessing'...
Glad to see you have a sese of humor, as a sense of humor would surely help all of us in these discussions...
And you should try this:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
I suspect that most Christians will prefer the words and opinions of one the Fathers of the Church, St Augustine about the conflict between reason and religion over those of the Answers in Genesis ministry, with all the feeble nonsense that liberally spatters its website, aimed almost entirely at those whose understanding of science never reached the 6th Grade.
Very poorly. Why would that concern me?
When I have prayed to God, he has answered. That certainly counts as "facts or information bearing on the truth of a proposition" and is therefore evidence by your definition. This has happened more than once, which would be "series of instances." Now, I do not know what it means to analyze that information "properly." As I said, it is not scientific evidence. Nevertheless, it is evidence.
Miraculous explanations are nothing more than examples of spasmodic omphalism. . . .
Not so. One does not have to buy into omphalism (spasmodic or otherwise) to accept the idea of miracles. As a matter of fact, omphalism strikes me as silly; but I do believe, for instance, in the Resurrection.
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?
If you have a useful hammer, why would you abandon it when you need to drill holes or saw wood?
Look, I assume that by naturalism you mean the theory or belief that scientific laws are adequate to describe all phenomena. In the context of dealing with the natural world, naturalism is almost always the best approach. But naturalism cannot deal with miracles except by ignoring or discounting them. Nor can it deal with things that are not phenomena, such as questions of morality.
Darn! Scooped again!
and they wouldn't know the difference or care.
A. Read the title of the thread.
B. I don't want the USA to go down the path of ignorance.
C. Who cares about my motives. Is that the best you can do?
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.