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.
Bravo...the words of such a man, as St. Augustin, need to be read and reread and reread again and again...they were timely when written and timely now....I have read this passage before early in my time on these crevo threads, yet reading it and rereading it, is always inspirational, and should be read by everyone....such stirring words, such clear, insightful thoughts, are appreciated by me, every single time I read this passage...
Thanks for bringing it up again, there are many who may have never read this passage...
Does it really matter where anyone is from?...is evolution only a US matter?
Like the article says you are a 'theistic evolutionist', like just about everyone else on this thread that believes in evo
Best not teach Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics then, either. Clue for the clueless. Revisions of scientific theories don't tend to completely overturn the knowledge that went before.
I'd also be interested in knowing what significant part of the theory of evolution has been overturned or found to be incorrect in the last 100 years. Mendelian genetics and molecular biology have enormously strengthened the theory with additional confirming data about mechanism and numerous further successful predictions about the molecular and genetic data derived from evolutionary theory, true, but they didn't make what was previously known wrong; they simply added detail.
You need to have someone else reproduce your results, or observe you in your prayers and subsequent events.
Individual experiences are highly subjective. Shared experiences, when taken together have a tendency toward objectivity.
Is Genesis the Word of the Lord? Ok I thought so.
Give me specifics of these answers, and I'll be happy to advise.
One does not have to buy into omphalism (spasmodic or otherwise) to accept the idea of miracles.
Please identify how a specific invocation of the supernatural to explain one purported event of religious significance is different in kind from a general invocation of the supernatural to explain all phenomena in religious terms. In other words, why stop at one, or a million little miracles? Why not an all-encompassing, big miracle?
Look, I assume that by naturalism you mean the theory or belief that scientific laws are adequate to describe all phenomena.
There is no need for the word 'all'. Naturalism is the idea that physical explanations are useful to describe the world. One can be more or less naturalistic, although I'd argue we're all >99% naturalistic. A metaphysical naturalist would go further than practical natrualists and say, looking at the success of naturalism in replacing non-naturalistic explanations, and the repeated failure of the latter, that naturalism is indeed adequate to explain all phenomena.
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. It can disprove miracles, by providing substitute natural explanations. And it can deal with questions of morality, by asking, if we adopt X as a moral principle, what will be the consequences. One can certainly have a naturalistic examination of the consequences of the principle 'homosexuality is wrong' for example. Whether morality could be dealt with in an exclusively naturalistic way is another issue, but let's get a foot in the door first :-)
IOW Ignorance is strength.
Try seeing what St Augustine had to say about reckless expounders of Scripture who use Scriptural argument to reject reason.
Signing out for the night placemarker.
Are you questioning my authority! :) lOL
Not me. I'm one of your god-denying ay-thee-ists.
So, you like to pigeon hole people...put a label on them...cram them into some little box...and act as if you have some special secret interpretation of the Bible, that is the only one acceptable to God...you are only human, just a prone to error as anyone else...I am only human, and also just as prone to error as anyone else...so, we are on equal footing, when it comes to reading the Bible, and knowing what it says to us...
Well, your opinion of me, your labeling of me, or anyone else on this thread, matters not at all to me...its only your opinion, only important to yourself...and thats fine, thats what gets you through life...
Well, we were disscussing what "we" should teach in OUR schools in the USA when I said "we should teach more Math and less evo", I know GB isnt going to teach ID they really don't even have many functioning Churches left.
I'm not Catholic, he is only but a man.
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell." -- St. Augustine
Well, many of the creationists also consider me worthy of the special damnation that they say will occur to atheists...presuming to speak for God, yeah, thats an effective method of discussion...
One special creationist(now banned), told me I was an awful person, and then he actually had the nerve to tell me he was a great prophet(of God, no doubt), and he told me as he sat at his computer, that he saw me and my whole family, and all of my descendents, condemned by a return to 'Mother Europe', whatever the heck that meant...I always meant to ask him what he meant by that, but his demise never gave me the chance...
Thanks. I'll look for it.
LOL! I have to keep that one in mind...
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...
...while humming: "What bliss will fill the ransomed souls, when they in glory dwell, to see the sinner as he rolls, in quenchless flames of hell."
;^)
Yeah ... would't want them furriners pokin' they noses into 'murican buisness.
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.