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.
Now thats some trippy sh**, did you get his autograph? hehe I mean come on a prophet! shoot! Bet you could get top dollar fot it on Ebay. :D
No, the same
Fixed it for you. It wasn't easy.
But according to the ID supporters, ID, has nothing to do with religion or 'churches'...why do you bring the number of churches into this then...seems like the ID folks are unable to agree on this...Pat Robertson condemns the people in Dover for not allowing ID, so clearly he thinks that ID is religious in nature...you would seem to agree with Pat Robertson tht ID is religious in nature...
You have shown, whether you are aware of it or not, that you consider ID to be religious in nature, not scientific...exactly the decision in the Dover case, that the judge made...and was roundly booed for it, by the IDers on FR... ...is ID religious or scientific?
Do you actually enter these things with a straight face?
I'd signed out for the night but that one is so ridiculous it has called me back. St Augustine was one of the Fathers of the Christian church (rather more than only a man, unless you are also going to say that Luke, Peter, Paul were "only men"), and he pre-dated the catholic/protestant schism by over 1000 years, so to disregard his words on the grounds that you aren't a catholic is fatuous beyond belief.
I suspect I know a great deal more about evolution, than you would care to give me credit for...you think evolution undercuts the Bible...millions, myself among them, disagree strongly with you...perhaps it is you that does not understand evolution...thats also a possibility...
Probably a vacation in Italy. I'm not sure 'condemned' is the right word, though :-)
Ask St. Augustine. He wrote it, not I.
But...but...he's doing work that most Americans won't do!
How old is the earth?
When called on his accuracy of these prophecies, he quickly did try to retreat, and actually stated that he regreted saying such a thing, but keep in mind, he insisted it was true...
I dont take kindly to threats of any sort, so he really irritated me...
What Fester is perhaps unaware of is that the word "mathematician" is somewhat lost in translation. Reading the passage for comprehension and context Augustine is not talking about people who study the science of numbers; he is talking about astrologers, who in that day were called by the same word, mathematicians.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5
I stand by the word of the Lord, not by the rituals of man
Figures you'd screw that up, Fester.
Don't worry, the same happened to me some time ago.
On the other hand if this is so obvious, there must be some truth to it.
Please, Augustine was speaking about astrologers...astrologers were called mathematicians in that time, and St Augustine was talking about their prophecies...he was not talking about those mathematicians who worked with numbers...
One would assume so, but thats just an assumption..
Like the BIG bang.. is just an assumption by many assuming the same thing.. but it is indeed an assumption.. Up until about 1900 many assumed that opium and mercury(compounds) was a beneficial soup(laudanum)-medication..
Assumption carrys the baggage of spin.. allowing immense room for deniablity.. for culpability.. What culpability?.. The culpability of spinning for a predetermined agenda..
Philosophical reagents work at the base of a matter.. and can rearrange your grits..
You are right: mathematicians in that day employed their skills in the interest of astrology, not unlike those who today employ their scientific skills in the interest of the philosophy of evolution. Do you think Augustine was speaking figuratively when he wrote concerning the "bonds of hell?" I mean, if we're going to quote him as an authority on science and reason, we might as well quote him as authoritative in matters which science may be incapable of addressing.
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.