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.
But the whole thrust of trying to get ID taught in the public schools, was that ID was not supposed to be tied to any religion whatsoever....the claim was that ID was scientific, and not religious...but the judge in the Dover trial saw that as a falsehood...it appeared to him, that while claiming that ID was scientific and not religious, the real aim was to 'slide' or 'wedge' the Christian God into the teaching of ID...declare the Christian God as the designer...rightly the judge saw through the deceit of the people in the Dover trial, who tried to claim that the designer could be the Christian God, who might be dead, or could be some other deity or outside creative force(wink, wink)...the judge was not amused, nor was he taken in...
He saw the aim of the ID supporters was to bring the Christian God into the science class...thats religion, not science...
but but but, you have them too.
Salem hypothesis
Thanks, I'd never heard of that. Perhaps engineering students should study the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the spine, the retina, and other triumphs of intelligent design.
I do not have to square it...if you want to believe that God used actual 24 hr days, a literal interpretation, that is your choice...I, and millions of other Christians, dont agree with this narrow literal interpretation...I believe God is outside of time as we think of it, He is not limited to our notion of hour, or day, or any other time frame...Gods time frame, is His own, unknown to us...
Now you will obviously disagree...so be it...
Are we straight that you're done trying to get your less than factual cult literature into science class? I am really not aware that any group of scientists anywhere is trying to get creationism outlawed from Sunday Schools, or even get equal time for science. Which is to say, you seem to be telling the wrong people to shut up.
Have you checked into Augustine's notion of time? Moreover, are you aware of a purely empirical definition of time?
No I have not checked into Augustines notion of time...I am sure you will enlighten me...Also, give me the empirical definition of time...do assume I am not very bright...
True..
Jesus came to make ALL religion(s) obsolete, and DID..
And provided another way to bypass assumtion...
Yours, mine, and everybodys religion is obsolete
As he said, "You MUST be born again"..
Born again into what?.. AH! but thats what are talking about isn't it?..
Born on earth into a "reality", born again into another "reality"..
We're dealing here with two different realitys..
I can understand yours, you cannot grasp mine.. Pity, buts its so..
have you read anything about ID?
Fester, you've already admitted you post material you don't understand. What would be the point in answering you? (It's a rhetorical question, btw).
Sure I have read about ID...you can too...just google it, and you will find many different sites, all with different information...I also read a lot of the testimony of the folks trying to get ID into the public schools...and read the judges decision concerning this...all of this info is available on the internet...just a quick google click away...
Nicely said.
Thanks...when someone posts something, I hope that they have an understanding of what they are posting...that does seem basic...
Do you believe that their was a Great Flood that covered that Earth, or was that just in the Bible for some drama?
I Googled that, and it's a real hymn!
Unbelievable! (err maybe that's not quite the right word...)
Are we in Sunday School now?...no matter, it seems you are comfy only with the Bible stories, and quite uncomfortable with anything scientific...
I am going to put it like this...should I say that no, I dont believe a great flood covered the entire earth, that it was indeed a very large local flood, you would of course, tell me how very wrong I was about the Bible...
If on the other hand, I would agree that there was a world wide flood, then you would tell me how wrong I was about evolution...
So, no matter what I say, you think you have me caught...so, I decline to answer...
I will say this tho...I dont believe that all manner of baby dinosaurs were on that ark, as so many creationists would have me believe..
Past events cannot be repeated as per scientific methodology, guess we shouldn't teach either one then huh?
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.