BLOWfish
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.
I had a MG-B! dang it now i forget the year! it was a 70 something with crome bumpers it said British leland on the side. It was a junker and I always wanted to fix it up but could NOT find parts for it! :(
Do you also want the "under God" taken out of "the pledge of Allegiance"?
Can you prove Darwin was a Christian?
No, I dont want 'under God', taken out of the 'Pledge of Allegiance'...how is that relevant? Are you attempting to classify me with a small group who do advocate this? Understand exactly what I said, I dont want specific religions taught in public school...that is all I ever said, and it expands to nothing else...
So, you see a picture of Job, standing right next to the Behemoth?...again, you leap to an interpretation, which millions of other Christians would disagree with...you can look at it one way, that does not make it the correct way..
“Aren't the righteous charming individuals? Taking delight in the fate of those who don't share their beliefs. Do you really think that accepting the copious physical evidence for evolution is enough of a sin to warrant eternal punishment (or the denial of eternal reward)?”
Then I have not condemned you, you have condemned yourself. I have stated to you what you believe and that is that the bible is false that there is no God so the only thing left is the grave and decade.
I have stated what I believe to be as a fact and you have presented what you believe is a fact. And my answer is one day we will see.
And until then let the Alpha apes rape and pillage, let apekind party today for tomorrow we die, there is no God so it does not matter. Lets kill our fetuses let devise in our hearts what we believe to be true and let dogs take the hind quarter
Have a nice eternity!
Are you saying, that God speaks only to those who are avowed Christians?
Was he tested?
prayer a no go too?
How do you see it? then he even explains it right to Job... why would he do this if the animal wasn't present.. Job wouldn't know what he was talking about.
Oh please, thats an old tired argument, and one which never works....because someone accepts evolution and also rejects God, does not mean that the same holds true for anyone else...for each person who supports evolution and has no belief in God, there is another person who supports evolution and does believe in God...belief in one thing does not necessarily mean that a person will reject something else...it does not work like that...
At least you are not trying to argue that 'Darwin recanted' his Theory of Evolution...many creationists and IDers still try to sell that story on these threads...
So you say that evolution lead Darwin to become an atheist, and others say no, Darwin recanted and became a Christian again...now, which story is it?
Hardly, since you couldn't prove to us that *you* are a Christian if you had to.
You very well know, that any child in school can silently pray to himself, should he chose to do so...those that want organized prayer in public school, want to turn it into a show, to 'show' how religious they are...
Again, if one wants organized prayer in school, then send your child to a private school, which can have all the organized prayer it wants...
I think its rather insulting on the part of those who want organized, out loud prayer in public schools, because it insults those children who pray silently, earnestly, and piously...these children dont need you or me or anyone else leading them in some organized prayer, they are able to pray on their own(something they learned from their parents, most likely)...
I'll take that to mean you have no useful response...
We really don't know for sure (disputing claims), not enough evidence. Not really our business anyhow its between him and the Lord.
How can you possibly say that?...no, Job did not have to be standing right next to the Behemoth, that is again, your interpretation...God could have just as easily, provided a vision to Job, to show the Behemoth...God can do anything...
I'm saying he probably would "test" only those who are, we take a tests for drivers licenses would it be wrong for him to test us for eternal life?
But you brought Darwin up as an example, as to what will happen to those who support evolution...I merely brought up the controversy surrounding him...and you are quite correct, its none of our business...What Darwin did or did not believe concerning God, has no effect on the TOE..
I went to public school because my parents were poor... how about you?
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.