Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

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.

A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

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 believe evolution is well-established as a scientific fact. I also don't think creationism should be taught in science classes in public schools. I do however disagree with the notion that teachers cannot even mention ID. I recall my 5th grade teacher taught about evolution and the big bang. She was a great teacher. I recall her stating that some people do not believe in these theories because it is not in the Bible. She was religious, and I recall her saying that she thought the evidence supported the theories. She said her opinion was that God made the big bang and evolution happen. I agree with what she said.

Fester: I disagree with the notion of public schools altogether, but as long as they're there, they by law must be open to religious points of view, even when such views happen to impinge upon the sciences.

Gumlegs: All religious points of view, Fester, or just yours?

No need to reply; we already know the answer.

Fester: All religious points of view. Practically speaking, however, this area could be honed down to general terms and electives. I am grown up enough to realize there are adherents to different religions, including atheists, all of whom are fellow citizens entitled to an equal hearing when their tax money is spent on education. All of which goes to show public education paid for by the taxpayer is a particularly stupid idea unless one is devoted to mediocrity.

Suuure, Fester. And by law, too! There's nothing wrong with public education that a few more laws won't fix! And I'm sure you're just rabid to have our kids taught Muslim perspectives in health class. You really want med schools to cover the Vedic implications of drug therapies. And how can the modern American child possibly get along with a thorough grounding in traditional Ojibway perspectives on radio astronomy

We don't need to make new laws to allow freedom of religious expression in a public, academic context. It's already a guarantee we enjoy by virtue of the Constitution under which we live. Public schools are free to mention the possibility of intelligent design in connection with science. They do in my town.

The overreaction of evolutionists to the suggestion of intelligent design is telling. The proponents of ID make a mild, tentative, summary deduction from the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions on a detailed scale, and all of a sudden there is this outcry that all science classrooms will be turned into Sunday School classrooms; that entire science curricula will have to be rewritten the bring ID into every nook and cranny of scientific discipline; that every cultural representation of biblical concepts will necessarily need a fair and detailed hearing.

And not only is there this huge outcry, but there are actually lawsuits to keep this harmless notion out of the hearing of children lest their devotion to certain folks concept of object reality be disturbed.

At bottom, however, the objection is neither logical nor scientific. There is no scientific answer to the suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions MIGHT be best explained by intelligent design. There is only the verbal manifestion of tightened mental undergarments on the part of those who are devoted to an arbitrary philsophy that thinks natural substance must be constrained to human understanding.

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..

People believed a lot of crazy things were medicinally good for a long time. Witness the Then they actually started doing systematic studies to gather evidence and accounted for things like the placebo effect.

The big bang is NOT an assumption... It is a theoretical explanation that fully accounts for the avaialbe evidence.

Fascinating. You want to get ID into the classroom so you can get religion in. Didn't you get the talking points? ID -- according to those publicly pushing it -- is science and nothing but science.

I thought you were hot to get religion into the schools.

But ID isn't science, Fester. We know this because ID proponents are trying so hard to change the definition of science to make ID fit.

ID is not science because it makes no predictions and suggests no further lines of research.

It's not science because it can't be falsified.

So we know it's not science. It's not religion, because that's what all the ID adherents said under oath at the Dover trial. So what ID appears to be is nothing.

Kids already know that.

[ The big bang is NOT an assumption... It is a theoretical explanation that fully accounts for the available evidence. ]

Not an assumption?.. Its a story, a tale, science fiction, which could have a little truth in it.. the way most fiction does..

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."-G.K. Chesterton

"Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for we have made fiction to suit ourselves."-G.K. Chesterton

When I was in the Navy, I knew a guy who had a Jag and kept another car -- we called it his dinghy -- for when the Jag wasn't working, which was most of the time.

Yepper. In Groton, The BEQ was on the SubBase Groton, but my boat was at State Pier on the New London side of the river.

I had a Honda 750F that I rode when the weather was good, and when things got icy, a '68 MGB GT (US steering, women not included).
The Honda was a rock-solid scoot and the MG was pretty reliable most of the time, but I never quite trusted it. It was sorta like the Chinese curse 'May you live in interesting times' as translated by Morris Garage.

I did indeed LOL at your line about the Morris Garage translation.

My wife was driving our '68 MGB on Los Feliz Blvd in one of those Southern California torrential downpours, and she was literally hit by a wall of water pouring out of Griffith Park. She said she looked to her right to see how deep it was, and all she could see was bubbling brown in the passenger window.

But the MG kept right on going through it and got her where she was going. That low center of gravity did the trick. Low center of gravity on the car, I mean.

Again, you're getting yourself worked into a lather over an innocuous, tentative summary regarding organized matter in the physical universe. Do you really think it is the sworn duty of all people to restrict ideas by law? Although the idea of intelligent design is in accord with religious teachings rearding an Almighty Creator, that hardly necessitates sectarian teaching in the classroom. It is apparent you do not trust people to think for themselves, but would prefer to use the law to keep them from thinking differently than you do. We have words for that kind of person, and they do not include "scientist."

"Evolution by natural selection , . . . which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!

"Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. The argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. they are just not discussed--or scrutinized--in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood. We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or a magician--a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles--but we shouldn't. The former is theory, the latter is antitheory."

Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe--Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, Basic Books, New York, 2006) pp. 168-170.

Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe--Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, (Basic Books, New York, 2006) pp. 168-170.

(Dr. Laughlin is no creationist. He is a Stanford University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1998.)

Again, you're getting yourself worked into a lather over an innocuous, tentative summary regarding organized matter in the physical universe.

Your ignorance is invincible!

Do you really think it is the sworn duty of all people to restrict ideas by law?

Ideas aren't restricted by law, Fester. There's no law anywhere that says you can't entertain any half-baked notion you'd like. Just don't expect the people who actually know something about the subject to be impressed. What you are trying to do is join a game of poker and demand to beat a straight flush with a two of clubs, a three of diamonds, a five of hearts, a valentine and a deed to the Short Line Railroad.

Although the idea of intelligent design is in accord with religious teachings rearding an Almighty Creator, that hardly necessitates sectarian teaching in the classroom.

Unfortunately, the "idea of intelligent design" is also in accord with an grotesquely inept creator. In other words, it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. It's utterly worthless as a scientific explanation for anything.

You're on your own when it comes to religious "rearding."

It is apparent you do not trust people to think for themselves, but would prefer to use the law to keep them from thinking differently than you do. We have words for that kind of person, and they do not include "scientist."

Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?

I'm not worried, though, because your vocabulary doesn't interest me in the least, as it has only the most distant relationship to English even in the rare instances when your words have consistent meanings. You have again ignored all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science. You want science to be whatever makes you feel good. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I do not see why that concept is so repulsive to the evos. I have my suspicions as why it is.

God or my concept of God for this issue is beyond all time all physics etc., so it could have happened in 6 days as Genesis says it does.

I think the entire cosmos is by his will every single piece of time and space and beyond. (Prepare for the evo pixies analogy, they have some mighty heavy intellectual weaponry to draw from out of the collective quiver of all those mind working in unison LOLOL)

The evos readily glom onto the atheistic origin theories of the cosmos, and never question it when the 'physics might change' to keep the theories intact (gravity, light etc at origin of big bang) or adding other theories and permutations like string theory, weak/strong forces, more and more 'particles' in order to 'tie it all together'.

And then in the next breadth mock and ridicule any suggestion that their answers just might not be 'the answer'.

J.

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.