Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design
The Royal Society ^ | 11 Apr 2006 | Staff (press release)

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.

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

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-400 next last
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
Do you beleive there is a God?

I do not. This is not relevant to Thatcherite's questions. The question of whether or not humans are vertebrates has no relevance to the existence of any deities.
361 posted on 04/16/2006 4:32:08 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Your questions have been asked and answered repeatedly.

I asked one single time where you got those "tests" for a theory. You have not answered the question.

I asked one single time whether those tests have been empirically tested so we know for certain if a theory passes these tests, the theory meets the criteria of being "scientific?" You have not answered the question.

I asked one single time how you know falsification is absolutely necessary before an idea can be considered "scientific?" You have not answered the question.

362 posted on 04/16/2006 4:34:20 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
. . . established biological taxonomic classifications.

They're fine. Anyone can pigeonhole data. But to be a real scientist one must substitute the word "nature" for "God." ***POOF!*** You are a real scientist!

363 posted on 04/16/2006 4:38:44 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Anyone can pigeonhole data. But to be a real scientist one must substitute the word "nature" for "God." ***POOF!*** You are a real scientist!

Ha ha pretty good there.

I guess pretty much anyone can be a real scientist then. That must be where they get all the real scientists for the poll results we always see on these threads.

Wolf
364 posted on 04/16/2006 4:44:44 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

I'm not sure. I think a real scientist is one who gets paid to pigeonhole data. At any rate, the definition is bound by law to exclude anyone who accepts the accuracy and authority of biblical texts. It's one of those "special" clubs, ya know.


365 posted on 04/16/2006 4:49:24 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
At any rate, the definition is bound by law to exclude anyone who accepts the accuracy and authority of biblical texts.

Please cite the law to which you refer.
366 posted on 04/16/2006 5:05:47 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Well I am as much a techy - science and theory geek (amateur) as anyone can be. But if thats what it takes to be 'in the club' count me out.

And there is plenty of evidence for that assertion (the club exclusion policy LOL), only none of it will be accepted before the evo-peoples tribunal /sarc>

Wolf
367 posted on 04/16/2006 5:18:00 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Please cite the law to which you refer.

The law in your head which equates intelligent design with non-science. The same law that accepts only "peer reviewed" publications in accord with evolutionism as being truly "scientific." The same law(s) that prohibit public school boards and publishers of science curricula from suggesting that organized matter performing specific functions MIGHT be a product of intelligent design.

368 posted on 04/16/2006 5:27:45 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Bailing out of a hopeless thread, placemarker.
369 posted on 04/16/2006 5:30:42 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
. . . only none of it will be accepted before the evo-peoples . . .

How true. The "custodians" of objective reality have this complex entailing the denial of subjectivism. They are superhuman and thus above biases, beliefs, and boners. If you've got a solid pair of knee pads you might get a hearing and some respect from their quarters. Only be sure to preface any remarks with the qualification that you believe the biblical texts to be a wholly human product; literature from poets for poets; sheer allegory; phantasmagoric fabrications and such.

370 posted on 04/16/2006 5:37:23 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Dimensio

IOW, time to cut and run before the Truth catches up with you.


371 posted on 04/16/2006 5:38:54 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
I beleive that man was made in the image of God. There is nothing that any man can say that will change my mind on this subject.

But what does that have to do with the following questions:

Are people mammals?

Are people vertebrates?

372 posted on 04/17/2006 12:24:06 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Miraculous explanations are just spasmodic omphalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
At any rate, the definition is bound by law to exclude anyone who accepts the accuracy and authority of biblical texts. It's one of those "special" clubs, ya know.

So, are you against at the idea that those who decide the veracity of Biblical texts in advance of examining the physical evidence are scientists?

373 posted on 04/17/2006 12:26:31 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Miraculous explanations are just spasmodic omphalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I am against the idea that those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts are, by virtue of said rejection, the sole custodians of science and objective reality. I am against the idea that intelligent design must be outlawed in science classes because it happens to comport with the biblical texts. I am against the idea of monopolies in science and in public education.


374 posted on 04/17/2006 4:24:19 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The three books are Quicksilver, The Confusion, and The System of the World. Preceding these in publication was The Cryptonomicon which is sort of a "postlude" set in the 20th century and featuring the decendants of the main characters (plus one fellow who is apparently immortal) in the trilogy.
375 posted on 04/17/2006 6:00:43 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I am against the idea that those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts are, by virtue of said rejection, the sole custodians of science and objective reality.

None of your response is an answer to the question I asked you. I asked if you agree that scientists shouldn't decide on the veracity of Biblical texts before examining the physical evidence? It is a simple enough question.

I am against the idea that intelligent design must be outlawed in science classes because it happens to comport with the biblical texts.

But that isn't why it is outlawed in science class. It is outlawed in science class because even its proponents agree that it doesn't meet the entry requirements of being considered science. Moreover, Intelligent Design scientists (Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer) agree the following (Behe under oath):

Do those beliefs "comport with the biblical texts", or is it just wishful thinking on your part that you would like there to be a version of ID that does so? Or perhaps you are aware of another group of scientists who promote a scientific Intelligent Design hypothesis that *does* comport with Biblical texts. If so perhaps you could name them and share their hypothesis with us.

I am against the idea of monopolies in science and in public education.

There is a monopoly in science, that it should be done using observation, prediction, and potential falsification. You may want to investigate the world some other way, perhaps using supernatural claims, and perhaps you'll find the Truth, but you won't be doing science, which is, by definition, the study of the natural world.

376 posted on 04/17/2006 6:44:13 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Miraculous explanations are just spasmodic omphalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

You have still not answered my question.


377 posted on 04/17/2006 11:32:40 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

You didn't ask me a question. You told me to cite a law. I responded, but not to your satisfaction. Do you deny there are people attempting to use the force of law to suppress mention of intelligent design in public school classrooms?


378 posted on 04/17/2006 1:42:56 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The law in your head which equates intelligent design with non-science.

How is "intelligent design" science? Please explain how it conforms to the scientific method.

The same law(s) that prohibit public school boards and publishers of science curricula from suggesting that organized matter performing specific functions MIGHT be a product of intelligent design.

What you are describing is an unsupported assertion with no positive evidence and no established falsification criteria. As such, it is decidedly not science. Moreover, what you have described is not "Intelligent Design" as promoted by the authors of the claim.
379 posted on 04/17/2006 2:09:58 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I responded, but not to your satisfaction.

Actually, I had not seen your reply. I apologize for that.

Do you deny there are people attempting to use the force of law to suppress mention of intelligent design in public school classrooms?

Yes.
380 posted on 04/17/2006 2:10:43 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-400 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson