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.
In the same way a book is representative of its author. You seek a denominative equality between the word "intelligent design" and "science" when the two are hardly synonymous in the first place.
Evolution is not science in the strict sense either. It is a hopeful, multifaceted reconstruction of history based upon extrapolations and conjecture from the physical world. Nevertheless it does engage science in support of its assumptions, not unlike astrologers who invoke the stars in support of their predictions.
Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena," none of which can take place without intelligibility, intelligence, and design. Intelligent design is one of many deductive and inductive approaches to science. It is not to be identified coterminously with science.
You apparently live under the delusion that science can take place devoid of philosophies, basic assumptions, and shaping principles. That cannot happen any more than one can enjoy life as a corpse. Just because evolution operates under basic assumptions is no reason to say outright "it is not science." But it ought to admit honestly and outright what those assumptions are.
The biblical texts attest to a Creator that does not change. It is no surprise the properties of nature are not willy nilly. If they were we could not do science in the first place.
It's called an axiom. A starting point. Yes, it could be wrong. No it is not scientifically provable. Do you realize you do the same thing when you attribute the presence of organized matter performing specific functions to anything but intelligent design or agents? It's okay. At some point we all have to assume a conclusion and indulge what is a "logical fallacy," namely a tautology. I don't care to fault you for it, and I know you are capable of sound logic.
That's a good way to be, and yet I sense you are not comfortable in accepting the mention of intelligent design in a scientific context, even though it might fit the paradigm better than some other general pretext.
There you go assuming a conclusion again. There is a patent inequity in waving off intelligent design as "not scientific" when in fact it lays a foundation for quantifying and describing an intelligible universe, yet at the same time suggesting it is more scientific to substitute "nature" for God. Of course, I have no reason to expect equitable considerations from those who reject the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, so you are, by nature, on your own mark.
Thanks for the clarification. I am not interested in debating exactly how far Newton's heresies went--regardless, despite any number of heresies, there is no doubt that he was devoutly religious and in no way an atheist.
Thank you so much for your testimony, hosepipe! Indeed, we are born again into a new reality which cannot be described by mere language to those who have not yet joined us.
The One Who inspired the biblical texts. Why? Because He is the One Who is attested as the Creator and sustainer of everything science has at hand to observe, quantify, and explain, plus much that will remain beyond the purview of science until such time as it is revealed.
For what reason should I accept the authority and accuracy of Biblical texts?
It seems apparent that you should not. Otherwise you would. It is not my prerogative to prescribe where you place your trust, or from what source you ultimately seek knowledge and certainty. The biblical texts say what they say, and I take them to be true. They speak of an intelligently created and sustained heaven and earth. Lo and behold, I have been born into a world replete with heaven, earth, and organized matter performing specific functions down to the tiniest details of particle matter.
The same text for you, for whatever reason, does not meet with your approval. Fine. Far be it from me to tell you why you should or should not take the position you do. It is simply your nature to be that way. This, too, has been addressed by the biblical texts and adds further veracity to their claim, but I hardly expect you to understand this or agree.
Merely describing nature does not demonstrate that said nature exists, or that your description is accurate. What's your point?
Descriptions of organized matter performing specific functions are descriptions of direct observations. To infer intelligent design from these observations is no more, and no less, "scientific" than to infer some other cause or agent, including chance.
Hahahaha! Science cannot happen without consideration for fundamental reasons. In this case the reason submitted by your version of science is "nature." So, you and the fellows who coincide with your opinion essentially throw up your hands in defeat as if it is wholly beyond human reason and comprehension to attribute organized matter performing specific functions to anything specific in itself. Just "nature did it."
I'm okay with that. Really. At least to a degree. It is when folks begin to think such a point of view is the only one acceptable by law that I get upset. (Yes, my knickers get twisted over the issue.) The reason is we live in a free republic; a place where all ideas that touch upon science should be encouraged and debated everywhere, even in public schools; even if they happen to impinge upon what we tend to call "religion."
You may not believe it, but I am the last person to advocate sectarian religious teaching in public schools. In fact, I am the last person to advocate public schools in general because they tend to advocate the sectarian establishment of atheistic principles.
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.