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.
Science admits this routinely--approximately about as many times as scientists speak in public, as it is a fundamental notion of a scientist's education--yet the effect you predict does not seem to occur.
I'm confident that it does. It maps the Dover testimony by Behe, as best I can tell.
The authors are trying to establish guilt by association by asserting that ID has more in common with creationism (presumably of the young-earth variety discussed in the previous paragraph) than science.
This is not an accurate description of the paragraph you cited to comment on here.
They imply that ID is not "based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation." They fault the proponents of ID for exploiting gaps in current knowledge—as if every other scientific model was not established the same way.
Science does not "exploit" gaps in knowledge, it uses inductive reasoning about the data it does have to predict the nature of data it doesn't presently have. When that data is found, and proves to conform with the predictions, we pretty much feel we are doing science. If you can point me to an example of a successful, similarly detailed body of ID predictions, I'd be most impressed. The reason ID fails scientific muster isn't that it might not be true--it very well might, and a fair number of scientists think so. ID fails scientific muster because it can't anti-up in the coin of the realm: successful predictions. That's sort of sn inherent aspect of infrequent, one-time events buried in the distant past.
That's roughly the modern estimate of the age of the Earth as a discrete body. The current estimate of the age of the universe is 4 or 5 times that.
That said, I can certainly conceive of other models that are not based on Darwin's theory and yet explain the diversity of species on earth.
I don't see much relationship between this and the previous sentence. What might be these other models?
Even the age of the earth is based on certain assumptions that may turn out to be erroneous.
The age of the earth, like the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang theory, is based on an extremely impressive number of independent lines of inquiry, and possiblity of vast revision is too dim to be considered interesting. Your estimates of the solvent power of the scientific method, after 200 years of serious funding, are, in my estimation, way off-target. The evidence is too good, too independently abundant, too well bench-checked, and tells way too detailed and entwined a story to be dismissed so casually.
The authors also neglect to point out that science is based on literacy--a specialized form of literacy, with many special definitions of ordinary rules, but literacy nonetheless.
t is so good of the Royal Society to tell us what may or may not be taught in schools, colleges, and universities.
About as good as having a bunch of science cranks, with an obvious theological ax to grind, telling scientists what may or may not be taught in schools, colleges, and universities.? Who do you think should decide science curriculum--movie stars and gangster rappers?
Recognized by whom?
Biological scientists.
And "best" in what sense?
A scientific sense.
Does "from its beginnings" imply that evolution explains the origin of life?
Darwinian evolution does not. A branch of biology called abiogensis does look at this question, and has discovered that the question is poorly framed. There does not appear to have been a discrete origin, in the sense of a single individual cell which was the first of the unicellular creatures. Like every other biological vector, such as individual species, discrete cellularity appears to have evolved gradually from some other mode of persistent existence.
The Royal Society's description of science is incomplete. The "testing of theories against observational evidence" is not the exclusive domain of science.
. . . This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. . . . The Royal Society's description of science is incomplete.
Indeed, their description does not go on to suggest anything about the nature of theology, just as it does not go on to suggest anything about writing plays, or enjoying a dance, or appreciating sunsets.
The "testing of theories against observational evidence" is not the exclusive domain of science.
Doing so in a critically rigorous manner, driven, and repeatedly varified by, objective field results, until effectively universal concurrance amongst all practicioners occurs, however, is pretty much science's exclusive domain. Or do you think the followers of Vishnu, Odin, Allah, and God are closing in really fast on consensus? Or, for that matter, Mary Baker Eddy and the Pope: two ontological peas in a pod?
I am well aware of the Royal Society, and I agree with your characterization of its membership. But why should I be intimidated? Even the most brilliant people can make mistakes—and I think this statement of theirs is a mistake.
By the way, if your comment about "non-scientists" was meant to include me, you are mistaken. My dictionary defines scientist as "a person learned in science and esp. natural science: a scientific investigator." I certainly qualify as a scientific investigator, although my degrees are in engineering.
One of the most concise assessments of ID that comes to my mind manages to be funny at the same time. The Quixotic Message looks like parody, but follow the footnotes. It's all TRUE.
Funny that most people, who probably wouldn't have the audacity to critique the fine details of an auto mechanic's or plumber's work, feel qualified to do so with the work of scientists (and have no idea how foolish they subsequently look).
Also funny that the same people, who readily accept that auto mechanics and plumbing are materialistic disciplines that don't invoke the supernatural, are upset by the fact that science is a similarly materialistic discipline.
Since when has science ever claimed it had the answers to all questions?
You are an engineer, you say; don't you agree that I would sound foolish if I begun critiquing your most recent engineering project? With all due respect, what makes you think you can do any better with the field of evolutionary biology? Did it occur to you that perhaps evolution through natural selection actually is supported by overwhelming evidence, enough to effectively rule out any known competing hypotheses?
They fault the proponents of ID for exploiting gaps in current knowledge—as if every other scientific model was not established the same way.
You're completely off on this one - every other scientific model is established in exactly the opposite manner as ID - by exploiting and interpolating evidence, not the gaps therein. ID simply does not explain any physical phenomena with a consistent and predictive model, the way evolutionary science does. The Royal Society is dead on the money with this one.
I hate to disagree with you, but I do not see the scientific community behaving as you describe.
What I see the scientific professionals circling the wagons against the perceived threat of creationism. They correctly denounce creationsim as a non-science. Yet they continue to tolerate those in their midst who bait the creationists by making non-scientific attacks on religion. (I am thinking of Dawkins and his ilk.)
How should scientists respond to creationists? By refusing to argue with them about how and why the earth was created.
When creationists say that God created the Earth ex nihilo in six 24-hour days, do not tell them they are wrong or stupid. Simply say that such a creation would be a miracle, and science does not deal in miracles.
You might add that many of the great scientists have been and are religious persons. They have had no difficulty reconciling religion and science because they recognize that the two serve different purposes. If you are a religious person yourself, you could also say something about how you find that science and religion both play roles in your life.
Science, of course, claims nothing of the sort; it is a method (or collection of methods). Scientists, on the other hand, sometimes say and do things they ought not.
You are an engineer, you say; don't you agree that I would sound foolish if I begun critiquing your most recent engineering project?
Not at all. If I produce a product or invention that does not work as promised, you would be foolish not to criticize my work. That is one difference between science and engineering: engineers' failures are often painfully and immediately apparent.
With all due respect, what makes you think you can do any better with the field of evolutionary biology? Did it occur to you that perhaps evolution through natural selection actually is supported by overwhelming evidence, enough to effectively rule out rule out any known competing hypotheses?
With all due respect, you have missed the point of my argument. I am not trying to do better than evolutionary biologists—evolutionary biology is not my field. What I am suggesting is that both sides of the evolution-creation debate are talking past each other.
Has it occurred to me that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence? Of course it has. I do not oppose evolution; I accept it.
But your comment about ruling out "any known competing hypotheses" needs to be modified by inserting the adjective scientific before hypotheses. After all, the young-earth creationists could be right. (I do not think they are—but mine is a religious opinion, not a scientific one.)
You're completely off on this one - every other scientific model is established in exactly the opposite manner as ID - by exploiting and interpolating evidence, not the gaps therein. ID simply does not explain any physical phenomena with a consistent and predictive model, the way evolutionary science does. The Royal Society is dead on the money with this one.
I think perhaps you have misunderstood my point yet again. From my (albeit limited) reading of the proponents of ID, I believe that they acknowledge the same evidence as evolutionary biologists. That is, neither group denies that life exists in great diversity and complexity. Where they differ is on how to explain the evidence—what model to use.
The ID people believe that the natural selection model is inadequate to explain the available evidence. I do not know whether they are right; however, I think it would be unwise to dismiss them out of hand. If nothing else, the challenge from ID might spur evolutionary biologists to refine and extend their models.
Proponents of intelligent design (not to be confused with creationists who happen to concur) state their case in tentative terms. If science cares to respond to such a proposition it apparently cannot respond scientifically, which is strange, because there is nothing unnatural or inherently unscientific about intelligence, design, or any combination of the two. But they seem to have a problem keeping their mouths shut even when the idea is presented tentatively. Not only do they have nothing remotely useful to offer as an alternative, but whatever they might offer to the contrary would be just another philosophy.
No. And I'm glad I don't. The OT routinely describes utterly monstrous behaviour on the part of God and His chosen with approval. I wouldn't sleep at night if I thought that eternal redemption might lie at the whim of such a vile being.
Further, numerous fields of independent knowledge falsify Genesis as a literal tale of origins. Genetics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, paleontology, atomic physics, geology would all have to be false for Genesis to be literally true. Yet those sciences have made startling and correct predictions about the nature of the universe. For example the PC you are currently reading this on, and the internet that connects you to my meanderings is also based on the same physical models that tell us that the universe is billions of years old. Science cannot tell us about the existence or non-existence of deities in general, but it certainly can falsify specific religious claims. By those standards Genesis is false.
LOL!!
That's just rude.
Creationism itself is zero treat, scientifically. But the tactics of creationists -- whether trying to stifle teaching of evolution, or failing in that, trying to compel the teaching of spiritualism as science, is indeed a thread. It's a threat to all of Western Civilization, which is built on rationality. Such tactics would be opposed if they were employed by astrologers attacking astronomy, phlogiston wizards attacking chemistry, etc. Not because astrology or the phlogiston theory are scientific threats, but because the Luddites are on the march.
And what would you do with Dawkins? How does one not tolerate the free expression by a scientist on any topic he wants to talk about?
But merely to say that would be a lie of ommission. No-one can deny the possibility of miracles. However, not only would such a creation be a miracle (see, I agree with you so far), but numerous lines of correlating physical evidence say that is *not* the way that the universe was created. If God created the universe ex nihilo in 6 days around 6kya then God (or another powerful deity) also filled the universe with physical evidence belying that proposition. What this leads to is the sterility of omphalism. Why seek the truth about how anything in the universe works, when all the evidence may have been planted 10 minutes ago by a trickster God?
(Spell checkers can't catch everything.)
They do look a bit like grasshoppers, and they do fortell the end for some.
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.