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.
Neither can any other system of knowledge. And your original claim is nonsense. Science is the only system of acquiring knowledge by testing theories against observational evidence. You kind of skipped over showing how religion or philosophy accomplishes this without using the methods of science.
This statement will sound quaint when the current Big Bang model is replaced by another model.
If the Big Bang is replaced, it will be replace by more inclusive theory that leaves the broad features of Big Bang untouched, just as general relativity replaced Newtonian gravity without changing the way we think about falling objects in our daily lives.
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.
Feel free to jump right in. That pool is unoccupied at the moment.
ID does not have a model. It has not hypothesis regarding the characteristics of the designer, the methods by which implementation took place, the time, the location -- in short, ID is completely vacuous. If it had a model we would be testing it already.
I beg to differ. The Lucas electrics in every British magic-mobile ever made are clearly influenced by the supernatural (at oddly regular intervals, I might add). And the plumbing in my garage is a perpetual happy hour for pixies, gremlins, and supernatural hairballs.
True, Like the DaVinci Code, or Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion explains many things that didnt really happen.. and a few that did... with a few twists..
An old adage:
"Q. Why do the British drink warm beer?"
"A. Because their refrigerators are built by Lucas..."
And don't forget that long before Ozzy Ozbourne arrived on the scene, Lucas Electrics was known as the "The Prince of Darkness" ....
Sounds like I agree more than disagree with you as to what the nature of science actually is, but a couple finer points of difference regarding 'intelligent design':
Where they differ is on how to explain the evidence—what model to use.
Have ID proponents offered any model at all? I don't see one at all - only statements of belief as to the adequacy or inadequacy of existing models to explain what is still unknown. What's more, they dump the burden of 'proof' on others, instead of offering any positive evidence of their own position.
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.
I might be inclined to agree here if the ID movement had ever been anything other than disingenuous from the get-go (i.e. the Wedge Project). The ID movement, as it is now known, is not an attempt to expand scientific knowledge, but rather, to sabotage it.
Of course evolutionary theory still has a lot of work to do (just about all theories in science do) - and healthy skepticism is an important part of science, but institutions like the Discovery Institute and other promoters of ID are only trying to use the gaps in our knowledge to break down people's confidence in the veracity of all scientific knowledge, even where there is little to no doubt - a very unsettling trend indeed; and I don't think groups like the Royal Society are out of line to take a position on this.
Time to roll out the new word, endarkening.
There has been opposition to science for as long as there has been science, and always for the same reason, using the same arguments.
Already on the list, right above "unknowledge"....
;-)
In general I wouldn't qualify engineers as scientists. A Ph.D. in science is a course of training and aprrenticeship in research. If lack that training, you lack a qualification.
I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.
A few evos are too.
Please give an example of how 'normative, supernatural, and teleological explanations' can be checked against observational evidence.
Science cannot address questions regarding the existence or nature of such a Being, and cannot therefore evaluate religious explanations for the development of life.
Science can certainly show that said hypothetical being is superfluous to the complete explanations of large classes of phenomena. It can rule out specific claimed interventions of that being. So it while it certainly can't address a completely hidden variable, it can delineate under which circumstances said hidden variable can and cannot be observed.
In their zeal to discredit creationism, the authors neglect to mention that science is itself based on faith—not religious faith, to be sure, but faith nonetheless.
Nonsense.
Dawkins is as entitled to promote his metaphysical beliefs as any Baptist preacher.
True. I'm not slamming engineers (my dad was and engineer and two brothers are engineers). But I have noticed quite a few seem to go over to the dark side.
In general, I would not either. However, a Ph.D. in engineering (such as I hold) may also involve a "course of training and an apprenticeship in research." And many Ph.D. engineers are engaged in research that differs not at all from what their colleagues in the pure sciences do.
I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.
Well, I have not done a survey of "anit-evos" to know whether this is true or not. Either way, this criticism does not apply to me because I am not an "anti-evo."
I think it was Arthur Clarke who wrote a story about the endarkening bulb that cancelled light. Obviously the work of an engineer.
I could be confusing this with his story about the noise cancelling device. I wonder if Bose is paying him royalties on their headphones.
Intelligent design is the model with which science operates. Is it scientifically useful to test for the author of a book? Perhaps. But it is ludicrous to suggest a book exists apart from an author.
Fine. Science is doing what you want it to do. Now go away.
Really? Have the data in the latter two works been checked and verified by literally thousands of qualified individuals? Probably not, considering that once qualified individuals started looking into them the works were shown to be the bunk they are.
We are still reading the book, and you are an annoying pest looking over our shoulder. Buy your own copy.
The approach you are pushing suggests absolutely no changes to the current way of doing science. If you have suggestions for some specific research, send an email to the Discovery Institute. They could use a clue.
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.