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.
You are right about that.
It happens all the time. Someone says, "Pray to God and he will answer your prayer." One may take that advice, try it, and see what happens. The outcome, whatever it is, would not qualify as scientific evidence. But it would be observational evidence.
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.
I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not believe that science can ever offer a "complete explanation" of anything. Scientific models, to be useful, are generally simplifications of reality. They are continually undergoing modification and refinement to make them more useful.
More important, science cannot "rule out specific claimed interventions" of God. Just the opposite: Science can state that in general God does not appear to intervene or contravene natural law; but science cannot rule out the occasional miracle.
For example, it is generally true that dead people are not observed to come back to life. (Scientists and non-scientists can agree on that.) But many people believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead. I know of no scientific test that can disprove that claim. It is a miracle, and therefore outside the realm of science.
Finally, you dismiss as nonsense my statement that science depends on a faith. Yet one of the definitions of faith is "firm belief or trust in something for which there is not proof." Science depends on a number of propositions which cannot be proved. One of these is that the laws of physics (and not just our understanding of them) are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Now, I happen to believe that the laws of physics do not change. But I cannot prove it. Science—indeed any human activity—would be impossible if it required absolute proof of every proposition. Some faith is always required.
Indeed he is. However, the Royal Society loses some credibility when it criticizes creationists for promoting their metaphysical beliefs as science but remains silent when atheists such as Dawkins do the same thing.
Technology is on the march: the device to which you allude has been replaced by the "Dark-emitting diode"....
;-)
You are using the term "faith" in two different ways, which causes confusion. In theology, "faith" means accepting a proposition that is not supported by verifiable evidence or logical proof. Thus, the Resurrection is accepted on faith.
In the scientific context, however, the laws of physics are not accepted in the same way. They are supported by millions of observations and verifiable predictions. An appropriate word to use for accepting the laws of physics is "confidence." It's confidence that is justified by observations of objective reality.
Scientific laws can be discredited by newly-observed evidence, of course, but that's how it goes in the real world. Anyway, it's the factor of evidence that distinguishes theological faith in various ideas from the confidence exhibited by science in its findings.
If we keep our vocabulary straight, we'll communicate better.
I see..... you got my point.. Qualifications to strip things down to their bases' are important.. Credentials of the qualifiers are merely a mask.. but the agenda is not.. Facts spun to support the agenda of the qualifier.. Quite a human thing to do.. it will not change.. More important than the fact is container of the fact.. what the container has faith in.. Then all facts will be spun to support that faith..
Being objective is an illusion.. containing denialablity.
To tolerate Dawkins means to put up with his free expression without contradiction. If the Royal Society is going to respond to the unscientific claims of the creationists, it should also respond to the unscientific claims of Dawkins.
"Expansion of the teaching of creationism and/or ID will eventually drop math / physics scores to the sub-basement.
This movement has to be stopped."
And it has been stopped at virtually every turn. This is why American public school students do so amazingly well in science, history and math.
Dawkins isn't trying to wedge his atheistic claims into the actual methodology of science, or into school science curricula. That's the primary difference.
Only within a very loose description of 'observational evidence'. Evidence is usually defined as a body of facts or information bearing on the truth of a proposition. If you collected a series of instances, you might have a body of information. But then, if you analysed that information properly, you'd be doing science; as was seen recently, when they analysed the effect of prayer on medical recovery.
So it appears your your test of other explanations seems to be concerned with cases where the evidence is scanty or not analyzed by scientifically adequate means. It's not so much that they are other than scientific; they are less than scientific.
More important, science cannot "rule out specific claimed interventions" of God. Just the opposite: Science can state that in general God does not appear to intervene or contravene natural law; but science cannot rule out the occasional miracle.
Sure it can. If you claim specific instance of a phenomenon A is an example of supernatural intervention, we can examine it to see if it followed deterministically from natural law, or if in fact supernatural intervention is a plausible explanation. So, for example, disease used to be attributed to supernatural action. We now know that it is caused by specific etiological agents. We have ruled out divine or Satanic action as a general cause of disease.
But many people believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead. I know of no scientific test that can disprove that claim. It is a miracle, and therefore outside the realm of science.
We know that when people die, irreversible processes proceed that rapidly make resuscitation impossible. We can't rule out that some specific instance in time a miracle happened; but then we can't rule out any miracle, or any supernatural explanation. The world could have been created yesterday, with all our memories intact. So specific instances of 'miracles' are really inseparable from the general category of 'omphalism', and by adopting naturalism - and we are all naturalists in practice - we have discarded this category of explanations.
Miraculous explanations are nothing more than examples of spasmodic omphalism. If you adopt naturalism as a useful general policy, why would you abandon it in special instances, those instances remarkable only because they are the ones that survived from an earlier, less naturalistic age, by being more difficult to challenge?
I'm pinging thatcherite because he introduced me this morning to this magnificent and useful new word.
Has Dawkins promoted atheism as science? I don't believe so. He has said that science makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, a very different statement.
Not only disease but all manner of phenomena that we now attribute to natural agency used to be attributed to the will of God. When lightning rods were first invented they were resisted by the established church. Clearly it was gross hubris to seek to deflect the will of God. But the church elders soon noticed that the lightning-rod-equipped cathouse would be spared, while the neighbouring church would be the target of God's wrath. It would seem that God was weak indeed, to have His manifest will deflected by $1 of metal. Perhaps, after all, God was not directing every lightning strike with His will, but rather allowing the random happenstance of the natural world to strike all equally, sinner and saint.
Worship the God that resides in the gaps of our ignorance of the natural world if you will, but be aware that that particular God is a grossly shrunken God from the deity of a few-hundred years ago.
Your posts can't be from the real Patrick Henry who was a creationist. You must be the phony Patrick Henry who attempts to associate the greatness of the original, who believed the opposite of what you do, with your quixotic Darwinist crusade.
"In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." ("The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life")
Darwin omitted this story in other editions, but regretted his revision.
"I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits" ("More Letters of Charles Darwin," 1903, page 162).
"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).
"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.).
Speaking as a qualified engineer who makes his living as a programmer I'd suggest that plenty of evos are also engineers and programmers. Any engineer who had courses like the ones that I studied for my Civ Eng major would have to have been asleep to be continuing to give YEC in particular any credence. My undergraduate understanding of geology, hyrdraulics, and soil mechanics is quite sufficient for me to be able to dispose of AiG style arguments from my own personal knowledge, in most cases. Given the nature of debating sites like FR I'd suggest that the large number of engineers/programmers in this debate is simply a matter of self-selection; such people are the most likely to be computer-literate enough to be comfortable debating on the internet.
And I'm saying you can only go so far in the basic sciences (including math) without getting to evolution theory. ID belongs nowhere in the equation.
Um-okay.
You too.
Which, of course, religious fundamentalists never, ever do.
I have one bit of satisfaction through all of this you all think that you will end up in the grave dead and gone and I know that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that He is Lord of all!
Have a nice eternity
Is it considered ... what's the word ... "Christian," perhaps? ... to gloat over the supposed eternal torment of others? I mean, do you tell people you're trying to convince, "Join us so you too can revel in the eternal damnation of the heathens, heretics, and schismatics? Seems like an odd approach to me, but I'm always interested in new persuasive techniques.
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.