|
Says it for me.
Ping! The Royal Society on CREVO
Rahther!
Let's dissect the statement and see where it is lacking—and how it might have been improved:
. . . 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. The "testing of theories against observational evidence" is not the exclusive domain of science. The authors should have mentioned that science deals in a special class of "theories"—I prefer to call them "models"—that exclude all normative, supernatural, and teleological explanations. Hence, science cannot answer questions of morality, or discuss God, or discover the purpose of life. Those are religious or philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
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.
This statement will sound quaint when the current Big Bang model is replaced by another model. I would argue that the use of the word knowledge is inappropriate here. We have useful models of the material universe that involve the occurrence of an event called the Big Bang. No one can say for certain that such an event really occurred—no one living on earth today was present to observe it—but the model does appear to explain some facts about the universe.
Likewise, no one alive today was present to observe the appearance of humans and other species on the earth. The best we can do is devise models that explain the available 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. . . .
Recognized by whom? And "best" in what sense? Does "from its beginnings" imply that evolution explains the origin of life?
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.
Why the scare quotes around creator? I detect a whiff of condescension here. Be that as it may, the statement would be much stronger and more accurate if it were augmented:
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 or Supreme Being is fundamental to many religions. Science cannot address questions regarding the existence or nature of such a Being, and cannot therefore evaluate religious explanations for the development of life. That is why many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientificevidencemodels 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.
It is so good of the Royal Society to tell us what may or may not be taught 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.
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.
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.
I believe that "young-earth creationism" is both bad science and bad theology. I can accept the estimates of those who say that the solar system is 4600 million years old. 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. Even the age of the earth is based on certain assumptions that may turn out to be erroneous.
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.
I am not sure that this represents a fair or accurate picture of Intelligent Design. 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. 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 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.
The Royal Society statement is incomplete. It could be improved by some editing:
Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientificSome 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.knowledge,models 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 and many other things that science may never be able to explain.
Once again, the Royal Society statement is incomplete. I would suggest a few changes:
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 methodsknowledge and understandingin order to promote particular religious beliefs. Likewise, they are poorly served when the limitations of science are not explained to them, or when science is misused in an attempt to denigrate religious beliefs.
In short, the Royal Society statement would be improved by a large dose of humility. An admission that science does not have the answers to all questions, and that science is no substitute for religion or philosophy, would go a long way toward cooling the controversies surrounding evolution.
Creationism is not science, it is theology.
How many posts till someone misconstrues the meaning of this phrase?
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.).
Believe it or not, this (the development of experimental science, calculus, capitalism, alchemy, and code breaking) is all presented in a thrill ride of a series of three very long and enjoyable novels that also feature the English Civil War, the Restoration, the Siege of Vienna, the Thirty Years War, the Corsair Pirates, stolen gold, Russian assassins, and the Hannoverian monarchy. And no, I am not the author nor do I own any stock in the publishing company.
I believe evolution is well-established as a scientific fact. I also don't think creationism should be taught in science classes in public schools. I do however disagree with the notion that teachers cannot even mention ID. I recall my 5th grade teacher taught about evolution and the big bang. She was a great teacher. I recall her stating that some people do not believe in these theories because it is not in the Bible. She was religious, and I recall her saying that she thought the evidence supported the theories. She said her opinion was that God made the big bang and evolution happen. I agree with what she said.
"Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. The argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. they are just not discussed--or scrutinized--in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood. We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or a magician--a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles--but we shouldn't. The former is theory, the latter is antitheory."
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe--Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, Basic Books, New York, 2006) pp. 168-170.
"Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. The argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. they are just not discussed--or scrutinized--in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood. We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or a magician--a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles--but we shouldn't. The former is theory, the latter is antitheory."
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe--Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, (Basic Books, New York, 2006) pp. 168-170.
(Dr. Laughlin is no creationist. He is a Stanford University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1998.)