|
Science, Evolution, and Creationism US National Academy 2008, 88 pages, ISBN-10: 0-309-10586-2
¡K. ¡§I¡¦ve never seen an ape turn into a human. It¡¦s not observable.¡¨
¡K ¡§Macro evolution, changing from a fish to a dog or a pig to a whale, is no more true than the story about the tooth fairy.¡¨
Do you think that Creationism should be taught along with Evolution in schools?
US National Academy recently stated that creationism and intelligent design have no place in science courses.
The National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine have released Science, Evolution, and Creationism (88 pages 2008, ISBN-10: 0-309-10586-2), a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. NAS and IOM maintain unequivocally that creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Christian Bible, and the currently popular idea of ¡§intelligent design¡¨ are not science and have no place in public school science classrooms. Only scientifically based explanations for life should be included in public school science class.
Science is not about what you believe. Science is about forming hypotheses, designing a way to test the hypothesis, gathering data, interpreting the data and publishing the results for peer review, challenge and replication.
Theories are allowed to stand until scientific evidence emerges that proves them wrong, or, at least, requires they be revised. Teaching intelligent design only confuses students about what constitutes science and what doesn¡¦t. Intelligent design does not lend itself to testing, challenge or even discussion. It is what it is - and it isn¡¦t science.
Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines. I am not aware that intelligent design has contributed to any advances in modern medical science, or any other science for that matter. It may sustain some students¡¦ religious teachings, but I doubt that it will enhance their understanding of science; forcing it into the science classroom will certainly confuse students who want to learn the methods of true science.
Let¡¦s agree that religious dogma be taught in church or other institutions designed to teach faith and let science teachers teach science.
¡K read their press release here, and click here to read the content free.
Reactions to this report are furious and interesting as expected:
¡K¡K It is interesting read what the Evolutionists have to say about Intelligent Design. They talk like they know something that we don¡¦t. First the reason Macro evolution is called a theory is because there is no real evidence to support the cute little stories that Darwinists make up. You know the stories Darwinists make up about how it might have happened. At least ID is based on real informational and probability science. It might be helpful to read ¡§The Edge Of Evolution¡¨ by Dr. Behe concerning mutations if you think ID is not science based. If you really don¡¦t want to teach anything in science that is not proven to be true, How do you explain the teaching of Macro evolution. Macro evolution, changing from a fish to a dog or a pig to a whale, is no more true than the story about the tooth fairy. If you are going to speculate in front of children about how macro evolution might have happened I see no reason why we can¡¦t speculate in front of children about how Intelligent Design might have happened. It seems to me that believing in ID is far more helpful to society at large then believing that we are nothing more than a fortuitous accident and no one cares if we live or die.... I wish all you Darwinists would stop trying to connect ID with creationism. Lets be honest, Darwinism is all about religious belief and the fear there might be a God. How else can you explain the massive campaign to prevent the teaching of ID in the classrooms by any means including manipulations, exaggerations and even lies about religious connections. All you Darwinist should calm down and live and let live. Most people don¡¦t care if you believe in God or don¡¦t believe in God. its your choice, Live with it.
So the debate continues, the other side already prepared a series of seven textbooks designed for the public schools, The Quest for Right, (by C. David Parsons) represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. ¡K¡K The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately replace the unprofitable Darwinian view.
¡K.. The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an ¡§I¡¨ from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.
I remember about four yeas ago, Botanical Association of American (BSA) was asked by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) if BSA could provide a statement outlining their view on evolution. On July 27, 2003 at the 2003 Annual General Meeting the plant scientists of BSA Council approved the statement to follow for use by the NCSE. It was a nice and clear statement on the meaning of evolution and the needs to be taught in public schools.
Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen:ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ?evolution is just a theory,? the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true.
¡K¡K Some people contend that creationism and its surrogate, ¡§intelligent design,¡¨ offers an alternative explanation: that organisms are well adapted and have common characteristics because they were created just so, and they exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design. As such, creationism is an all inclusive explanation for every biological phenomenon. So why do we support and teach evolution and not creationism/¡§intelligent design¡¨ if both explain the same phenomena? Are botanists just dogmatic, atheistic materialists, as some critics of science imply? Hardly, although scientists are routinely portrayed by creationists as dogmatic. We are asked, ¡§Why, in all fairness, don¡¦t we teach both explanations and let students decide?¡¨
¡K¡K Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.
¡K¡K
Creationism is the modern manifestation of a long-standing conflict between science and religion in Western Civilization. Prior to science, and in all non-scientific cultures, myths were the only viable explanations for a myriad of natural phenomena, and these myths became incorporated into diverse religious beliefs. Following the rise and spread of science, where ideas are tested against nature rather than being decided by religious authority and sacred texts, many phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural (disease, genetic defects, lightning, blights and plagues, epilepsy, eclipses, comets, mental illness, etc.) became known to have natural causes and explanations. Recognizing this, the Catholic Church finally admitted, after 451 years, that Galileo was correct; the Earth was not the unmoving center of the Universe. Mental illness, birth defects, and disease are no longer considered the mark of evil or of God?s displeasure or punishment. Epileptics and people intoxicated by ergot-infected rye are no longer burned at the stake as witches. As natural causes were discovered and understood, religious authorities were forced to alter long-held positions in the face of growing scientific knowledge. This does not mean science has disproved the existence of the supernatural. The methodology of science only deals with the material world.Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes.
Not enough evolution vs.creationism for today? You may like to know what do geologists think about this issue. Geological Society of American has released a ¡§Statement on Evolution¡¨ expressing a similar view on Evolution and public school education. Want to read more about evolution? The web of National Academies allows you easy access to books, position statements, and additional resources on evolution education and research.
Or click to enjoy a hot debates at ¡§Evolution vs Creationism¡¨, ¡§Debunking Evolution¡¨, and ¡§I Fear We are Losing¡¨ at Free Republic .
But, debate is pretty much worthless. Debate is about winning an argument, not about getting to the truth. Look at creationism vs. evolution....creationists routinely come out on top during debates, but when the truth is exposed, they lose every time.
If creationism should be taught in schools, should evolution be taught in church? After all, it's giving people the choice to believe what they want. Creation vs. Evolution is not most important question when your life draws to a close. Believing in either takes a great deal of faith. Hopefully you put your faith in the proper place.
- posted by Wei-chin Chang |
|
