IAP statement on the teaching of evolution

[EL]

On 22 june 76 Academies of Science all over the world made a statement regarding "Teaching of evolution". ( http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/files/newspics/DOC_2006622103638_83921484512_IAP_Evolution.pdf ).

IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION
We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for come 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of
fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and (ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution 21 June 2006 page 2 of 2 contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully
aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
68. The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

Since ID-fans often try to convince people (and themselves?) that there is a quite significant fraction of the scientific community questioning evolution, I think it's a good idea to make this clear statement. Question is though what kind of impact this action really will have on teaching? Long term? Short term?
Could these kind of statements for example make it easier to fight the situation in US?

 

[J77]

That's a nice statement.

Is the US Academy of Science your top scientific institution?

And will your governement act on this?

 

[EL]

That's a nice statement.

Is the US Academy of Science your top scientific institution?

And will your governement act on this?

Top scientific institution?

Here (in Sweden) we really don't have had that much problems with ID. Of course there are ID-supporters, but they are not very successful, at least not this far. However, in last years I've noticed a slightly higher acceptance to these kind of anti-science thoughts, and it terrifies me! (There has even been some kind of anti-evolution proposal in the parlament once, although it was completely rejected.) I think letters like this could work as a wake-up call so that we can act before it's too late...

 

[russ_watters]

That's a nice statement.

Is the US Academy of Science your top scientific institution?

It isn't a school, if that's what you mean. In the US, anyway, it is an advisory group to the government:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/

 

[J77]

I meant in terms of the Royal Society for the UK.

ie. you've reached a very high point when you become a Fellow of the RS.

 

[EL]

I meant in terms of the Royal Society for the UK.

ie. you've reached a very high point when you become a Fellow of the RS.

Ok, then my "top institution" is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences...

 

[Bystander]

The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen.

This bit in (3) isn't necessary to the argument, and isn't that well established; few mass balance problems, alternate paths for atmospheric "evolution," and other details. Better omitted, but, "what the hey," they've signed it, and can do a public redaction later, should the need arise.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A statement like this has more to do with politics than with science. There was religious opposition to Newtonian physics as well. I suppose some acadamies could have gotten together in 1904 and created a manifesto like this one supporting the Newtonian view against all comers. What would we think of such a document today in view of the events of 1905.

 

[EL]

A statement like this has more to do with politics than with science.

Sure, and that's why I posted it here.

There was religious opposition to Newtonian physics as well. I suppose some acadamies could have gotten together in 1904 and created a manifesto like this one supporting the Newtonian view against all comers. What would we think of such a document today in view of the events of 1905.

I think all scientist would agree such a manifesto would have been a nice thing to do!
There's a huge difference between ID and SR, in that the later is science while the first is not. SR did not say Newton was wrong, it just modified the theory at high velocities. That Newton mechanics is a good theory is clear from everyday experiences (and moon landings...)
Point is that religion is not science.

 

[Gokul43201]

A statement like this has more to do with politics than with science. There was religious opposition to Newtonian physics as well. I suppose some acadamies could have gotten together in 1904 and created a manifesto like this one supporting the Newtonian view against all comers. What would we think of such a document today in view of the events of 1905.

That it was wholly appropriate. How can you think otherwise?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

SR did not say Newton was wrong, it just modified the theory at high velocities.

It modified the theory at all velocities. (Except zero. Newton's equations of motion are only correct when there is no motion.)

 

[siddharth]

Yeah, but Newton's laws work very well for large bodies at low speeds, and are experimentally verifiable.
ID doesn't "work" at all, and can't be experimentally verified.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yeah, but Newton's laws work very well for large bodies at low speeds, and are experimentally verifiable.

That's my point. Newton's laws work well, are experimentally verifiable and are wrong in view of current theory. A manifesto in support of them would be counterproductive.

ID doesn't "work" at all, and can't be experimentally verified.

The document quoted at the top of the thread does not mention ID. It undermines its own goal of defending science from non-science by casting theories in stone.

 

[siddharth]

That's my point. Newton's laws work well, are experimentally verifiable and are wrong in view of current theory. A manifesto in support of them would be counterproductive.

Why counterproductive? In face of religious opposition to Newtonian physics, I think that such a statement would have been very productive in promoting rational and scientific thinking.

The document quoted at the top of the thread does not mention ID. It undermines its own goal of defending science from non-science by casting theories in stone.

It doesn't mention ID explicitly, but it says

... learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science.

In my opinion, that's a clear reference to ID and creationism. I don't think it casts it in stone, but it only promotes the scientific view. If there's new experimental evidence, of course the theories will change.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why counterproductive?

In view of certain non-scientific attacks against the scientific method, we the authorities of science have decided to abandon the scientific method and declare that Newton is right world without end. Amen.

Go ahead, sign it.

 

[Gokul43201]

1. Newtonian physics was and still is an extremely accurate model of how things work within a certain regime of applicability. The same is true of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. They all belong in certain regimes and do not work very well outside them. This is well-understood by the scientific community. And the tribute to the usefulness of Newtonian Mechanics is in the simple observation that it continues to be the tool of choice for the overwhelming majority of engineers around the world.

2. Deviations from Newtonian predictions were discovered by scientists (using the scientific method) - not by the religious groups objecting to it. Religious arguments have not produced one shred of good science. And there are probably as many religious groups that oppose Relativity as there are groups that opposed Newtonian Mechanics - so nothing's really changed from their point of view.

3. The statement saying essentially that science ought to be left to the scientists, would be as valid then as it is now.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

3. The statement saying essentially that science ought to be left to the scientists, would be as valid then as it is now.

What, patent clerks need not apply?

The document says:

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence.

Bravo. But it also says:

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for come (some?) 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

I must be 2 billion years old because when I was a young man I was assured that our Earth was formed 2.5 billion years previous. I could never sign this passionately religious document, you go ahead.

 

[Evo]

What, patent clerks need not apply?

Your lack of knowledge about Einstein is pretty sad.

I must be 2 billion years old because when I was a young man I was assured that our Earth was formed 2.5 billion years previous. I could never sign this passionately religious document, you go ahead.

I don't know what Earth YOU live on, but the one the rest of us live on is around 4.5 billion years old.

Your lack of knowledge and the fact that you support ID speaks volumes.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Your lack of knowledge about Einstein is pretty sad.

I don't know what Earth YOU live on, but the one the rest of us live on is around 4.5 billion years old.

Your lack of knowledge and the fact that you support ID speaks volumes.

Sad is this ad hominem attack. I do not support ID. What did I write that gave you the impression that I did? The 2 billion year old calculation was a joke, read it again.

 

[Evo]

Sad is this ad hominem attack. I do not support ID. What did I write that gave you the impression that I did? The 2 billion year old calculation was a joke, read it again.

So is your opposition just an overall rejection of the teaching of science sans religion?

 

[Gokul43201]

Einstein was a physicist - he got his Bachelors Diploma in 1901 and his PhD in 1905. And he was not a patent clerk - he was a technical investigator at the Patent Office.

Nevertheless, being a patent clerk does not stop someone from being a scientist, so long as they apply the scientific method of investigation. This typically requires several years of training to master.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So is your opposition just an overall rejection of the teaching of science sans religion?

I have no idea how you can read that into my posts. I am in favor of the scientific method. Please allow me to quote this a second time:

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence.

And allow me to say "bravo" once again. However, what I am not in favor of is taking the great successes that we have gained from this mode of inquiry and treating them as if they were truth. Scientists should be content to do their work in the world of fact and theory. Leave truth to the priests.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A farmer knows a little bit about geometry. One pound of seed will just cover one square yard of ground (I'm not a farmer. I just made up those numbers). The farmer needs to cover a field 100 yards by 100 yards. When buying seed to plant the fields, this farmer buys 10000 pounds of seed and it just covers the field. The farmer concludes that the Earth is flat since otherwise the seed would have been insufficient to cover.

The farmer's neighbor is a high-school science teacher. The teacher believes the Earth is round because that's what is written in the science book.

Nevertheless, being a patent clerk does not stop someone from being a scientist, so long as they apply the scientific method of investigation.

Science has to do with method, not results. I won't sign that document.

 

[Evo]

However, what I am not in favor of is taking the great successes that we have gained from this mode of inquiry and treating them as if they were truth. Scientists should be content to do their work in the world of fact and theory. Leave truth to the priests.

Where are you getting this from the OP?

Also, Priests have no "truth", they have only "faith" in what cannot be seen or heard or felt. So, what "truth" are you referencing, and how did you get that out of the OP?

Science has to do with method, not results. I won't sign that document.

I don't see anyone asking you to sign anything, so I guess you can relax.

 

[Gokul43201]

Science has to do with method, not results. I won't sign that document.

And likewise, if you found that geocentric cosmology was being taught in schools as a result of pressure from "certain groups", you would not sign a document saying the scientific community is strongly of the opinion that this is false, and that in reality, the Earth revolves around the sun with a perigee of X and an eccentricity of Y. Correct?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Where are you getting this from the OP?

The document lists 4 things as having been established.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts ... have been established ...

Facts don't get established. They are the outcome of (hopefully) repeatable experiments and are ever subject to better experiments. This attempt to raise fact to the level of truth is exactly what I object to. Again, leave truth (and established facts) to the priests.

And what are these established facts?

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for come (some?) 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

I know the difference between fact and theory, but I'm afraid that the signers of that document may not. We examined this rock and that rock and found this and that fact about those rocks and we have a theory that explains those facts. The theory is that our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billlion years ago. Now theory is elevated to fact before being blessed as "established". That figure (fact?) of 11 to 15 billion years is based on a theory (fact based on theory, can you beat that?) that also predicts exotic dark matter, dark energy, and the inflationary universe. Doesn't that give one pause before declaring the theory fact and the fact established?

Priests have no "truth", they have only "faith"

Then no one has "truth". Leave "faith" to the priests as well. Only don't let scientists carry that heavy load.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

false

in reality

Until this language was changed, I could not sign. On the other hand, "strongly of the opinion" works for me.

 

[Dragonfall]

Then don't bloody sign. No one's putting a cyclotron to your head. You're being overly pedantic.

 

[Plastic Photon]

More nations compete for the world cup than are on that list. I read an article in physics today discussing the teaching of evolution...actually I fell asleep in the library reading it, but I did wake with enough to get to class.

 

[russ_watters]

In view of certain non-scientific attacks against the scientific method, we the authorities of science have decided to abandon the scientific method and declare that Newton is right world without end. Amen.

Go ahead, sign it.

That isn't anywhere near the tone of the document in the OP.

Facts don't get established. They are the outcome of (hopefully) repeatable experiments and are ever subject to better experiments. This attempt to raise fact to the level of truth is exactly what I object to. Again, leave truth (and established facts) to the priests.

And what are these established facts?

Wow. You're misunderstanding the English language, the nature of "fact", and the philosophy of science all in one little quote!

-To "establish" simply means to "cause to be recognized" - if something is seen repeatedly in experiments, people will recognize it as fact. That's the most basic form of logic. You aren't disagreeing with it in those first two sentences. That's a misunderstanding of the definition of the word and perhaps the nature of logic under which science operates.
-Science is sometimes called 'the search for truth', but science cannot provide universal Truth because there are no absolutes in science. And OP statement doesn't "raise fact to the level of truth" because it doesn't state anything as absolute.

I know the difference between fact and theory...

Quite clearly, you do not. Data is fact. Theory is the explanation. Data is a number on a scale. Data (all data) comes with a certain level of uncertainty. The age of the Earth (or the universe) is measured. It isn't theory, it is fact - heck, it even has the approppriate level of uncertainty stated, since the uncertainty in the age of the universe is relatively large.

That figure (fact?) of 11 to 15 billion years is based on a theory (fact based on theory, can you beat that?) that also predicts exotic dark matter, dark energy, and the inflationary universe. Doesn't that give one pause before declaring the theory fact and the fact established?

No, jimmy, no. The theory (the BBT) is based on the fact that the universe is 11-15 billion years old (among other things), not the other way around.

I don't understand how you could have this backwards - where do you think the BBT theory came from? It wasn't pulled out of thin air.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, Priests have no "truth", they have only "faith" in what cannot be seen or heard or felt.

Priests have faith that they have Truth.

 

[Evo]

Evo
Where are you getting this from the OP?

The document lists 4 things as having been established.

Originally Posted by OP
We agree that the following evidence-based facts ... have been established ...

Facts don't get established. They are the outcome of (hopefully) repeatable experiments and are ever subject to better experiments. This attempt to raise fact to the level of truth is exactly what I object to.

You are intententionally omitting the part that clearly states that the facts presented are subject to new information. The CORRECT quote from the OP is

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

You are creating a false statement to try to find something to object to.

 

[Gokul43201]

Science has to do with method, not results.

If science education involved only the teaching of the scientific method and completely avoided any communication of the results of millions of man-hours of investigation and discovery, then

(i) there would be no more than a single semester worth of science taught to students,

(ii) all applied sciences and engineering disciplines will go extinct, and

(iii) we would hardly be better scientists tomorrow than we were yesterday.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

1. In my opinion, it was exactly the tone.

The theory (the BBT) is based on the fact that the universe is 11-15 billion years old (among other things), not the other way around.

No it wasn't, it was based on redshifts and beat out a close rival only after the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Those redshifts (the facts) would be useless for determining the age of the universe without a theory relating redshift to distance and another theory relating distance to time.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change ...

You can't turn facts into truths by putting error bars on them.

 

[russ_watters]

You can't turn facts into truths by putting error bars on them.

No one is trying to.

No it wasn't, it was based on redshifts and beat out a close rival only after the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Those redshifts (the facts) would be useless for determining the age of the universe without a theory relating redshift to distance and another theory relating distance to time.

That isn't how it happened at all. Your understanding of both the theory and the history of how it was developed are wrong.

In my opinion, it was exactly the tone.

Well here's the thing. Take a step back and look at the implications of your opinion. This document has been endorsed by, at the very least, a few hundred scientists and read by probably a few thousand more. You are essentially saying that these scientists are not behaving like scientists. And there are only really two possible ways that could be true:

1. Either the scientists of the world have all succomed to the same group pathology that is causing them to contradict themselves and no longer be scientists.
2. A vast global conspiracy exists by which scientists have banded together to suppress real scientific knowledge.

As for everyone else who has read this document, there are two possibilities:
1. The document was so cleverly written that few people notice the inconsistency in the wording.
2. The inconsistency doesn't exist and the document means what it says.

Jimmy, you've backed yourself into a corner where most of the scientists in the world must be wrong simultaneously or be part of a vast conspiracy in order for you to be right! Or, you're misreading and misunderstanding the document. Which do you think is more reasonable?

 

[Evo]

You can't turn facts into truths by putting error bars on them.

YOU are the only one incorrectly calling these "truths". You are intentionally creating a false argument in an attempt to drag the thread off topic. You have three days of vacation to rethink if you will stop this nonsense or be permanently banned.

 

[EL]

First of all I would like to make clear I definitely find the document positive.

I can see what jimmysnyder's point is: To debunk the unscientific ID-"theory" with the help of something else unscientific is not the right way to go, and in general I of course agree with that.
But here jimmysnyder has probably drawn the wrong conclusion from the document. It is not trying to tell "truths", but instead stating what is "scientifically established facts", which is something totally different (as Evo, Russ, Gokul et al already have explained).

One thing I do not get in Russ' reasoning is though:

The age of the Earth (or the universe) is measured.

How do you measure the age of the universe?
I would say we need to use a theory (e.g. BB) to calculate it out from other measurements.

 

[Gokul43201]

One thing I do not get in Russ' reasoning is though:

How do you measure the age of the universe?
I would say we need to use a theory (e.g. BB) to calculate it out from other measurements.

Even if there are parts of the BBT that are wrong, there are certain other parts that are supported by numerous independent measurements of different kinds - the overwhelming majority of which are in very close agreement. One such part is Hubble's Law, which by itself gives a pretty good estimate for the age of the Uniiverse.

Dating the Earth on the other hand, is much easier - especially the part the jimmysnyder inaccurately portrayed in his 2-billion year joke. Radiometric dating of terrestrial rock gives a lower bound on the age of the earth. All the early dating was based on this. It is only natural for the lower bound to rise and get closer to the true age as the number of measurements increased. What science achieved was to raise the lower bound on the estimate, not raise the age of the Earth itself.

 

[EL]

Even if there are parts of the BBT that are wrong, there are certain other parts that are supported by numerous independent measurements of different kinds - the overwhelming majority of which are in very close agreement.

No doubt in that.

One such part is Hubble's Law, which by itself gives a pretty good estimate for the age of the Uniiverse.

How do you get the age of the universe from Hubble's Law without assuming a comological model?

(Of course we can estimate lower bounds on the age of the universe by measuring stuff like the age of chemical elements, oldest star clusters and oldest white dwarfs. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html.
But, as said, those are "just" lower bounds.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To all on this thread and in all physicsforums threads,

The past three days have been useful to me as a time of reflection and self evaluation. I apologize for my behavior on this thread and others including, but not limited to:
argumentitiveness
inflexibility
uncompromisingness
I agree that these traits do not lend well to civil discusion and I will endeavor to refrain from them. You have no idea what a burden that will be. And to add to that load, I hope to remain edgy, provocative, and passionate while doing so. I intend that my future behavior will justify any faith you may put in the sincerity of this apology.

Jimmy

 

[Oceanborn]

Physics should not discriminate against anyone of any faith or creed. After all, science is the study of knowable natural laws; physics, especially when studying the universe, is also the study of knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics. The problem is that everything we know about the past is right here in the present now--so, if we claim evolution is a fact and force that into common adademical law, and evolution is not a fact, then, what has science accomplished?
Science is self-correcting. Any form of non-objective analysis can hurt true scientific research due to too much politics. In conclusion, evolution and physics are two saperate studies when it all comes down to it. For physics is the study of the knowable, evolution hasn't been proven nor observed (though many believe it is true). I for one will not let politics get in the way of truth or research. We can all believe in anything we want where origins in concerned, that's American freedom; but science has a study must remain open to the self-correcting conduct it was originally known for. If there is a God, and the Bible is true, then there must be some evidence worthy of investigation.
There are many physicist who believe in differnt views of origin, though they all understand what true physics consist of and know when not to deviate from physics and push theory into national law.
I truly love science. I don't believe that any scientist should be bias since nobody can prove beyond a doubt that evolution is the true origin of man.
Not to deviate from the topic too much, but I must add that I personally have a problem understanding how biogenesis can constitute life coming from non-life --do you know what I mean?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Evolution has been observed. Do you want to modify your statement now?

 

[pcorbett]

I definitely find the resilience of theories in cosmology, biology and geology to scrutiny convincing. I would most likely find unconvincing any challenge that refuses to address the evidence on hand that these theories are operative in the present and through recorded history. On the other hand, I don't begrudge someone the right to disagree and petition the government because they believe something else occurred in the distant past. I most certainly would love to see more opposition to advocacy from institutions that support predominantly leftist policy positions. So I guess I'm against ID's opponents in this fight.

 

[Gokul43201]

I for one will not let politics get in the way of truth or research.

What, really do you know about research? Let me assure you that a scrapbook you make for your middle school science project is not research (it is part of a learning process).

However, if you are not, in fact, a middle school student (or younger), please accept my apologies - you sure have me fooled.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't believe that any scientist should be bias since nobody can prove beyond a doubt that evolution is the true origin of man.
Not to deviate from the topic too much, but I must add that I personally have a problem understanding how biogenesis can constitute life coming from non-life --do you know what I mean?

Just to steer this towards an educational perspective even more than it already is:-

Yes, but do you have an alternative that shows that life did not come from biogenesis? One that is scientifically sound and can be tested rigorously by scientific method? This is what the objection is in my eyes not that ID isn't an alternative theory but when it comes down to it's core tennant so, it's not a scientific one, and should therefore have no place in a science class, philosophy/religous classes, no problem, knock yourself out.

Most scientists don't dismiss ID because it is religous mumbo jumbo(some scientists are even devout Christians themselves, yes it's true ) I think it's more to do with the fact that it answers nothing, creates no opposing scientific hypothesis and so isn't even a blip on their radar, can anyone tell me why it should be? As mentioned before you can poke holes in evolution all you like provided you do it on a scientific basis that's good science, just saying God done it is not a scientific theory though and since that's essentially what it all returns to in ID it's the philosophy of religion, not a sound basis for discussion now is it?

It is important that religion and education remain in a strictly non political form, over here trying to push ID in science lessons wouldn't happen, simply because the church would not try to advocate that it did, it has no business telling the government what to include in it's curriculum, church and state are so separate that when God is bought up in parliament people laugh or deride the person in question - I'm not kidding either, it's like making a rude joke about the late queen mother, not tolerated in any form (Only in America, never seemed so apt in this situation) However in fact if a RE(Religous Education) teacher decided to mention it in a lesson or to teach it, no one would care, after all RE teachers have been teaching about the beliefs of the various faiths for years,in this case that all life came from Adam and Eve and that God designed man, not some random chemsitry and time so where's the beef? Kids are perfectly able to descriminate between a biology class and a religous one, and to come to their own conclusions without people forcing their beliefs into subjects they don't gel with.

I must say I find the concerns of the religous advocates very patronising and sadly devoid of merit, there's no way on Earth I'd try to force anything into a curriculum as regards my beliefs, belief belongs strictly in the religous class and evolution in the biology class, and religion is the responsibility and right of the individual and his family, no religous case in my eyes justifies poking your nose into the affairs of the government, but then we have absolute separation of church and state for a very very good reason in Europe, religous induced wars being the 3rd biggest killer in Europe behind plague and famine. Anyway a European perspective, if anyone's interested

 

[pcorbett]

What, really do you know about research? Let me assure you that a scrapbook you make for your middle school science project is not research (it is part of a learning process).

However, if you are not, in fact, a middle school student (or younger), please accept my apologies - you sure have me fooled.

Gokul's got a point, Oceanborn. You don't have to hunt down funding for your middle school science project. It can get pretty vicious in the academic world. Politics is as much a part of scientific study and research as the scientific method.

 

[Oceanborn]

Wow, I sure got some interesting responses on my first post!

I have taken the time to research the arguments that both evolutionist and creationist offer regarding the origin of everything. I must say I do understand M-theory and agree with the basic framework of the theory (though reject the membrane part because its just too much guessing). It not hard to believe in 11-dimensions or living in a bubble in an ocean of bubbles. Though as much as I believe this is truly possible, I also understand that there a lot of guess work involved in such cosmogony.

I do understand that biogenesis states that the singularity of all life comes from life; so, my question to you forum members is whether or not non-life to life has ever been observed, especially in the macro-sense of what evolution has always stood for?

Also, I would like to add to the question has to why we science students, whether middle-school or university students, should feel that creationism is not science? Was not Isaac Newton and many other great scientist who had the qualifications in their fields Bible believing people? Darwin himself only had an MA in theology which doesn't qualify him has a scientist. Are we all to believe and accept that all theistic scientist are stupid after 400-years of scientific progress? I understand that evolution has its basis for belief...but...it is still in the theory stage and I feel that people should not force the field of true science in any direction that may cater to anybody politic. Science is objective, and always subject to criticism when it comes to any forum of pseudo-science like the unknowable origin science.

Regardless of anything negative or possitive that you fellow members may reply with, I still enjoy the field of science--I mean, who wouldn't?

 

[Phobos]

especially in the macro-sense of what evolution has always stood for?

Evolution is not just about fins-to-feet. Even small changes are part of the evolutionary model.

Also, I would like to add to the question has to why we science students, whether middle-school or university students, should feel that creationism is not science?

The concern is that creationism does not follow the scientific method. It does not conduct any significant research, peer-review is not conducted or is ignored, it offers no testable explanations, etc. Its motivations are religious and its tactics are political. Students of science should be learning the science accepted by the scientific community and not ideas from others who bypass the scientific process.

Was not Isaac Newton and many other great scientist who had the qualifications in their fields Bible believing people?

Yes, but that is not the issue. Studying/conducting science does not require philosophical materialism.

Darwin himself only had an MA in theology which doesn't qualify him has a scientist.

A scientist is one who conducts science. (scientific method)

Are we all to believe and accept that all theistic scientist are stupid after 400-years of scientific progress?

No one is saying that.

I understand that evolution has its basis for belief...but...it is still in the theory stage

In science, a "theory" is the ultimate goal. A theory does not graduate to a law or something. A theory just gets further researched in order to be improved (or replaced with something better).

and I feel that people should not force the field of true science in any direction that may cater to anybody politic. Science is objective, and always subject to criticism

I think we all agree with that.

when it comes to any forum of pseudo-science like the unknowable origin science.

Not sure what you mean by this. Biogenesis? "Pre"-Big Bang? Anyway, ideally, scientists would pursue these mysteries scientifically as much as possible and freely say "we don't know" at the limits.

Regardless of anything negative or possitive that you fellow members may reply with, I still enjoy the field of science--I mean, who wouldn't?

Glad to hear it! Although I'm no longer a mentor/moderator here, I think civil discussions should be a goal here at PF. Bad vibes you may get might be leftover from previous heated debates.