Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Spread the word – Evolution is a scientific fact

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nature wants all science organisations to preach the word of evolution by natural selection.

Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why. Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn’t science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.

For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian’s evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides.

Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren’t a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren’t sure about evolution — as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.

As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored.

Some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.”

Comments
Undesigned, There are a lot of anti ID people (who in the established sciences is not anti ID) who express opinions that are consistent with ID. So should ID not use their beliefs to support the ID position in the relevant areas. The fossil record is a major case in point. This does not mean they have to support ID as a theory for ID to use their reasoning. For example, take the paleontologist who admits the fossil record does not support gradualism and retreats to punctuated equilibrium as the logical answer. Versus the traditional Darwinist who says that punctuated equilibrium is nonsense and the only gradualism makes sense. Why cannot ID take the argument from each which falsifes the other and use both argument to falsify both. Who cares what their over all point of view is.jerry
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
I have been following the Evolution-ID debate for sometime now. One thing I have noticed is that the ID proponents, in expressing their skepticism about the Darwinism do not really address the age of the Earth and scientific dating. I've read Richard Milton's book, in which he spends considerable time addressing the assumptions at play in dating the rocks, fossils and ultimately the earth. Do ID proponents agree with his analysis? (Milton is not a YEC, and makes no Biblical claims). Really, I'm wondering if there is any scientifically rigorous work that addresses this issue of dating, its assumptions, its reliability etc. Thanks.mohammed.husain
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
"Invoking Alan Feduccia only brings to light the absolute lack of “Dogmatic” thinking in science" Nature: "evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun" so much for the absolute lack of dogmatic thinking...ari-freedom
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Invoking Alan Feduccia only brings to light the absolute lack of "Dogmatic" thinking in science. Every word that has passed between he and I has reinforced this. He is at odds with a great number of people, but one should not invoke him to support anything remotely connected to a defense of ID. AiG tried this same tactic, with similar results. I think if someone wants to quote him, they should do so properly.Undesigned
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
I apologize for posting this under a different topic. As a Christian evolutionist (I believe that evolution does and did happen and that most of it was engineering by God over hundreds of millions of years), I am getting tired of the incessant materialist/atheist accusations that my religion is not falsifiable (testable). I think that falsifiability is a legitimate demand and that we should not be afraid of it. I also think that it is time that we Christians fight back. I conduct research in Biblical metaphors (e.g., the book of Revelation) and I have excellent reasons to suppose that the Bible contains amazing scientific knowledge coded as metaphors. Don’t laugh. Please read what follows. Based on my interpretation of various Biblical metaphors, I am able to make a couple of precise predictions regarding the human cerebellum (among other things). My predictions (see link below) go against the current consensus among neurologists who maintain that the cerebellum contributes to speech production. I am claiming, based on my research, that it does not and I believe that a careful inspection of cerebellar pathways will corroborate my claim. I realize that I cannot depend on the scientific community to help me test my hypothesis. My question is, how does one go about getting a prediction of this sort tested in the lab using an actual human brain and, more importantly, how much would it cost? http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/search/label/cerebellumMapou
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Dembski slaps Padian right back down in his place, starting on page 27 in this rebuttal: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdfScottus
January 9, 2008
January
01
Jan
9
09
2008
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply