In a statement released today (or actually not supposed to be released for another hour) the Interacademy Panel (iap), the association representing the National Academies of science of many countries worldwide, fully endorse evolution and oppose the teaching of competiting antiscience conjectures. The statement was signed by 67 National Academies, including the National Academies of Science in the US, the Royal Society in Great Britain, The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada, and the Australian Academy of Science (I think most of our members are from one of those countries).

You can see the press release Here and the statement itself Here

A few excerpts of the statement:


Specific scientific results they fully endorse (saying "scientific evidence has never contradicted these results"):

-The universe is 11-15 billion years old and the Earth 4.5 billion years old

-The Earth has changed significantly and continues to do so

-Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, photosynthesis evolved at least 2 billion years ago, and photosynthesis is responsible for the oxygen in our atmosphere

-All life originated from the same source long ago, have evolved into their present form, and continue to evolve today.

Edit: had 5 instead of 15 billion years for the age of the univers

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

Huh? What is 11-5, and why does this not look like 13.7?

Also, I really like their language about what is wrong with teaching ID in science classes, but I'm left with a bad taste that they felt it necessary to include a list of dogmatic statements that "evidence has never contradicted". That seems vaguely unscientific to me in the context of a statement that is objecting to certain things being taught. It's like saying, "these are the things that should be taught because this is what scientific authority currently agrees upon". A statement like that could have kept Galileo away from classrooms-- science is not done by authority. It seems to undermine the entire purpose, they should have left it at the distinction between testable and untestable theories, and presence versus absence of evidence as relates to general modes of the pursuit of knowledge about origins. Scientific authorities should not present "take our word for it" kinds of arguments to save people from having to think for themselves. I guess they felt they had to "spell it out" for the school boards who weren't getting it from the broader context, but I really dislike the dogmatic feel, it opens them up to the criticism of stifling free debate. And what is this "same source" business? Seriously, why does that belong in this statement?

sorry, should have been 15. It has been corrected.


Grade school science classrooms are not the place for debate on the merits of a giving scientific theory or hypothesis. Grade school classrooms are where the scientific consensus is taught. It is where pretty much universally agreed-upon, overwhelmingly supported, widely-used scientific principles are taught so people have enough understanding the state of scientific knowledge to be able to operate effectively in a technological society or to progress to further scientific study if they wish. Grade school students have neither the background knowledge, understanding, experience, maturity, nor in many cases the drive to adequately critique scientific principles. Certainly teaching the scientific method is of great importance, but it overly idealistic to expect them to actually be able to determine whether a complicated scientific theory should be accepted or not. Even in undergraduate university, at least the first 2 years, I would not count on students to be able to do that in a reliable manner.

There is not enough time to cover all the important, almost universally-supported scientific principles like evolution, not to mention controversial ones. If Galileo did not have the evidence at the time to back up his ideas and earn support from the scientific community, then be all means he should not have been taught in publich schools (he did, but the world was very different back then). It is easy to look back and say "yes of course he was right, his ideas should have been taught from the beginning", but if there is not enough time for the central scientific principles that entire branches of science are built around and are used countless time every day around the world, there is no way we have time to teach ideas that do not have enough evidence to support themselves in the eyes of even a small fraction of scientists and are currently not of any real importance to the scientific or engineering community. I know it is not the best way to handle things but there are only so many hours in a school day, we have to prioritize and what we prioritize are those scientific principles that scientists and engineers feel are the most important. The debate should be left for the scientists.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for grade school students to be able to really critique scientific theories and truly decide for themselves what is correct and what isn't. But it is never going to happen, we have to make the most with what we have to work with. That involves sacrificing some things so students can get the most possible benefit from what they are learning.


I'm sure you alread know this, but I've been working on this speech in my head for a while now so I wanted to post it. You were just unlucky enough to give me an excuse

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

Yes, as it was in Galileo's day. That didn't stop Galileo. The point is, science, even in the grade school, is a moving target that should avoid the appearance of dogma like the plague. I feel that in its effort to clarify the strength of the consensus, this document really sounds like dogma. It sounds a lot like a bunch of bishops clarifying their interpretation of the Bible. I realize it is a tough spot they are in, and they want to fight fire with fire, if you will. I don't they did enough to clarify what scientific knowledge is and what it isn't.
But the statement is not for grade school students, nor is it likely to be read by them. It is for those who should have that level of maturity (but don't always!).

I'm not saying science should be left to each individual to decide what they agree with, I'm saying that science is not a set of consensus beliefs. It is the evidence that links to each of the inferences, and the questions that remain unanswered. But this document does more than just summarize the consensus-- those to whom it is targeted already know that. It is designed to put the weight of scientific authority behind a specific view, and a price is always paid for doing that. Perhaps it was worth it in this case, the alternative may be overly idealistic it's true.
I agree with this at some level, but what bothers me is that I've heard sociologist-types make the argument that scientific knowledge is nothing but the consensus of scientists. Nature doesn't speak, they say, only scientists do, so science is no different than, say, literary criticism. But to me, the whole point is that, in effect, nature does speak for itself, as long as we have the technology, the intellect, and the inclination, to listen. So yes, scientists are best trained to properly hear nature, but it is not the voice of the scientists that counts. This is as important a part of the message as the age of the universe, or more so, and that's the part that is getting short shrift for the purposes of political expediency.

That's all right, you give a good speech. And I agree with a lot of what you are saying, we find ourselves trying to walk some kind of balance beam here, to defend what is grand and glorious about science, without losing it in the process.

Well, now, see, there's the problem. That whole "inclination" thing. Given the tremendous history of creationists' ignoring evidence, I'd say they don't have the inclination to listen to anything but what they want to hear, and given that, I'm not terribly inclined to listen to them.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I think the main reason that most creationists are not listening is that they are not being told the right message. They are being told something that is positively guaranteed to close their ears, and the sad part is, that's really not what science is for. They should simply be told that evolution is the answer you get to the question of how we got here if we apply the scientific method to that question. They should also be told that no answer can be divorced from the means of arriving at it, and no answer can claim to be unique, correct, or absolute. It all depends on how the question is interpreted, and how the answer is obtained.

You see, science is really only about coming up with useful ideas, and not caring if they are 'true' or not, in any sense beyond their usefulness. Religion takes the opposite tack-- in its resoluteness to be the truth, it places no importance on usefulness, or on any use beyond feeling inspired. I know this sounds blasphemous to say that science doesn't care if it's the truth or not, but consider this. Science has no prescription whatsoever for deciding the truth, it has only a prescription for deciding what works. How do we know what works is the truth? We don't, and that shouldn't bother us at all, because we in effect define this to be the truth and just recognize that we can really only call it the scientific truth, since it has been defined that way. Gosh, any other meaning for truth is such a philosophical concept in the first place, why would science want to get weighed down by it? Yes, I realize this is a very idealistic view, and wouldn't sell too well in the high schools. It requires a pretty deep appreciation for what science is and what philosophy isn't. But putting on my philosopher hat for a moment, I claim it is, nevertheless, the truth.