tHE US ACADAMY OF SCIENCES HAS UPDATED THIS BOOK.
sCIENCE,eVOLUTION AND cREATION
by badboy 7 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
badboy
BTTT
-
serotonin_wraith
Quite vague.
How has it been updated, etc?
-
badboy
I THINK IT BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE RECENT CONTROVERSITIES.
-
5go
The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." [39] and that ";the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." [39] According to Skeptic Magazine, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution." [40]
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
- consistent (internally and externally)
- parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
- empirically testable and falsifiable
- based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
- correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
- progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
- tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.
Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. [41] Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins. [42]
A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists follows:
- Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God are a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)
- Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations that make the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
- Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
- Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
- Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations. Creation science has been described as an oxymoron by Stephen Jay Gould. [43] For more discussion, see creation-evolution controversy
-
serotonin_wraith
Now they need to do the same with 'intelligent design', creationism in disguise.
They also need to sort out a better way of making sure parents don't teach these lies to their children via homeschooling.
-
badboy
THE NATURE ARTICLE SAID THAT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS BEHIND MANY MEDICINAL DISCOVERIES.
-
Gopher
The book's official title is "Science, Evolution and Creationism". Here's a link to the description of the updated book: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
And here's the description:
How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.
In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.