Top Scientist descent from Creationism

Coded Logic

(In response to Perry "900 Top Scientist Sign Statement Skeptical of Macro-Evolution")

The following scientific organizations reject creationism:

National Academy of Sciences:

"Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science"

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence."

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"[T]he lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory

"The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

American Association of University Professors:

"Such efforts run counter to the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution and are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the meaning of academic freedom."

http://archive.today/9fsvJ

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-latest-face-of-creationism/

American Astronomical Society:

"“Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."

http://www.as.utexas.edu/~sj/a301-fa05/teachevolution.pdf

American Chemical Society:

"urges... State and local education authorities to support high-quality science standards and curricula that affirm evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/acs-acs081505.php

American Geophysical Union:

"Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7052/full/436761a.html

American Institute of Physics:

""For this reason, we do not endorse teaching the "evidence against evolution," because currently no such scientific evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," or other non-scientific viewpoints as valid scientific theories."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/070.html

American Psychological Association:

"For a theory to be taught as science it must be testable, supported by empirical evidence and subject to disconfirmation. Thus, intelligent design lacks a basis in science."

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/03/design.aspx

American Society of Agronomy:

"Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/asoa-sss081505.php

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:

""Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there."

http://archive.today/G2TnE

Botanical Society of America:

"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."

http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology:

"Arguing that evolution is "just a theory," rather than a fact,

they insist that intelligent design should be offered as an

alternative to evolution or given "equal time", and that schools

should "teach the controversy" surrounding evolutionary

theory. FASEB does not support these views. We also affirm that

these positions seriously undermine science education."

http://www.faseb.org/portals/2/pdfs/opa/EvolutionStatement.pdf

National Association of Biology Teachers:

"Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. ... Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum."

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/Documents/NABT.html

National Center for Science Education:

"So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier."

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism

National Science Teachers Association:

"Claims by proponents of these views have been evaluated and discredited based on scientific evidence. These claims have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena."

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

"We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."

http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794

Geological Society of America:

"GSA opposes teaching creationism alongside evolution in any science classroom and rejects the characterization of evolution as scientifically controversial."

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm

Global Network of Science Academies:

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

European Society for Evolutionary Biology

http://www.evolutionmatters.at/

Council of Europe:

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm

70'000 scientists and science teachers from Australian Academy of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and technological Societies, Australian Science Teachers Association:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070811105349/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html

Reviews in journals:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6016/pdf/315185a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444680b.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444680a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14527300

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC372862/

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2743476?uid=3738984&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104017369301

etc.

Here's a list of some other US scientific organizations rejecting 'intelligent design':

Alabama Academy of Science

American Academy of Religion *

American Anthropological Association (1980)

American Anthropological Association (2000)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1922)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1972)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1982)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002)

American Association for the Advancement of Science Commission on Science Education

American Association of Physical Anthropologists

American Astronomical Society (2000)

American Astronomical Society (2005)

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society (1981)

American Chemical Society (2005)

American Fisheries Society *

American Geological Institute

American Geophysical Union (1981)

American Geophysical Union (2003)

American Geophysical Union (2007) *

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Physical Society

American Psychological Association (1982)

American Psychological Association (2007)

American Society for Microbiology (2006)

American Society of Biological Chemists

American Society of Naturalists *

American Society of Parasitologists

American Society of Plant Taxonomists *

American Sociological Association

American Statistical Association *

Association for Women Geoscientists

Association of Southeastern Biologists

Australian Academy of Science

Biophysical Society

Botanical Society of America

California Academy of Sciences (1994)

California Academy of Sciences (2007) *

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences (2008) *

Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution *

Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology, and Computing

Ecological Society of America

Entomological Society of America *

Entomological Society of Canada (2005) *

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Genetics Society of America

Geological Society of America (1983)

Geological Society of America (2001)

Geological Society of America (2009) *

Geological Society of Australia (2008) *

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London *

Georgia Academy of Science (1980)

Georgia Academy of Science (1982)

Georgia Academy of Science (2003)

History of Science Society

Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education

Indiana Academy of Science (2006)*

InterAcademy Panel

Iowa Academy of Science (1981)

Iowa Academy of Science (1986)

Iowa Academy of Science (2000)

Kansas Academy of Science

Kentucky Academy of Science

Kentucky Paleontological Society

Louisiana Academy of Sciences (1982)

Louisiana Academy of Sciences (2006)

National Academy of Sciences (1972)

National Academy of Sciences (1984)

National Academy of Sciences (2007)

New Mexico Academy of Science

New Orleans Geological Society

New York Academy of Sciences

North American Benthological Society

North Carolina Academy of Science (1982)

North Carolina Academy of Science (1997)

Ohio Academy of Science

Ohio Math and Science Coalition

Oklahoma Academy of Science (1981) *

Oklahoma Academy of Science (1999) *

Oklahoma Academy of Science (2007) *

Pennsylvania Academy of Science

Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists

Philosophy of Science Association

Research!America

Royal Astronomical Society of Canada — Ottawa Centre

Royal Society

Royal Society of Canada

Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science

Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter

Society for Amateur Scientists

Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology

Society for Neuroscience

Society for Organic Petrology

Society for the Study of Evolution (original)

Society for the Study of Evolution (revised) *

Society of Physics Students

Society of Systematic Biologists

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1986)

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1994)

Southern Anthropological Society

Tallahassee Scientific Society

Tennessee Academy of Science *

Tennessee Darwin Coalition

Texas Academy of Science *

The Paleontological Society

Virginia Academy of Science

West Virginia Academy of Science

etc.

designs

That will bounce off Perry's cerebellum like a penny off a block wall....

OnTheWayOut

It's much more fun to react to Perry's nonsense than it is to post on a thread about the reality of what scientists know and understand and believe.

Spectre

But, but, but, but.......Jesus!

Coded Logic

Hahaha, yeah sometimes it is pretty funny to watch Crofty and others blow a gasket on Perrys psuedoscience.

rebel8

runForever

and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb"

exWTslave

There are people who refuse to go beyond their senses can go--no matter how prominent scientists they are. But what would happen to their own existence if they happen to be in front of somebody whose senses do not work? Will their very existence not be in question in front of such a person?

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Caedes

I predict Perry wont come within a mile of this thread, always happy for Perry to prove me wrong though!

jhine

O.K. I will jump in here , though I'm sure I will regret it . Here goes , I am currently reading a book by a chap called John C Lennox Ma PhD DPill DSc . According to the blurb he is a Professor in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College . He has debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and lectured at many universities around the world.He is particularly interested in the interace of science , philosophy and theology .

Now I understand that both sides can keep wheeling out scientists from whichever camp to support their views and it doesn't really get anyone anywhere . I would suggest that one reason that this one upscientistship approach doesn't work is that people still bring their own predjudices to the debate , yes even scientists , if they are honest enough to admit it . Here is a quote from the aforementioned book

" Hawking's first suggestion here is , not that the universe is self generating , but it is brought into existance by a theory . Paul Davies ( a physicist agnostic who has written many books ) says something similar in an interview " There's no need to involve anything supernatural in the origins of the universe or of life . I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering : for me it is so much more inspiring to believe that a set of mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being " it is strange that a scientist of Davies' standing is prepared to decide how things started on the basis of like or dislike . That is no better than someone who says "I like to think that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden " Furthermore he is here ascribing intelligence (if not personality ) to a set of mathematical laws - and believing that they could be intelligent on the basis that he finds it inspiring ! Is this wishful thinking or what ?"

I included the explanation of who Paul Davies is .

So I have to agree with the point being made on this thread that just listing the names of scientists who are theists is not going to change anyone's mind (sorry Perry , but this is the case ) because everyone will go with what they want to believe to some degree or another . I would recommend the book called " God's Undertaker Has Science Buried God ?" to anyone who is really interested in both sides of the religion / faith discussion as it gives a balance to the subject .

Jan

Top Scientist descent from Creationism

Share this