"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."
-- IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
That one elegant paragraph beautifully encompasses what is and what is not science, and cuts through to the very nature of science. The common creationist/IDist whine is that "macroevolution hasn't been observed, bla bla bla". Well, of course this is nonsense. This statement was evidently written by a people with their finger on the pulse of this issue. Well done!
4 comments:
Advocates of the teaching of creationism or ID feel threatened when people use the ideas of evolution to try to justify a world-view that excludes God. Just as you insist (rightly) that the scientific method should be used in science, though, such people would do better to insist that scientists not interpret the science in a religious way.
By the way, it is possible to be a scientist and believe the Christian scriptures.
I agree with much of what ego said. Evolutionists are out to prove the hypothesis of evolution just as much as bible believers desire to prove creation.
Both are 'beliefs' and both require a degree of faith. Creationism however, answers more questions than evolution when both are considered with an open mind.
This was a exciting blog discovery for me. Sometimes hitting that "next blog" button really pays off! I had not seen the IAD statement when it came out. I, too, was very impressed by the same paragraph.
As a biological scientist in the ultra-conservative (read: religiously fundamentalist) state of Kansas, where this topic has quite literally been front page news about once a week for the past couple years, I have been struggling to find an elegant way of explaining the logical pitfalls of ID/Creationism to non-scientists. I usually fall back on the woefully inadequate "nothing I do in the laboratory makes sense without the framework of evolution--nothing."
Anyway, thanks for the link. Your site is great! Keep up the great fieldwork.
the problem is both ID proponents and the opposition interpret the evidence to fit their presuppositions. The 'scientific' debate is crap on both sides.
Post a Comment