Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 NAS vs creationism
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2008 :  23:31:05  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

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.



Think I'll be ordering one today.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2008 :  23:33:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Also, it looks as if you can read the entire book online for free.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  06:14:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'll check it out... Thanks!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  06:51:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm not sure if the report described in this article is the book referenced in the OP or not, but I thought the article worth posting. It's pretty encouraging throughout until you get to the very alarming last sentence...

U.S. science academy stresses evolution's importance By Will Dunham Thu Jan 3, 6:08 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. National Academy of Sciences on Thursday issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes.

The academy, which operates under a mandate from Congress to advise the government on science and technology matters, issued the report at a time when the theory of evolution, first offered in the 19th century, faces renewed attack by some religious conservatives.

Creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Bible, and the related idea of "intelligent design" are not science and, as such, should not be taught in public school science classrooms, according to the report.

"We seem to have continuing challenges to the teaching of evolution in schools. That's something that doesn't seem to go away," Barbara Schaal, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University in St. Louis and vice president of National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.

"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

Evolution is a theory explaining change in living organisms over the eons due to genetic mutations. For example, it holds that humans evolved from earlier forms of apes.

The report stated that the idea of evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. "Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," said the report.

But teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not, according to the report's authors.

The report was released by the academy and the Institute of Medicine, which advises policymakers on medical issues. It updates academy publications issued in 1984 and 1999. It was written by a committee headed by University of California-Irvine biology professor Francisco Ayala.

"Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines," the report stated.

The authors highlighted developments in evolutionary biology, citing its importance in understanding emerging infectious diseases. They noted the discovery, published in 2006, of the remains of a Tiktaalik, a creature described as an evolutionary link between fish and the first vertebrate animals that walked out of water onto land 375 million years ago.

President George W. Bush said in 2005 American students should be instructed about "intelligent design" alongside evolution as competing theories. "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.

Advocates of "intelligent design" contend that some biological structures are so complex they could not have appeared merely through natural processes.

A judge in Dover, Pennsylvania ruled in 2005 that the teaching of intelligent design violated the U.S. Constitution, which requires a separation of church and state, because it is based on religious conviction, not science.

A 2006 Gallup poll showed that almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
(Editing by Julie Steenhuysen)



Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080103/sc_nm/evolution_usa_dc_1

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 01/04/2008 06:52:22
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  07:23:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
A 2006 Gallup poll showed that almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
And if science was done by consensus, we'd still be living in caves.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  09:07:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Also, it looks as if you can read the entire book online for free.
Yup. Here's a direct link to the table of contents page (page IX of the book).

John Lynch at Panda's Thumb indicates that this is a revision of an older book.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  09:11:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

A 2006 Gallup poll showed that almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
And if science was done by consensus, we'd still be living in caves.




Yes, the point invokes the key fundamental flaw in democratic decision making and why representative democracy is superior - the tyranny of the majority. From unpopular science to unpopular morality to minority ethnicity, the government cannot represent strictly the desires of the people but must make the sticky call of what's best for the people. Christians may hate and fear the idea of evolution, but their welfare depends on the nation accepting and understanding it.

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  09:11:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Predictable Discovery Institute response.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  10:42:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Predictable Discovery Institute response.
From the link:
"Under their definition, a theory is not a testable area of science but rather an unquestionable dogma," said CSC program officer Casey Luskin.
Who the hell is Casey Lushkin, what is the CSC and what is a 'program officer?' Talk about shitty journalism, you just throw out this mystery quote with no explanation at all about the source.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 01/04/2008 10:44:16
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  10:51:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's not journalism, it's a press release from the Discovery Institute, for which Casey Luskin is the denialism czar for their Center for Science and Culture (CSC). At the bottom, it even says, "SOURCE Discovery Institute."

I have little doubt that the PR part of PR Newswire once stood for "Press Release."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  13:02:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'd never heard of Phillip Skell, although after reading PZ's piece on him, I think I should have.
Skell again
info 06:43 PM
0 Trackbacks
Technorati links
Format for printing
Pirate mode
Tag: Creationism
PZ Myers • 10 Comments
Oh, piffle. I seem to have acquired an annoying leech-like pet creationist loon. Phil Skell has written me again.

Once again, he's written to insist—as we've all come to expect from him—that biologists really have no use for evolution. As evidence, he sent me the list of Science magazine's top ten breakthroughs of the year, taken from the Boston Globe, with the assertion that not a single one resulted from the application of evolutionary theory. I agree that the Mars rovers (#1), the creation of an ultracold condensate (#4), the discovery of a pair of neutron stars (#6), and new ideas about the binding of water molecules (#8) don't have a thing to do with evolution. They aren't even about biology, although it would be easy to argue that searching for water and evidence for life on Mars is driven by evolutionary theory. I'm even going to grant that cloning human embryos (#3) might be something we'd try even in the absence of evolutionary theory, although honestly, it's hard to imagine having the tools to do so in the absence of comparative embryology. Breakthrough #9, about new partnerships in treating health problems, is also very much an item in applied science. But again, it wouldn't happen without an understanding of evolution (does anyone seriously believe microbiologists studying bacterial and viral pathogens don't consider evolution?).

But take a look at the #2 discovery that Skell insists has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.
And so forth.

I sometimes find myself a little astonished (but shouldn't) at the unsupported extremes that the IDeceivers will go to to convince the rubes.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2008 :  13:15:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Diane Rehm show on this subject. You get to listen to John Calvert repeat, mantra-like, that materialism excludes the possibility of a "mind" creating all this, as if forensic science has never been able to catch a criminal.

If, while you listen, you replace every one of his uses of the word "mind" with "the supernatural," you get a more accurate picture of his argument. Because science clearly can detect "mind" and distinguish it from "nature" in that we can detect when people have been floundering about, trying to make a murder look like an accident (for example). Calvert doesn't want to detect normal everyday materialistic artifice, though, he wants to detect God (and it's funny as hell when he goofs up while quoting Dennett and can't decide whether to say "design" or "divine").

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.28 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000