(Adopted by Council on November 22, 1981)
The Council of the American Physical Society opposes proposals to require "equal time" for presentation in public school science classes of the biblical story of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. The issues raised by such proposals, while mainly focused on evolution, have important implications for the entire spectrum of scientific inquiry, including geology, physics, and astronomy. In contrast to "Creationism", the systematic application of scientific principles has led to a current picture of life, of the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is constantly being tested and refined by observation and analysis. This ability to construct critical experiments, whose results can require rejection of a theory, is fundamental to the scientific method. While our society must constantly guard against oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of science in the education process, we must also resist attempts to interfere with the presentation of properly developed scientific principles in established guidelines for classroom instruction or in the development of scientific textbooks. We therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in science classes. Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience. Attempts to present them in the same context can only lead to misunderstandings of both.
(Adopted by Council on November 14, 1999)
The American Physical Society views with grave concern the recent Kansas State Board of Education decision to remove references to evolution and the Big Bang from its State Education Standards and Assessments. The decision to modify its previous draft of these standards is a giant step backward and should sound an alarm for every parent, teacher and student in the United States. On the eve of the new millennium, at a time when our nation's welfare increasingly depends on science and technology, it has never been more important for all Americans to understand the basic ideas of modern science.
Biological and physical evolution are central to the modern scientific conception of the Universe. There is overwhelming geological and physical evidence that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old and have developed substantially since their origins. Evolution is also a foundation upon which virtually all modern biology rests.
This unfortunate decision will deprive many Kansas students of the opportunity to learn some of the central concepts of modern science.
APS President Says Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught as Science (2005)
APS President Marvin Cohen, University Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, issued a statement in August saying that only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation’s science classes. His statement was in response to remarks by President George Bush regarding intelligent design, a form of creationism.
In comments to journalists in Texas, President Bush had said that intelligent design should be taught side-by-side with scientific theories of evolution in the classroom. Those remarks were later clarified by Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger.
“We are happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified,” said Cohen. “As [Marburger] has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, we believe they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world.”
The APS Council has long opposed the inclusion of religious concepts such as intelligent design and related forms of creationism in science classes, passing two public statements on the issue in 1981 and 1999. (quoted above).
I am as it is willing to be wrong,
what I have been saying from the start is that this film is saying that the debate isn't over the result isn't final, which I agree with.
ID is trying to say something on the topic of how life began, which would naturally have an effect on how evolution is seen, Evolution is saying that ID stunds learning, hinders 'propper' science, yet doesn't address the question or do itself justice. just because a god or something which could be called god may be posited with a theory doesn't mean that the theory is wrong, but it also doesn't mean the theory is right either, untill the origin of life can be proven the debate isn't over.
Manapa wrote:Hi Mike,
just on your last quote not enough time to go through the lot, but I think ID should be looked at allong side Evolution etc, not in science class and personally I think RE should just stop as it doesn't teach the essence of what makes up religious thought, I think it would be far better to have a philosophy and debate class (PD) would seam far more useful than teaching RE and not the philosophic arguments.
as aristole said "it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it"
mikenz66 wrote:I'm relatively clueless on biological evolution, but the Creation/ID POV don't just go after biology, they have issues with physics and geology as well.
Creationism in the sense used in this discussion is still very much a live phenomenon in American culture today — and in other parts of the world, like the Canadian West, to which it has been exported. Popularity does not imply truth. Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair. The same is true of its offspring, Intelligent Design Theory. But do not underestimate its social and political power. As we enter the new millennium, thanks to Johnson and his fellows, there are ongoing pressures to introduce non-evolutionary ideas into science curricula, especially into the science curricula of publicly funded schools in the United States of America. In 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania there was an attempt by the school board to introduce Intelligent Design Theory into the biology classrooms of the publicly funded schools. As it happens, this was rejected strongly by the federal judge trying the case — a man who was appointed by President George W. Bush no less — and the costs of the case will surely deter others from rushing to follow the example of this board (who were incidentally then promptly dropped by the voters.) But the battle is not yet over and things could get a lot worse before they get better, if indeed they will get better. Already, there are members of the United States Supreme Court who have made it clear that they would receive sympathetically calls to push evolution from a preeminent place in science teaching, and with its recent turn to the right it would be foolish to assume that if a case came its way that Creationism or ID theory would be rejected as unsuitable for public school classroom use. If additions are made, with present appointments, we could find that — nearly a century after the Scopes Trial, when the Fundamentalists were perceived as figures of fun — Creationism in one form or another finally takes its place in the classroom.
Manapa wrote:I think ID should be looked at along side Evolution etc, not in science class ...
Another school, and a lot of scientists fall into this school, including Einstein, respects the evidence and modern theories but also puts forth a spiritual hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence. It fits into a Science class, in my view, when you get to certain unexplainable things and start to ask for theories about them.
Such as the origins of the Universe, with all its highly specific laws and lawful properties.
christopher::: wrote:In your opinion, tilt.
How do you explain the laws of gravity, electromagnitism, strong and weak nuclear forces?
Scientists talk of a need for a Unified Theory of Everything. A Creative Intelligence beyond the Universe can be one such theory.
Mawkish1983 wrote:(had to interject, a theory of everything is just a theory that relates all forces. The first big step was when it was realised electric and magnetic forces were one in the same, since then the strong and weak nuclear force have also been explained in the same terms and are also facets of the same thing. The last problem is the gravitational force because it seems so much weaker but in this case M-theory provides a possible explanation, we're just waiting to see if it produces anything testable. The "theory of everything" is just a unification of the forces... nothing else)
christopher::: wrote:How do you explain the laws of gravity, electromagnitism, strong and weak nuclear forces? Scientists talk of a need for a Unified Theory of Everything. A Creative Intelligence beyond the Universe can be one such theory.
I agree that some ID proponents who (I am assuming) come from creationism, or are creationists just jumping on the ID band wagon hoping to prove creationism in one way, shape or form,
clw_uk wrote:I agree that some ID proponents who (I am assuming) come from creationism, or are creationists just jumping on the ID band wagon hoping to prove creationism in one way, shape or form,
ID is creationism, they are the same thing. The only difference is if they are Young earth creationists or old earth creationists or deists, although all the ones i have seen are actually theists
Users browsing this forum: Feathers and 8 guests