Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology

Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Previous | Main | Next »

Evolution: "Overwhelming and Compelling"

January 03, 2008 3:55 PM

Tiktaalik_080103_main The National Academy of Sciences has released a book called "Science, Evolution and Creationism" -- a strongly-worded answer to the Creationist movement and the doubts about Darwin that many people express in polls and elsewhere. 

"Evolution is both a fact and a process that accounts for the diversity of life on Earth," it says. 

"Scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts," says an opening letter.  Later: "The scientific evidence supporting biological evolution continues to grow at a rapid pace."

It describes in detail the discovery of Tiktaalik, the four-legged fish fossil from the Canadian Arctic that appears to be the missing link between primitive fish and animals that walked up onto land.  And it argues that without an understanding of evolution, such threats as the SARS virus would be impossible to fight. 

As for the Intelligent Design movement, which lost a court battle in Pennsylvania and is now part of a debate in Florida over the use of the world "evolution" in school standards, the report says "the pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education."

The academy says the booklet -- actually an update of versions published in 1984 and 1999 -- is aimed at policy makers, school boards, science teachers "and others in the community who are committed to providing students with quality science education."  It's also intended for "students as well as adults who wish to become more familiar with the many strands of evidence supporting evolution...."

The report is careful not to discredit religion; it describes science and faith as different ways of arriving at truth.  Its closing line: "Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator....  The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith."

The Academy is offering the book as a PDF for free; click HERE for the full 86-page file.  It is also offering the book for sale, and PDFs of shorter sections; you can find them HERE.

There will doubtless be replies.  This is only one salvo in a debate that dates back to Darwin.


(Photograph: The Tiktaalik fossil, as published in the journal Nature in 2006.)

January 3, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (508)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is always interesting to me, that I am considered a kook, for believing in God. But, the evolutionists are considered "sane", for their beliefs.
Do you really believe that the earth and everything on it (including man), just developed as a coincidence? That it all happened just by chance? What are the odds of that happening? ASTRONOMICAL!!

Posted by: Cliff F. | Jan 3, 2008 4:56:09 PM

No one has ever said that humans evolved from monkeys. Boy, this one's getting old... Go grab and read a science text then maybe you won't sound quite so ignorant when trying to argue your side.

Posted by: sciencegirl | Jan 3, 2008 4:56:56 PM

The matter is far from settled. Evidence for a created, young earth is also mounting rapidly from Astronomy, Geology, Genetics, Physics and other fields. Both sides of the debate have the same facts to deal with and are both left with difficult questions. This booklet speaks of Evolution as if there were no difficulties, comparing Evolution to something so observable as Gravity. It also speaks of Evolution and Natural Selection as synonymous, but can Evolution explain such difficulties as the sheer number of unlikely beneficial mutations required to form a single anatomical addition? Ultimately, either side is left with evidence, observations, and preconceived ideas. Each side must answer this plain question: "Were you there?" Frankly, I'm disappointed with the NAS.

Posted by: Jim Strawn | Jan 3, 2008 4:57:38 PM

The next BIG Bang event to happen will be Christ returning. As a Doctor anyone who can look at the human body with its DNA and the complex being that we are and think this happened by chance and not design skipped thier Bio classes. We find a fossil of a fish with legs on this same website they are showing you pictures of conjoined twins skeletons so in 100 years will people think we all had two heads. One fossil makles a nice museum peice 1000 makes an argument.

Posted by: JRinker | Jan 3, 2008 4:58:06 PM

There are enough holes in evolution to drive a mack truck through it. But this isn't a battle between evolution and Intelligent Design or evolution and Creationism anyway. This is really a battle of worldviews - the atheistic/materialistic/naturalist worldview and the theistic worldview.

Posted by: SCS | Jan 3, 2008 4:58:34 PM

Evolution??? Evolution is a THEORY.
You are welcome to your theory. So are those that believe, or in other words, have a theory that God created man.

Common sense rules out evolution.
Natural selection would dictate that only a few select species would survive.
Why don't pigs fly or talk. Why just monkies able to "evolve".
Why science has observed is ADAPTATION.
There is zero evidence, or observation oof one species becoming a more acompletely new advanced species.

Posted by: JMAC | Jan 3, 2008 4:58:42 PM

Why does religion always have to slow down the advancement of science?

Posted by: Reason | Jan 3, 2008 5:00:19 PM

Evolution's fine. Just don't tell me that the "Big Bang" started by itself. If so, where did the materials come from?

Posted by: Greg Chapman | Jan 3, 2008 5:01:27 PM

I should add, to those who would have creationism taught in science class; we do not teach creationism in science class for the same reason that we do not teach magic in physics class and the stork theory of birth in sex-ed class. It is mythology.

As for our President who claims to support the teaching of creationism in science class because "both sides of the argument should be taught", then he should also support teaching evolution in Sunday-school. And when teaching creationism, does he (and his ideological supporters) advocate teaching polytheisticv origins of life, or just his own Christian monotheistic beliefs?

Posted by: Realist | Jan 3, 2008 5:01:30 PM

I'm sure you have the same disdain for evolution when your doctor gets you healthy with practices and medication based on biology and yes belief in evolution. Confortable then right?

Posted by: justme | Jan 3, 2008 5:01:48 PM

Cliff F. - humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, which would have had similarities to both. And why wouldn't other descendants of that common ancestor still be around? If lines of descent split, neither has to go extinct.

And evolution doesn't say that you shouldn't believe in God. Both are compatible. There are many evolutionary biologists who believe in God.

Posted by: jock59801 | Jan 3, 2008 5:02:11 PM

No one can fathom the possibility that maybe the scientific community and the those who are religious are correct? If God can make the universe can't he oversee evolution too?

Posted by: ANGEL | Jan 3, 2008 5:04:23 PM

Everyone is talking about planet earth, what about our infinite universe? Did it evolve--I don't think so.If anything has evolved it is because of God's will.

Posted by: Jammin | Jan 3, 2008 5:04:47 PM

As a dog owner, I can tell you that my dog is very intelligent but did not evolve from any cells of a creature that man did. Evolution is fine but only after stating that all was created and allowed to evolve by the Creator and not chance. Man's mind should show people how man is nowhere near related to animals.

Posted by: rockychance | Jan 3, 2008 5:05:40 PM

Evolutionists make fun of Creationists
as backwards or fooled by religion.

Those same folks gladly tell us where we came from by trying to read bones that they say are a MILLIONS of years old.

I will take what the Bible says over what some old bones may say to some old professors trying to get tenure.

Posted by: jmm0011 | Jan 3, 2008 5:05:55 PM

To Reason:
Because, unfortunately, fools and fanatics of both sides confuse the fools and fanatics of the other sides as the authority of that other side...
...instead of realizing that the ones bein' loud, hot and bothered, are just the overgrown simian howler monkeys of mankind.
I'm realigious. I'm a Christian (Baptist), even... but, my beliefs in no way inhibit science. Indeed, I think the Creator intends for us to use our brains; that's why life was given the ability to evolve them.
Now, if the idiots will just stop howling, maybe we can get some serious science accomplished.

Like, health and healing of mankind. Somatic genetic engineering and cloning: medicines of the future that should be medicines of the now.

Also like: bringing the green earth back to health... we ARE supposed to be taking care of the place. THAT is ALSO in Genesis. (not that the Fundamentalists are willing to acknowledge that).

Or, solving poverty. Not that the Fundamentalists are willing to acknowledge THAT either. *sigh* Clinton and Carter: hope they actually salvage some of the true believing thinkers, from the howling dynamite monkeys of doom and gloom.

Posted by: Myrdinn | Jan 3, 2008 5:06:01 PM

I'm one of those Religious nuts who really does believe in evolution. I believe that if we continue to work on the theory of evolution, we, as Einstein said, are really walking in God's footsteps. Besides, how could someone writing a book 3500 years ago (even God inspired) explain evolution for those reading it to understand.

I believe I'm a descendant of one of those religious nuts who 500 years ago believed that the earth was round.

Posted by: Roy | Jan 3, 2008 5:06:06 PM

Why does religion always have to slow down the advancement of science???


Because without religion,there would be only manipulation and lies left to debate. Just use your common sense.

Posted by: jon jonsson | Jan 3, 2008 5:06:34 PM

Fundamentalists Conservatives are always anti-science... until they get a serious illness.

Then all of a sudden it's: "Hey Science, old buddy old pal. No hard feelings, right? Let's let bygones be bygones. Come here, Science. Let me give you a hug. It's you and me Science!"

Posted by: ElodieStClair | Jan 3, 2008 5:07:30 PM

The heck with evolution, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster......

Posted by: jc47 | Jan 3, 2008 5:08:42 PM

Post a comment





 

TECHNOLOGY VIDEOS