This topic has 9 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by 
.
- Posts
美國大學畢業生創造古怪「宗教」
金羊網 2005-09-13 08:53:37「飛天意粉怪」造萬物
新快報訊 美國近來興起一個古怪的新「宗教」，主張萬物是由一頭「飛天意粉怪」所創造。提出此怪論的是美國俄勒岡州一所大學的 25 歲物理系畢業生亨德森，亨德森並非邪教分子，他想以此古怪「宗教」諷刺保守團體以「智慧設計論」代替進化論教授科學的方式。
目前已有 1000 萬信徒
亨德森聲稱「飛天意粉怪」（Flying Spaghetti Monster）今年初在夢中向他顯靈，自此更不時和他溝通。亨德森親自繪畫「飛天意粉怪」的有趣形象，張貼在「飛天意粉怪教會」的網站http://www.venganza.org。
據悉，該網站推出三個月，每日點擊人次達200萬，成為全球增長最快的「教會」。
據稱，「飛天意粉怪教會」已吸收1000萬名信徒。有人甚至懸賞100萬美元，給能否定「飛天意粉怪」存在的人。有人竄改米開朗基羅的名畫《創世紀》，上帝被換成「飛天意粉怪」。
布什認同類似理論
關於宇宙萬物的來源，當今學界有三大學說，分別是創造論、進化論及高智慧設計論，亨德森的理論屬於第三種。高智慧設計論指出，宇宙太複雜，必有造物主，但和創造論不同，它沒有界定誰是造物主，所以「飛天意粉怪教會」把造物主設定為一頭「飛天意粉怪」也無不可。
關於宇宙萬物的來源，當今學界有三大學說，分別是創造論、進化論及高智慧設計論，亨德森的理論屬於第三種。高智慧設計論指出，宇宙太複雜，必有造物主，但和創造論不同，它沒有界定誰是造物主，所以「飛天意粉怪教會」把造物主設定為一頭「飛天意粉怪」也無不可。
不少保守派人士支持此高智慧設計論，包括總統布什及美國參議員弗里玆。布什更曾說，高智慧設計論應納入課程。
今年7月，亨德森寫信給堪薩斯州教育委員會，要求把高智慧設計論納入常規課程。而堪薩斯州教育委員會最近以6比4的票數通過，從下月起將高智慧設計論納入常規課程。(文文)
http://www.ycwb.com/gb/content/2005-09/13/content_982026.htm
當代「猴子審判」再現美國
http://www.thebeijingnews.com <font color=\”gray\”>‧2005年5月17日1:1‧ 來源：堪薩斯州進化論聽證會抨擊聲中慘淡收場</font>
由於堪薩斯州教育委員會的立場已傾向於反進化論，美國科學界主流對這場聽證會採取了抵制態度。
本報綜合報道一場關於美國堪薩斯州公立學校應該如何教授進化論的聽證會13日在該州的托皮卡落幕。在最後陳述中，為進化論辯護的律師抨擊了該州教育委員會和「智能設計論」支持者的反科學傾向。這出鬧劇不僅讓人想起80年前發生在美國田納西州的那場「猴子審判」。
吸引世界眼球
據美國全國廣播公司報道，在這場聽證會的最後階段，代表支持進化論一方的律師佩德羅‧伊利戈納加雷連續發言兩小時，批評「智能設計論」者和堪薩斯州教育委員會。他說，這些人沒能承擔起對堪薩斯州孩子和未來的責任，這「令人感到悲哀」。
這場聽證會是從5月5日開始的。堪薩斯州教育委員會針對該州的學校該如何教進化論，連續聽取社會各方面的觀點，並可能在今年6月修改該州的教學大綱。聽證會不僅引起全美國的關注，也吸引了世界的「眼球」，來自加拿大、法國、英國和日本等國的記者都在現場報道。
堪薩斯州教育委員會提出的質疑是，達爾文的進化論能否作為一個真理出現在學校的科學課本中？是不是應該在課本或參考書中「平衡」反映一下相反的意見，比如「神創論」或者「智能設計論」？
反映政治氣候
進化論在堪薩斯州命運的反覆與該州政治氣候密切相關。1999年8月，保守派佔主導的州教育委員會首次將進化論從州教學大綱中刪除，第二年保守派就在州選舉中下台，新一屆州政府將進化論恢復。而現在的州政府又是保守派，出席聽證會的3名州教育委員會成員，都是宗教色彩濃厚的保守派成員。
美國科學界主流對這場聽證會採取了抵制態度。美國科學促進會帶頭表示，堪薩斯州教育委員會的立場已傾向於反進化論，這是「對科學的攻擊和破壞」，因此全國和州一級的科學組織不會派出一名科學家出席聽證會。
5月8日，美國全國廣播公司為這一聽證會發起的一項網上民意調查顯示，有56％的人說「進化論是一個完善的科學理論，目前的教學不需要修改」﹔但還有44％的人認為「許多美國人質疑進化論，而教育應該反映不同的信仰」。這表明，即使在科學發達的美國，科學教育要深入人心也不是那麼容易。
<font color=\”blue\”>■交鋒</font>
「猴子審判」
在進化論已被普遍接受的今天，生命起源問題近日居然在美國再次引起激烈紛爭。美國媒體評價說，這幾天「全美國的眼球都被吸引到了堪薩斯」，「上帝和科學又在堪薩斯鬥上了」。由於這場聽證會的氣氛很像一次審判，媒體往往將其與80年前著名的「猴子審判」聯擊起來。
1925年，美國田納西州代頓市的中學教師斯科普斯被「神創論」的支持者告上了法庭。原來，當時田納西州的法律禁止在中學講授違反《聖經》的理論，而斯科普斯卻違反這條法律講授了進化論。
「神創論」的支持者把進化論歪曲簡化成「人是猴子變來的」，因此那場審判又被稱為「猴子審判」。盡管斯科普斯最終承認他曾經違法，但「神創論」的荒謬卻在審判過程中顯露無遺。
<font color=\”blue\”>■盲區</font>
「智能設計論」
1925年的「猴子審判」暴露了「神創論」的荒謬，到上世紀70年代，原先禁止講授進化論的美國部分州，已經取消了不合理的法律，在中學的科學課程上，「神創論」幾乎已銷聲匿跡。
不過，進化論的反對者一直沒有停止活動，在美國的堪薩斯、賓夕法尼亞、密歇根和俄亥俄等州，爭議始終存在。「神創論」被科學界反復駁斥之後，「智能設計論」又冒了出來，並要求在科學課程中得到「平衡介紹」。托皮卡的聽證會，就是這類交鋒的一個延續。
所謂「智能設計論」，是「神創論」已被進化論證明為荒謬之後興起的。它認為，地球上的生命如此複雜，一定是由某種高超的智慧設計而成。科學界人士認為，這實際上是「不說神的神創論」。
http://www.thebeijingnews.com/news/2005/0517/[email protected]
● 于時語韓國首爾（漢城）大學黃禹錫教授首次克隆出寵物狗，成為轟動新聞。韓國《朝鮮日報》報道：黃禹錫研究組的克隆狗將用於疾病治療的胚胎幹細胞研究。這是黃禹錫去年培育成功世界第一個克隆人類胚胎之後的又一重大成就。
歐洲科學家也在同一領域不斷突破，而美國的科學家卻在布什總統和國會出於宗教教條和「道德價值」設置的禁令束縛之下止步不前，形成引人注目的強烈反差。
「抓革命」和「促生產」之爭
筆者曾經指出，要堅持還是放寬對幹細胞研究的限制，是美國內政「抓革命」和「促生產」之爭的最新篇章。這一領域作為科學的最新前沿和代表的巨大商機，使得美國朝野許多人士日益不安。
以傳媒為例，《華盛頓郵報》8月5日說「布什盡力使得美國在當前醫學研究這一最令人興奮的領域中袖手旁觀」，而《紐約時報》同日的社論指出：因為美國的各種政治禁忌和限制，而可能「使得克隆和幹細胞研究的重心轉向海外」。
為了保持科技領先，美國眾議院已經初步通過放寬限制幹細胞研究的立法，連參議院共和黨領袖、佛州植物人生命延續案主角之一的弗利斯特，也表示了與布什總統相異的看法。
著名的保守派專欄作家喬治威爾在《華盛頓郵報》上的有關評論中，特別提到歐洲啟蒙運動對美國立國的推動，以及「以高度自信來運用科學是美國的特徵」。
如果這些事例代表上層知識精英對目前美國這場「宗教教條和啟蒙理性的鬥爭」越來越大的擔心，那麼決不能忽視布什總統的重要草根基礎──南方基督教保守派空前強大的政治影響。而現代生物學的基石──進化論，正是基督教保守派深惡痛絕的「惡魔」。
布什支持「智慧設計論」
作為對這一草根階層的回應，布什總統不僅堅決反對給幹細胞研究鬆綁，還在近日接見得克薩斯州傳媒界代表時，公開支持公立學校教授與進化論格格不入的「智慧設計論」，引起了巨大反響。
「智慧設計論」的主旨是地球上現有生物不可能是進化論所描繪的純屬自然隨機選擇的產物，而必須代表一種「智慧的設計」。英國《獨立報》題為《白宮裡的神話》的社論指出：貌似科學的「智慧設計論」實在毫無科學證據，只是一批基督教原教旨分子為了支持《聖經‧創世紀》的故事而製造。
《華盛頓郵報》社論則稱「智慧設計論」是「貌似科學的准宗教運動」。準備在中小學正式引進有關「課程」的南方堪薩斯州裡的一位生物學教授，把「智慧設計論」形容為「穿了一套蹩腳晚禮服的神創論」。連布什總統自己的白宮科學顧問馬爾伯格也承認：「進化論是現代生物學的基石，而智慧設計論並非一個科學的觀念」。
正如《華盛頓郵報》總結說，在科學角度，布什主張在中小學教育「智慧設計論」實在「近於瘋狂」，所以只能是在玩弄政治。這裡的背景，便是保守的「紅美國」中強烈的「原教旨」信仰，以及這種信仰對達爾文進化論的深仇大恨。
1925年，美國南方田納西州曾經出了一樁著名的「猴子變人官司」，一位膽敢講授進化論的中學教師被判有罪。彈指80年，南方白人保守派的宗教信念並沒有多大變化，絕大多數仍然相信上帝創世論，甚至《創世紀》中上帝在不到1萬年前創造了人類的故事。
南方各州強迫學校同時教授進化論和上帝創世論的法律，1987年才被美國最高法院判決違憲，現在又在布什支持的「智慧設計論」旗號下卷土重來。
舉兩個例子來說明這一情況。今年夏初，俄克拉荷馬州的一家動物園有個科學展覽提到進化論，包括當地市長在內的動物園董事會在基督教保守派的強大壓力下，居然下令必須同時舉行一個支持《聖經‧創世紀》上帝在6天中創造萬物的展覽。後來只是因為外界對這一荒唐做法的強烈嘲笑而取消。
南方肯塔基州目前正在緊鑼密鼓地建造一個「神創論博物館」，預定於2007年正式開放，博物館將提供「證據」和工具，來駁斥違背基督教聖經的生物學、地質學、人類學等現代科學。據《紐約時報》介紹，博物館不僅將展示亞當夏娃曾經和恐龍共存的「證據」，還會以男人的乳頭來證明進化論的無稽，而是代表上帝的一種美觀「設計」。
進化論被神創論者視為妖魔
進化論被神創論支持者視為「漢賊不兩立」的妖魔，在美國特別是南方公共教育系統中遭到日益強大的抵制，越來越多的學校出於宗教和政治壓力，乾脆放棄進化論課程，即使勉強上課，如喬治亞州則在課本上貼上「進化論只是理論而非事實」的標簽。美國國家科學院院長阿爾伯茨今年被迫發表公開信，警告科學界「限制教授進化論的活動日益強化」。
反對進化論的潮流波及主流政治，布什總統提倡教授「智慧設計論」之外，同來自得州的眾議院共和黨領袖德萊，甚至將前幾年美國某中學學生大肆槍殺同學事件，也怪罪到進化論頭上。建立在進化論之上的現代生物學，特別是克隆和幹細胞研究遭到布什和共和黨保守派的反對和「窒息性限制」（《華盛頓郵報》語），因此毫不出人意料。
與號稱「新教」的美國南方基督教原教旨派的頑固反對形成鮮明對比，梵帝岡羅馬天主教廷對進化論和其他科學題目早就採取了開明的態度，新近去世的若望保祿二世本人就公開接受了進化論，而決不是像英國《衛報》形容布什總統的態度：「科學是一個骯髒的詞匯」。
人們也許會詫異，以強大科技稱霸世界的美國，如何今天會出現這樣「寧要宗教的草，不要科學的苗」的政治潮流？這其實是美國政治中心從知識精英主導的東北部向宗教勢力強盛的南方轉移的自然結果。布什父子兩朝，是這一歷史性演變的最好寫照。
這一過程來自對應的人口演變，反映的是大多數工業化和後工業化社會面對的無可奈何的現實：現代社會中生育率日益與教育水平成反比。豐田公司最近決定捨美國南部而去加拿大安大略省設立新廠，主要一個原因便是它在美國南方多家工廠遭遇的當地工人的低教育素質。
出於同樣原因，節制生育往往造成人口平均質量的下降。新加坡和中國都面臨這一現實人口規律的巨大挑戰。以色列內部猶太強硬勢力上升，也出於這一規律。這是值得人們深思的題目。
‧作者在北美從事科研工作
AAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
Adopted 20 September 2005The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation’s K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess — scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.
In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design,” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “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.
Since “Intelligent Design” is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools.
The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.
A PDF version of this statement with additional resources is available for printing and distribution.
http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.html#teach
Kansas Denied Use of National Science Education Standards
October 27, 2005 — The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have refused to grant copyright permission to the Kansas State Board of Education to make use of publications by the two organizations in the state\’s science education standards. According to a statement from the two groups, the new Kansas standards are improved, but as currently written, they overemphasize controversy in the theory of evolution and distort the definition of science. NAS and NSTA offered to work with the board to resolve these issues so the state standards could use text from the National Research Council\’s \”National Science Education Standards\” and NSTA\’s \”Pathways to Science Standards.\”
<ul type=\”square\”>[*]Joint Statement (28 KB, requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
[*]Letter from President Cicerone (24 KB, requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
[*]Review of the Kansas Science Education Standards (148 KB, requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
[*]\”National Science Education Standards \”
[*]Letter from the National Science Teachers Association
[*]\”Pathways to the Science Standards\”
[*]Statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science[/list]
http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20051027.html
Intelligent design is not science
More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers are represented in an open letter warning that \’intelligent design\’ should not be taught in school science classes. The letter was published in major Australian newspapers on 21 October.
The full text of the letter follows:
As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called \’intelligent design\’ (ID) might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution.
Proponents of ID assert that some living structures are so complex that they are explicable only by the agency of an imagined and unspecified \’intelligent designer\’. They are free to believe and profess whatever they like. But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science: that is a theological or philosophical notion.
For a theory to be considered scientific it must be testable – either directly or indirectly – by experiment or observation. The results of such tests should be able to be reproduced by others as a check on their accuracy (and, importantly, if repeated testing falsifies the theory it should be rejected rather than taught as part of the accumulating body of scientific understanding). Finally, a scientific theory should explain more than what is already known: it should be able to predict outcomes in novel situations. Evolution meets all of these criteria but ID meets none of them: it is not science.
We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views – be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions – and crowd out the teaching of real science.
Mike Archer
Dean of Science, University of NSWBradley Smith
Executive Director, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological SocietiesSue Serjeantson
Executive Secretary, Australian Academy of Science, CanberraPaul Carnemolla
President-elect, Australian Science Teachers Association(The signatories head organisations representing about 70,000 Australians who work in science and science teaching.)
http://www.science.org.au/reports/intelligent%20design.htm
Scientists condemn \’intelligent design\’
Friday Oct 21 2005 13:51 AESTAustralia\’s scientific community Friday called for an alternative evolutionary theory known as \”intelligent design\” to be barred from classrooms, comparing it to spoon-bending and alien abductions.
More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers signed an open letter urging Australia\’s conservative government not to allow intelligent design onto school curricula.
The theory, advocated by right-wing Christian groups in the United States, says that complex biological organisms cannot be explained by evolutionary chance alone and must be the work of an intelligent designer.
It is not currently taught to Australian school students but federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson, a Christian, revealed in August he had met a group called Campus Crusade for Christ and would support it being taught alongside Darwin\’s theory of evolution.
The scientific community\’s open letter said it would be gravely concerned if intelligent design was taught in schools.
\”To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views – be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions – and crowd out the teaching of real science,\” said the letter to national newspapers.
The letter said intelligent design ignored the basic scientific principle that a theory should be testable through observation or experimentation.
\”Not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science — that is a theological or philosophical notion.\”
Royal Society issues statement on evolution
A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published on April 11, 2006, by the Royal Society of London, the United Kingdom\’s national academy of science. Describing evolution as \”the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species\” and as \”rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world,\” the statement also emphasizes the importance of evolution in understanding and solving problems of practical importance in medicine and agriculture.
Acknowledging that \”[m]any people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed,\” the statement remarks that \”some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence, citing young-earth creationism. As for \”intelligent design\”: \”Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist — as if they were evidence for a \’designer\’. … The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.\”
The statement mentions possible roles for teaching about creationism as part of religious education and in order to illuminate the nature of science. It also suggests that students \”have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain, adding, \”Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so.\” \”However,\” the statement concludes, \”young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.\”
In a press release, David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, said, \”We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries.\” The Royal Society\’s statement follows less than a month after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, told a newspaper that he opposed the teaching of creationism in science classrooms, and about six months after the president of the Royal Society, Lord May, criticized \”intelligent design\” — which he described as a \”disguised variant\” of creationism — in the course of his fifth and final anniversary address to the Society.
April 13, 2006
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/UK/822_royal_society_issues_statement_4_13_2006.asp
Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design
11 Apr 2006
A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.
The statement points out that evolution is \”recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species\” and that it is \”rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world\”.
It concludes: \”Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.\”
Professor David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, said: \”We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries. The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people\’s confidence in the value of scientific evidence. But there have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in north-east England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution.\”
The Royal Society statement acknowledges that many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe and life on Earth developed. But it indicates that \”some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence\”.
It states: \”For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.\”
The Royal Society statement emphasises that evolution is important to the understanding of many medical and agricultural challenges: It states: \”The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin\’s theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them.\”
The statement also criticises attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence: \”Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer\’. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.\”
The statement is published ahead of a public lecture today at the Royal Society by Professor Steve Jones on Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong\’. The text of the statement follows.
A statement by the Royal Society on evolution, creationism and intelligent design
April 2006
The Royal Society was founded in 1660 by a group of scholars whose desire was to promote an understanding of ourselves and the universe through experiment and observation. This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. It has led to major advances of understanding over more than 300 years. Although there is still much left to be discovered, we now have a broad knowledge of how the universe developed after the \’Big Bang\’ and of how humans and other species appeared on Earth.
One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.
The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin\’s theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them.
Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a \’creator\’ is fundamental to many religions. Many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed. Creationism is a belief that may be taught as part of religious education in schools, colleges and universities. Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith.
However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.
Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a \’designer\’. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist – as if they were evidence for a \’designer\’. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.
Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.
<font color=\”brown\”>多國科學家聯手反擊“創世論”
DWNEWS.COM– 2006年6月24日11:2<font color=\”white\”></font>7:54(京港台時間) –多維新聞
新華網倫敦６月２３日電多國科學家日前聯合簽署一份聲明，對“創世論”發動了迄今最為猛烈的一輪抨擊。他們警告說，生命的起源正在被隱瞞、否認和混淆。
綜合外電近日報道，簽署聲明的國家包括美國、英國、法國、以色列、日本等國的國家科學院。這些國家科學院警告說，家長和老師應該保證自己不破壞進化論的教學，不要給兒童灌輸“世界是在６天之內創造出來的”這樣的觀點。
聲明稱：“我們敦促決策者、教師和家長向所有孩子教授科學方法和科學發現，促進他們對自然科學的了解。自然科學使人們得以滿足自身需求並保護這個星球。”
聲明還說：“在某些公共教育機構的科學課程中，一些經不起科學檢驗的理論正在隱瞞、否認和混淆有關地球生命起源和進化過程的科學理論。”
科學家們擔心，名為“智慧設計論”的一種“創世論”說法的傳播範圍正在擴大。“智慧設計論”認為，世界上的物種如此複雜，不可能是透過自然選擇的方式進化而來的，所以肯定是某位“設計者”的作品。
２００５年１１月，美國中部的堪薩斯州教育委員會以６票支援、４票反對透過了新的公立學校科學教學大綱，稱科學界承認是真理的進化論存在無法解釋的漏洞，並要求教師們介紹挑戰進化論的科學學說。對此，美最大的科學教師組織——美國科學教育中心立即表示，這份新大綱是“美國科學教育的悲哀”。（完）</font>
http://www5.chinesenewsnet.com/MainNews/SocDigest/Technology/2006_6_23_23_27_54_306.html
http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/06/24/YM-584277.htmNational academies of science around the world support evolution education
Sixty-seven national academies of science, representing countries from Albania to Zimbabwe, have endorsed the Interacademy Panel\’s new statement (PDF) on the teaching of evolution. Among the signatories are the United States National Academy of Sciences, the United Kingdom\’s Royal Society of London, the Royal Society of Canada, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry and the Crafoord Prize.
Concerned that \”in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science,\” the signatories \”urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.\”
IAP\’s co-chair Yves Quere told the BBC (June 21, 2006) that the scientific community is increasingly concerned that children are not being taught the basic facts of evolution and the nature of scientific inquiry. The statement accordingly lists a number of key facts that \”have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines,\” including the age of the universe and of the earth, the change of the earth over time, and the common ancestry of life on earth.
The statement also acknowledges that \”human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science\’s scope\” and that \”a number of components — scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political — contribute to it,\” adding, \”These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.\”
A press release (PDF) from the IAP about the statement is available here.
June 21, 2006
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/XX/538_national_academies_of_science__6_21_2006.asp
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
