Customer Reviews

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This short book is an excellent overview of the reasons scientist accept evolution. Since the creationist controversialists are not above employing equivocal arguments, I should mention that the National Academy of Sciences brings out the distinctions between facts, hypothesis, laws, and theories. In science, theories are well-established general explanations which provide a unified view of the sciences. The creationist controversialists love to play on a popular meaning of the term, which is roughly equivalent to hypotheses.

It should be pointed out that creationists believe in special creations, supernatural interventions, to explain the origin of life. Creation in the sense of sustaining the universe in being is in no way opposed to evolution.

In remarkably clear and compressed language, the authors discuss the ages of the universe, the galaxy, the earth, life, and human life. Based on radiometric dating, the earth appears to be about 4.54 billion years old. From fossil evidence, living organisms much like bacteria are known to have existed 3.5 billion years ago. The authors have a chart which shows when selected types of organisms evolved. The first hominids in the genus homo evolved about 2.4 million years ago.

A large subgroup of special creationists, the young earth creationists, try to compress the universe, or at least the history of life, into 10,000 years or less. This totally ignores many different areas of science, and the only basis is their interpretations of the biblical texts. And, of course, as anyone who has discussed the issues with them knows, the creationists have never been able to agree on their interpretations of the biblical texts.

Besides the sequences and dating of the fossil record, there are many things which point to a common ancestry. There are common structures in many different species, different distributions, similarities in their development, and more recently, advances in molecular biology. It is due to molecular biology that scientists have been able to deduce that the first modern humans originated about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago.

For some reason, the special creationists have decided that evolution is somehow opposed to creation. Evolution is, after all, simply "descent with modifications." The National Academy of Sciences, however, does not deal with this lack of logic or their appallingly bad biblical scholarship.

This book also deals with legal and other issues about teaching creationism in publicly funded classrooms in the United States. The federal course and the Supreme Court have decided that creationism is religion. Perhaps more significantly, it is bad science.

This fine little book cannot cover the whole controversy completely, of course, but it is authoritative and well worth reading. It shows that evolution is a central unifying concept in biology, and that students really should have the opportunity of learning about it in the classroom. Creationism, since it is not good science and is not testable, should not be taught in science classes.

Lest anyone should think otherwise, I should point out that I am a practising Christian, and have been all my life. As well, I have a particular interest in the history of the notion of creation.

This short, easy to read, booklet presents the question very concisely. What will you have, scientific facts based on 200 years of research by millions of people OR creationist "facts" based on Fundamentalist religion? It's pretty clear from this short booklet that the validity of the Earth's age and evolution are solidly established. They are as close to facts as anything in science can be. This booklet gives a very short and concise description of what science knows. There is a brief introduction to current theories about the origin of the universe, Earth and life. It goes on to summarize the scientific evidence supporting evolution and then more specifically human evolution. It also make a clear statement that IN NO WAY does accepting the fact of evolution contradict belief in God. This is a good booklet to pass out in lecture situations where creationist try to pass of their religion using bogus scientific "facts".

I have a BS in Earth Sciences, with a minor in biology, chemistry, and physics. I'm an Earth Sciences teacher and have been teaching for several years. This is a good outline that can be useful for science teachers and public school administrators who find themselves (sigh) having to refute the attempts of religious right to teach religion in a science class. Science class should be about scientific methods and principles, not faith and religion, and it should include be based on our use of the scientific method, not a sacred text. (Religion belongs in religion class, not science class.) For a good overview of this, see http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10, the NSTA position of teaching evolution in schools)

"Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" represents the National Academy of Sciences' official position regarding the teaching of evolution in science classrooms. It is a terse, yet quite important, document which should be read by teachers, education officials and parents interested in saving excellent science education from devious advocates of Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism who claim to seek "balance in the classroom" but actually would prefer a science curriculum which emphasized irrational supernational, not rational empirical means of understanding the physical universe. The authors offer an elegant review of what is known to be scientifically true with respect to evolution, beginning with the origins of the universe to Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, and reviewing the ample evidence - from molecular biology to systematic biology, ecology and paleobiology - which does support it. They also emphasize the importance of using the scientific method for rigorous scientific research and explain why Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism are really religiously-oriented (and motivated) ideas which have no place either in genuine scientific research or science education. I wish that the National Academy of Sciences didn't deem it necessary to issue this publication, but as long as there are still substantial - and financially well-supported - advocates of Intelligent Design (and other varieties of "scientific" creationism) eager to inject their own parochial religious and moral values into the science classrooms of the United States, then this is one publication which deserves as wide a readership as possible.

As someone interested in the creationist/evolution debate, this short but well-articulated book is one that I would recommend to anyone with a similar interest. The NAS not only oversees a plethora of scientific investigation but is a body well respected for it's thoroughness and objectivity in the vast realm we call scientific inquiry. 'Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences' brings together the thoughts and evidence of leading researchers debating one of society's most polarizing topics.

In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that creationism is a religious belief and not science, and therefore it could not be taught in public schools that are required to be religiously neutral. Nevertheless, in a recent article in the New York Times ("Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution," June 21, 2005), current controversies in Kansas and Pennsylvania indicate that the issue refuses to go away. In the Kansas case, the school board decided to "teach the controversy," whereas the point of the article was that since mainstream science is so convinced of the overwhelming evidence for evolution that they don't even acknowledge a controversy, scientists refused to participate when asked to testify.

The present booklet, along with its longer companion book Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), presents the best efforts of the National Academy of Sciences to give an overview of mainstream science's views about evolution in general and "creation science" (and intelligent design) in particular. Negatively, the booklet argues that creation science is not a science because it cannot claim empirical evidence and is not testable. It should therefore not be taught in science classes, although, presumably, it might be taught in a comparative religions or similar humanities class. Positively, the booklet summarizes the evidence for evolution in three areas--the origins of the universe, earth, and life itself; biological evolution as evidenced in the five areas of paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology, and molecular biology; and then human evolution. At the end of each of these sections very brief considerations of creationism's views on these subjects are summarized and dismissed.

This report makes several important caveats, concessions or qualifications regarding the scientific enterprise. First, it acknowledges that science is not the only way of knowing. A worldview without broader knowledge beyond science would be deeply impoverished. Second, it affirms that many scientists are deeply religious and "hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution," a simple statement of fact that often goes unnoticed. Third, it reminds the reader that many religious people see no conflict with evolution. In fact, the report concedes that theistic evolution "is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution." That would imply, for example, that science need not be materialistic or atheistic, even though its purview is the merely material. Fourth, for its part, because its scope is so very narrow, science "cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs." That is, it must remain agnostic about areas outside of its empirical method. Fifth, the report seems to embrace a view similar to Stephen Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria," when it advocates that "science and religion occupy two separate realms." Thus, questions of morality, aesthetics, philosophy, politics, economics, social policy, and the like "extend beyond science's realm." In practice this is hardly ever true; scientists can and do comment on these issues, and when they do the mantle of prestige and authority that often attaches itself to science accompanies their opinions that, strictly speaking, lie outside of the scientific method. Do scientists really remain silent on the social, medical, economic, or moral implications of stem cell research, for example, or whether or when we might use the nuclear weapons science created? Finally, in several places the report notes that in science no truth is ever final, in the sense that scientific conclusions always remain open to correction and revision.[...]

This small book presents in simple language that even creationists may understand the facts of evolution and why creationism is poor religion and even worse science.

There has been too much written on evolution science versus religion.
The whole thing can be explained in one paragraph. Here goes:


Biological evolution is a complete science composed of theory,
computational work, and experiment. Religion is just a theory.
And a rather poorly developed and inconsistent one at that.
Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. In the
case of religion what little evidence there is is mostly in the
negative.

This book shows unequivocably what the consensus is among scientists regarding evolution of species on the planet earth. This book will not be well-received by those who pin their hopes on the mythological writings of bronze age tribesmen from the Bible, However, the book does a good job of laying out the evidence and the consistency of the evidence between scientific disciplines.

Creationists, who have no clue concerning the difference between a hypothesis and a theory will continue to say "it's just a theory" and hope to lead their dumbed down sheep who continue to believe in the creation myth of Adam and Eve. The battle is being waged for the hearts and souls of Americans regarding a scientific mindset or a mindset based upon adherence to ancient myths. The American Taliban is alive and well and is attacking science as a mortal enemy because it calls into question the myths the Taliban hold most dear. This century may determine whether America is a land of exploration and advancement or a land of dogma and superstition. The National Academy of Sciences produced a sound and persuasive document to further the cause of truth and reason.

This was an outstanding overview for my personal research on evolution and a great reference for creationists searching for reality. hmm