AGU’s Position Statement on Teaching Evolution: Comments Invited
Since 1981 AGU has vigorously supported the teaching of evolution in the classroom and has opposed all efforts to require or promote teaching any religious tenet as science. Within this basic policy framework, AGU members are invited to provide comments that may be taken into consideration by the panel who is charged with providing an update of this position statement. Among other issues, the panel has been asked to reflect on the centrality of evolution and how it can be emphasized as a major unifying concept in the understanding of our planet.
As published in Eos | Position Statement | Procedures for Developing Union Positions
September 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
EOS, thank you for developing a position statement and allowing for comment. I am writing from a background of training in evolutionary developmental biology.
General comments:
1) Is there a theory of Earth History? Perhaps what this means should be specified.
2) Substantial confusion exists about theories and laws. Perhaps a sentence could be included in paragraph 2 which explains the difference.
3) I deleted the word development from paragraph 2 because it sounds progressive, and allows for confusion with developmental biology.
4) Additional confusion exists about whether biological evolution includes the origin of life. I’m not sure where this would be clarified, unless you add another paragraph summarizing major conclusions of research into Earth’s history and biological evolution.
5) I added Intelligent Design because this is the current iteration of creationsim. Creation Science does not get mentioned much anymore.
Small changes are in brackets below.
————–
The American Geophysical Union affirms the central importance of scientific theories of Earth history and [biological] evolution in science education. An educated citizenry must understand these theories in order to comprehend the dynamic world in which we live and nature’s complex balance that sustains us.
Science employs a logical and empirical methodology to understand the natural world. Scientific research entails observation of natural phenomena, formulation of hypotheses as tentative, testable statements to explain these phenomena, and experiments or observations to test these hypotheses. Scientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth’s [deletion] 4.5 billion-year history and of life’s gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory.
[Ideas surrounding] “Creation science” [and “Intelligent Design” are] based on faith and [are] not supported by scientific observations of the natural world. Creationism is not science and does not have a legitimate place in any science curriculum.
AGU opposes all efforts to require or promote teaching creationism or any other religious tenets as science. AGU supports the National Science Education Standards, which incorporate well-established scientific theories including the origin of the universe, the [history] of Earth, and the evolution of life.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I agree with Sara Wise that the position statement on teaching evolution needs to be tweeked a bit. I like her idea about the specific inclusion of Intelligent Design. In addition, it could be improved by including wording consistent with National Academy of Sciences (NAS) definitions of “theory” and other terms. I would like to volunteer to serve on this committee.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I am a scientist and disagree with the AGU position on evolution. Quite frankly it is bogus. Newton and Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientists the world has seen had very deep convictions concerning the existence of God. Einstein once said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind!” Deep-thinking religious leaders hold the same view. When ask how do you know God exists, Newton’s quick reponse, “Look at you thumbs that should be proof enough!”
Although more scientists in the past believed in God, the recent emphasis on materialism has had its affect on the scientific community. The thrust of science today is to believe only in that, which can be calculated, measured, or experienced with the five senses. If these criteria are not met, it is not real. It is completely illogical that a scientist, a person who observes and analyzes the nature of things, could say that he or she does not believe in a Creator. Isn’t is obvious that the universe and everything in it was created. What logic could lead one to conclude that non-intelligence was capable of creating intelligence?
Science itself does not back up the theory of evolution. In mathematics, if a probability of occurrence is less than 1 x 10-50, it is impossible for the event to ever occur. The probability of a one-cell organism forming by accident is orders of magnitude less likely; it is calculated to be 1 x 10-78,000. Further, Huxley determined that the probability for a horse to accidentally appear is 1 x 10-3,000,000. With analyses like these by many well known mathematicians, one wonders how a scientist could ever embrace evolution, and yet strangely they do.
From my analysis of life I have found the following. There is One Consciousness (God) of which you, I and the rest of creation are apart. We exist within this One Consciousness as our dreams at night exist within us. We do not carry the Consciousness around with us, it is everywhere we go like the air we breath. The One Consciousness created because (He/She) was lonely and we are each wired to an allotted portion of this One All Knowing Consciousness. Because in essence we are one, those revered as Godmen have told us to love our neighbors as ourselves and be compassionate. Krishna was once asked who is the highest? His response,”He who suffers the bliss and sorrow of every living creature, taking each bliss and sorry as his own, him I call the highest!” Philosophy and science fit together like a hand and glove, both in their purest forms are a search for Truth. God is Truth, two paths - the same destination.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Robert Ashworth unfortunately seems to hold the common misconception that a statement for evolution is a statement against belief in God. This is one of the biggest driving factors in the whole evolution-creation controversy.
I, too, am a theist and would not disagree with anything Ashworth says in his last paragraph. I would also agree that scientific materialism has led some to conclude that there is no need for a concept of God, however, I would say that this is a false and an unnecessary conclusion.
To paraphrase what I said in my Eos Forum article (4 July 2006), we must avoid believing the dual fallacy that if we can explain something, then there is no involvement by God, and if we cannot explain something, then this must be the supernatural work of God. Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. We must remember that science explains the how, not the why, of things.
I wonder if something along these lines should be included in the AGU statement. It seems that by so doing, perhaps this would be a step in the direction of reconciling this unfortunate misconception that has led to so much unnecessary controversy and misunderstanding.
I also agree that “Intelligent Design” should be specifically mentioned, as it ultimately rests on a “god of the gaps” kind of argument — that is, requiring supernational intervention where science leaves off — and is just a sophisticated version of creationism.
I would be happy to continue to provide comments and editorial assistance to the committee in drafting an updated version of this position statement.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:36 am
I fully agree with the Position Statement in its present form, except a minor point of formulation and a point concerning the teaching of science.
(1) In the sentence “Scientific theories … are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification.” it makes no sense to say “survived … repeated verification”. It should be: “survived … repeated attempts of falsification” or “survived extensive tests and have been repeatedly verified”, or so.
(2) Education must be broader than teaching science, because – I believe – life is more than intellect. It is important to discuss and teach the essence of humanity which includes or involves science but also spirituality, faith and responsibility. Science seeks the “truth” (as already expressed in the second paragraph of the AGU Satatement). It is always limited or “preliminary” in its insights. Human rationality is limited, complemented by faith (not exactly the same as “belief”). Indeed, science as a human endeavor is somehow founded in faith, and so is our responsibility for a sustainable progress on earth. It should be emphasized that science and faith are not contradictory to each other but rather “orthogonal” coordinates of humanity.
Scientific theories cannot answer existential questions. Our very existence is outside science because we cannot test it by experiment. Is the conflict between science and religion a real or absolute one, or is it only apparent? Is it a dichotomy? It will depend on our understanding of science and religion. Absolute conflict or contradiction can be defined by: if A is true, B is false and vice versa, for example, either religion is true and science is false or science is true and religion is false. A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, separate views or opposed as white and not white. If A, then not B or vice versa, but saying nothing about the existence or truth of A or B, only an apparent contradiction between A and B. A and B can be true but as exclusive sides or aspects of an object: life is evolving and can be gratefully accepted as a gift.
The issue is not to turn from one to another “absolute certainty” or from creationist preachers to fallible scientists. The task is not to indoctrinate people about the “truth” of evolution, but to teach them about the nature of scientific theories and also their limitations. I believe it is important in the science-religion debate to advocate a broad and balanced education. I agree with the last paragraph of the current Statement (that creationism or ID must not be taught as science, but I would add a few words about the nature of science and the nature of religion.