Kudos for Science, Evolution, and Creationism Kudos for Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Spread the love

From the National Center for Science Education:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the new book from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom, is receiving wide attention — and, what’s more, praise both from the scientific community and newspapers across the country for its uncompromising endorsement of the necessity of including evolution in science education.Stories about Science, Evolution, and Creationism appeared in such major media outlets as The New York Times (January 4, 2008), Reuters (January 3, 2008), ScienceNOW (January 4, 2008), United Press International (January 4, 2008), and the Associated Press (January 3, 2008), which noted, “Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the California-based National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution, said the new report is important because the debate over evolution in school is not going away.”And both NBC and ABC ran segments about the book on their nightly newscasts on January 3, 2008. Robert “Mac” West, a paleontologist and museum consultant who serves on NCSE’s board of directors, told ABC’s Dan Harris, “We don’t want to be in the position of misleading our youngsters about what science is and what it can tell us about how the world works.” NCSE’s deputy director Glenn Branch told NBC’s Pete Williams, “This is a definitive statement from a leading scientific authority about the scientific bankruptcy of intelligent design creationism.”The journal Nature offered three cheers on the publication of Science, Evolution, and Creationism in its January 10, 2008, editorial, remarking, “The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn’t science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world,” and also citing Kevin Padian’s testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover as “a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge.”In its January 12, 2008, editorial, New Scientist also praised the book, focusing (subscription required) on its avoidance of portraying science as opposed to religion (“The US is a religious country and, as Glenn Branch of the advocacy group National Center for Science Education points out, if the issue was ‘God versus science’ many Americans would choose God.”) and its emphasis on the practical applications of evolutionary theory (“understanding evolution is critical to agriculture, medicine and specifically to tackling viruses such as SARS and HIV”).Newspapers across the country took the opportunity presented by the publication of Science, Evolution, and Creationism to reaffirm their editorial commitment to the integrity of science education, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (January 6, 2008), the Tuscaloosa News (January 6, 2008), the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (January 7, 2008), and the Toledo Blade (January 9, 2008), which wrote, “Regrettably for American students caught in the middle, education on evolution could be watered down unless the National Academy of Sciences and others without a religious ax to grind get the last word.”

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

1 thought on “Kudos for Science, Evolution, and Creationism Kudos for Science, Evolution, and Creationism

  1. It is interesting to note that the National Academy of Sciences has aligned itself with the Institute of Medicine in an obvious attempt to lend validity to the antichrist tenant of Darwinism.Following is an excerpt from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a new series of 7 textbooks based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect:”On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as “atheistical cats.” By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation�more later.A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness’] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as �the glory of God.�In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”(Romans 1:21, 22.In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient�willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.” The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity�objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God – there is no God.”For additional information on The Quest for Right series, visit the official website: http://questforright.comAn interested reader may want to see what all the uproar is about in the atheistic and evolutionist blogs concerning the several volumes: do a google search for questforright.comThe combined wisdeom of man is foolishness with God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.