A large number of international academies of science have issued a statement1 on the teaching of evolution in government-run schools. The statement calls for the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution as if it were factual and proven (which, of course, it is not). The statement also calls for the requirement that teaching other approaches to the issues of origins be prevented-presumably what they would call creationism and Intelligent Design (ID).

The statement was published by The InterAcademy Panel, a global network of science academies, which includes the Royal Society in the UK and the US National Academy of Sciences.

The statement issued four clauses, which the IAP claims are evidence-based. The statement proceeds to require science teaching that emphasizes the observation of the natural world and the formulation of testable and refutable hypotheses. Yet this requirement, with which we concur, is opposed to three of their own so-called evidence-related “facts.”

One IAP clause states that “Since its formation, the Earth-its geology and its environments-has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.” We concur with this clause, and would want to point out to school students that such geomorphic changes include strong evidence consistent with the violent, catastrophic effects that would have been associated with the biblical, worldwide Flood.

The IAP's statement does not actually include the evidence, perhaps because it is realized that for three of the clauses the evidence does not exist. The IAP's statement therefore constitutes what could be called a fallacious argument from authority. It asks that you accept what they state without question, because they are supposedly eminent scientists. Of course, the IAP did not observe the formation of the earth supposedly 4.5 billion years ago, or even the appearance of life allegedly 2.5 billion years ago. In addition, when have they ever observed the continual evolution of lower to higher forms of life, involving increasing genetic information? Furthermore, why do they not want evidence to be taught to school students, which refutes the IAP's presuppositions?

In fact, molecules-to-man evolution is neither “testable” nor “refutable,” so it fails the test of scientific respectability required under the IAP's own statement. It is important that school students and adults everywhere are informed of this.


NOTE: this article was adapted from a news release sent by AiG-UK on Thursday, June 21, 2006 to various European media outlets.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. A PDF copy of the IAP statement can be read at www.anubih.ba/IAP/IAPEvolution17nov.pdf. Back