|
The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is contentious in the United States and other countries where creationism and intelligent design are advocated as alternatives to evolution, or which portray the modern evolutionary synthesis, developed in the middle of the 20th century, confirming the genetic basis for natural selection, as an inadequate scientific paradigm. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.〔Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83〕 Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design〔 and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.〔Amicus Curiae brief in , available at (【引用サイトリンク】 Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates )〕 Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their dogma, and who therefore reject it: in the United States,〔 ; full article at 〕〔; 〕 the Muslim world, South Africa,〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Worldwide creationism, Shotgun stunner, and more )〕 India, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil, with smaller followings in Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. Through its Center for Science and Culture, the Institute conducts a number of public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in academia. The Discovery Institute claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy", although there is no controversy over the validity of evolution within the scientific community. Several publications discuss the subject of acceptance, including a document produced by the United States National Academy of Sciences.〔; available on-line: 〕 ==Scientific support== The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.〔The National Science Teachers Association's (position statement on the teaching of evolution. )〕〔(IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution ) Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)〕〔From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: (2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution ) (PDF file), (AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws )〕〔(''Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution'', Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522 )〕 One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".〔As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."〕 A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.〔(''Public beliefs about evolution and creation'', Robinson, B. A. 1995. )〕〔(''Many scientists see God's hand in evolution'', Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33, 1997 )〕 Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,〔See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and (firmly rejects ID ). More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators (condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes ). (List of statements from scientific professional organizations ) on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.〕 pseudoscience,〔National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." (National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush ) National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005〕〔(Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action ) Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.〕 or junk science.〔"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.(Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. ) Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.〕〔(Junk science ) Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25, 2006.〕 The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.〔National Academy of Sciences, 1999 (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition )〕 In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."〔The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." (Nobel Laureates Initiative ) (PDF file)〕 In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".〔Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. (Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out )〕 In 1986, an ''amicus curiae'' brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'', to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).〔 This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."〔 There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.〔(List of numerous US scientific societies that support evolution and their statements about evolution )〕〔(List of 68 international scientific societies on the Interacademy Panel (IAP) that endorse a resolution supporting evolution and a multibillion year old earth, June 2006. )〕〔(National Science Board letter in support of evolution 1999 )〕〔(''Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design'', 11 Apr 2006. )〕 The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.〔 The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.〔(''Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition'', National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1999. )〕〔(''Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)'', National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998. )〕 There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."〔Pew Research Center: "(Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media )" July 9, 2009.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「level of support for evolution」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|