Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

The Dispatch tries to verify the identity of those who submit letters to the editor, but this message presented some problems. It arrived on a postcard with no return address:

The Dispatch cannot confirm that this is a divine communication, but the newspaper does endorse the sentiment it expresses: that there is room in the world for science and religion, and the two need not be at war.

The newspaper also agrees that Reidelbach, a Republican state representative from Columbus, is among the lawmakers most in need of this revelation. She is the sponsor of House Bill 481, which says that when public schools teach evolution, they also must teach competing "theories'' about the origin of life.

Reidelbach says the bill would "encourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and its diversity objectively and without religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption.''

What this appears to mean is that any idea about the origin of life would be designated, incorrectly, a scientific theory and would get equal time with the genuine scientific theory known as evolution.

Those who correctly object that the creation stories of various religions are not scientific would be guilty, in the language of this bill, "of religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption.''

Never mind that science is not a bias or an assumption but simply a rigorous and logical method for describing and explaining what is observed in nature.

What Reidelbach and her co-sponsors are attempting to do is to require that science classes also teach creationism, intelligent design and related unscientific notions about the origin of life that are derived from Christian belief.

So bent are they on getting Christianity's foot in the door of science classrooms that they apparently don't mind that this bill also appears to give the green light to the creation stories of competing religions, cults and any other manifestation of belief or unbelief. Apparently, even Satanists would have their say.

But the real problem is that Reidelbach's bill would undermine science education at the very moment when Ohio should be developing a scientifically literate generation of students who can help the state succeed in 21st-century technologies and compete economically around the globe.

The fact is that religious ideas, no matter how much they are dressed up in the language of science, are not science. And subjecting students to religious ideas in a science class simply would muddle their understanding of the scientific method and waste valuable time that ought to be used to learn genuine science.

The scientific method consists of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about the causes of what is observed. These conclusions, or theories, are subject to testing and revision as additional facts are discovered that either bolster or undermine the conclusions and theories. Scientific truth, such as it is, is constantly evolving as new theories replace or modify old ones in the light of new facts.

Religious notions of creation work in the opposite fashion. They begin with a preconceived belief -- for example, that God created all the creatures on the Earth -- and then pick and choose among the observable facts in the natural world to find those that fit. Those that don't are ignored.

The scientific approach expands knowledge about the natural world; the religious approach impedes it.

The classic example of this occurred 369 years ago when the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. That theory contradicted the religiously based idea that man and the Earth formed the center of God's creation. Had the church's creationist view of the solar system prevailed, Ohioan Neil Armstrong never would have set foot on the moon.

When it comes to evolution, much confusion grows out of the understanding -- or misunderstanding -- of the words theory and fact. Evolution is a theory, but one that has become so thoroughly buttressed by physical evidence that, for all intents and purposes, it is a fact. No one outside of the willfully obstinate questions the idea that new life forms evolved from older ones, a process conclusively illustrated in biology and the fossil record.

Where disagreement still exists is over how the process of evolution occurs. Scientists argue about the mechanism by which change occurs and whether the process is gradual and constant or proceeds in fits in starts. But while they debate over how evolution occurs, they do not doubt that it does occur.

Another way to understand this is to consider gravity. Everyone accepts the existence of this force, but many questions remain about just what gravity is and how it works. That scientists argue about how gravity works doesn't change the fact that gravity exists. Or, as author Stephen Jay Gould has put it, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.''

Those who persist on questioning this fact are a tiny minority, even among people of faith. But they are a loud minority and, to those not well-grounded in science, their arguments can sound reasonable, even "scientific.'' But their arguments are little more than unfounded assertions dressed up in the language of science.

This minority also insists on creating conflict between religion and science where none needs to exist. Major faiths long since have reconciled themselves to a division of labor with science. Religion looks to humankind's spiritual and moral needs, while science attends to the material ones.

The Catholic Church, which once tried to hold back the progress of science, now admits that it was wrong to suppress Galileo. More than a billion Catholics draw sustenance from their faith untroubled by the knowledge that the planet is racing around the sun.

Religion, in turn, provides spiritual and moral guideposts to decide how best to use the awesome powers that science has unlocked and placed at humankind's disposal.

Nor are scientists themselves antagonistic to religion. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history, was deeply reverent: "My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world,'' he once said.

Others have made similar observations. The more the scientific method reveals about the intricacies of the universe, the more awestruck many scientists become.

The simplest way to reconcile religion and evolution is to accept the view propounded early last century by prominent Congregationalist minister and editor Lyman Abbott, who regarded evolution as the means God uses to create and shape life.

This view eliminates conflict between evolution and religion. It allows scientists to investigate evolution as a natural process and lets people of faith give God the credit for setting that process in motion.

As for what to do about creationism and evolution in schools, the answer is easy. Evolution should be taught in science classes. Creationism and related religiously based ideas should be taught in comparative-religion, civics and history classes.

Religion was and remains central to the American identity. It has profoundly shaped American ideals and provided the basis for its highest aspirations, from the Declaration of Independence to the civil-rights movement. There is no question that religion is a vital force and a vital area of knowledge that must be included in any complete education.

But not in the science classroom, because religion is not science. There is no such thing as Buddhist chemistry, Jewish physics or Christian mathematics.

The Earth revolves around the sun regardless of the faiths of the people whom gravity carries along for the ride. Two plus two equals four whether that sum is calculated by a Muslim or a Zoroastrian.

Reidelbach and her supporters genuinely worry that a crucial element -- moral education and appreciation of religion's role in America -- is missing in education. But they will not correct that lack by injecting pseudoscience into Ohio's science curriculum.

And Reidelbach is not the only one making this mistake. Senate Bill 222, sponsored by state Sen. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, is equally misguided. This bill would require that science standards adopted by the State Board of Education be approved by resolution in the General Assembly. This is a recipe for disaster, injecting not only religion, but also politics, into Ohio's science classes.

In a few months, when the State Board of Education lays out the standards for science education in Ohio's public schools, it should strongly endorse the teaching of evolution and ignore the demands of those who purvey pseudoscience.

It [Pasteur's work] does show that it has been scientifically proven that at least nowadays there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of life.

So, what are you saying? That prior to Pasteur, everyone was an evolutionist, and believed that life arose from non-life? Is that really what Pasteur was trying to disprove? If that were true, then you are saying that Pasteur was anti-evolution, and the whole world prior to him was pro-evolution. Do you believe that? Or are you just babbling? (Oh, again I forgot to whom I'm speaking.)

BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.

Meant to challenge you on this but your posts are so full of baloney it's hard to keep track of it all.

My latest (Sep 2001) understanding is the opposite of your claim.

But in recent years molecular biologists have put forth a different hypothesis—based on DNA from living animals—asserting that the ancestors of whales were instead artiodactyls—a group whose extant members include hippopotamuses, pigs, camels and ruminants. Furthermore, several molecular studies have concluded that whales share a common artiodactyl ancestor with hippos and are thus more closely related to these animals than to any other living artiodactyl or to a mesonychian.
. . .
"For the first time, morphological evidence shows that artiodactyls are the closest relatives of the cetaceans," Christian de Muizon of the Museum of Natural History in Paris writes in a commentary accompanying the Science report. "The new fossils superbly document the link between modern whales and their land-based forebears," he concludes, "and should take their place among other famous 'intermediates,' such as the most primitive bird, Archaeopteryx, and the early hominid Australopithecus.
. . .
For Gingerich, who previously espoused the view that whales evolved from mesonychids, the significance of the findings took a while to sink in. But after careful consideration, he finally concluded that whales evolved from artiodactyls. "Now I admit the possibility that hippos are a sideline of artiodactyls that might be closer to whales than any other living animals," he remarks.

So, explain yourself.

"Many totally unrelated features can be evolving at the same time. The fossil record is quite good for the therapsid-to-mammal transition " For heaven's sake! We have no evidence of mammary glands in any fossils. We therefore cannot say that all species which had those bones had mammary glands or the opposite that all species which had mammary glands had those bones. Further, you cannot give proof of such a transition without knowing that these species you say were mammals did indeed have mammary glands.

In addition to all the above you are advancing the ridiculous notion that random mutations occur simultaneously in totally unrelated parts of a species. If changes have indeed occurred simultaneously in totally unrelated parts of a species, they would be proof of creation not evolution.

"There's a 1-2% difference in nuclear DNA between dogs and wolves.

Compare that to a 3% difference between humans and chimps.

Well, are you saying that National Geographic's statement that they were nearly identical is incorrect?

Further, there is a problem with ascribing these differences in DNA to mutations. We know that these animals were bred for qualities that they already had so these difference were already present in the species. It is therefore more accurate to say that some of the differences are due to some genes having been bred out of the wolf rather than that new genes have arisen. Indeed, this is the meaning of the word thoroughbred. Thoroughbred horses have had genes which do not lead to running speed bred out of them. No mutations have been created.

In addition, let's just take the species called man. There are numerous genetic differences between individuals in the species. That is why we are all different in some way or other yet are still humans.

"29 Evidences for Macroevolution."

Oh no! I was in some of those threads and debunked quite a few of them as each one appeared. However, if you wish to post it here, then do so instead of calling me names.

When asked for proof you always say it was already given - someother time and some other place. And of course, in it you always say that you conclusively proved me wrong. Well Vade, just post here exactly the proof you have. I am sure that you are able to cut and paste so that should be no problem. Post the proof of macro-evolution that I have been asking for since post#84 right on this thread. You seem to be willing to argue over minutae and waste bandwith for hundreds of posts, but you never seem willing to post proof right here where everyone can see it.

BTW - note also that I extended this challenge to Junior also (2-3 days and some 300 posts ago), asking him which of the numerous links he gave provided the strongest proof of macro-evolution and he has failed to respond to it. I dearly hope that I will not have to wait another 150 years for the proof of macro-evolution.

I was in some of those threads and debunked quite a few of them as each one appeared.

I gave you a catalog of evidences for macroevolution, you mumbled this, and went back to your "Nobody ever posts the proof" mantra!

You've never debunked anything on any thread, ever. You're a toothless 0-65 fighter limping around saying, "They're all afraid to fight me!"

For heaven's sake! We have no evidence of mammary glands in any fossils.

The therapsid-to-mammal series goes from identifiably reptilian creatures to identifiably mammalian ones. The rest of your obviously unpreviewed screech I'll pass without comment.

For the lurkers, what gore is wishing away is this sequence:

The top two are early fossil mammals. The ones below are increasingly old therapsid reptiles, the line that gave rise to mammals. As you scan up, the multi-part jaw bone typical of modern reptiles drifts apart and becomes the hammer-anvil-stirrup ear bones which are diagnostic of mammals.

The figure is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey.

Oh, mammary glands, then! I'm anticipating Gore3K's post.

I caught the parody. But it's worth noting that because we have the monotremes (which clearly split off somewhere way back then) and these fossils, we have some idea about what changes came first. The monotremes still lay eggs and still have a cloaca. They're warm-blooded, furry, and have mammary glands but no nipples. (Sad!)

Evolutionary theory actually tells you something about what to expect. That makes it scientifically useful and distinguishes it from ID/creationism.

"For the first time, morphological evidence shows "

From Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary:
morphology, n:
1a: a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants
b: the features comprised in the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.

You really should get yourself a dictionary Vade! Morphology is what the bones reveal. As I said, DNA evidence, the most direct evidence for the genetic makeup of a species (and that is essentially what the discussion of evolution is about - genetic makeup) disproves evolutionist's assumptions.

BTW - I am at least glad that you have learned to post your incorrect statements on the board. It makes it much easier for all to see when you are wrong.

Creationists don't say "Oops!" They brazen, ignore, or play dumb.

But in recent years molecular biologists have put forth a different hypothesis—based on DNA from living animals—asserting that the ancestors of whales were instead artiodactyls—a group whose extant members include hippopotamuses, pigs, camels and ruminants.

The fossil-morphological evidence is new and confirms the molecular biological line of evidence which has been there for some time. Which I wouldn't have to explain had you read the article.

What's your source for DNA evidence ruling out hippo-like artiodactyls? You made the claim.

So, what are you saying? That prior to Pasteur, everyone was an evolutionist, and believed that life arose from non-life?" What I am saying is that in one post you said that we can use science to extrapolate to things we do not know and 19 minutes later you said that Pasteur's experiment - the only scientifically acceptable test made of abiogenesis - does not count.

Clearly you are doing something which is totally wrong, you are ascribing to science something which as of now, science says is not true. Now you can make all the assumptions you like, you can claim that this or that is possible, but what you cannot do is say that extrapolating from what science tell us, abiogenesis is possible. The only scientific extrapolation that can be made from our present scientific knowledge is that abiogenesis is not possible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.