Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
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:
Dear Representative Linda Reidelbach: Evolution is one of my creations with which I am most pleased.
It was signed, God.
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.
Today, Copernican theory is established and acknowledged fact.
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.''
Just as with gravity, evolution is a fact.
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.
These two bills should be ignored by lawmakers.
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.
No, but there was a study done on the subject, that I ran across. It showed that photolysis of water to produce oxygen would be offset by the conversion of the created oxygen by reactions which would also apply to the photosynthesis problem. I'll see if I can find it again. I'm off for a while.
Thought to have been true for a while on the young earth. Rusting iron and all that. We ran out of free iron.
I respectfully disagree. It is a matter of priorities. Life is a small, temporary thing that has little value compared to eternity.
-->I don't find that insignificant myself.
I don't either, except I think my, and your, opinion are hopelessly jaded because we are in the "thick of it" as long as we occupy these biological machines called human bodies. It affects our attitudes about everything. The bias is uncontrollable.
-->Additionaly many of the opportunities available to those of us in the civilized world (beyond but including not having to watch a majority our offspring die in childhood) derive from the fruits of science;
You are talking about what, ultimately, could be called "creature comforts," which are nice, but certainly no end in themselves - and yes, even what keeps us alive and protects us from desease fit into that category, technically. After all, Paul said that for us to die is gain. Death is not something to be avoided at all costs There really is something to be coveted and valued more than life itself, and the search for an ever more comfortable/long life is not a worthy top goal, in my opinion. It's a good goal, when put in it's place. It gives a person something fun to shoot for. That may be why we are never satisfied - it keeps us motivated.
-->and many of our freedoms are not unrelated to "scientific" values such as respect for knowledge and critical inquiry.
I have no respect for knowledge. It is like the binder in epoxy - on it's own it is worthless. An encarta disk has knowledge.
What I value is wisdom - the ability to correctly interpret knowledge and apply it to the larger reality and not my own physical bodies needs, like procreation, comfort and control of my surroundings (often via science).
Stultis, life is a mist, and six billion lives are no more valuable to me than one life. I feel less compassion for the survivors of those killed on 911 than I do the survivors of a 7-11 clerk killed in a robbery. Ultimately every death is a single tradgedy, as experienced by the loved ones of the deceased. But with the 911 survivors, you are left with gobs of money, a literal place in this nations history, and others, by the thousands, with whom to share your grief. The family of the 7-11 clerk has nothing but a mortuary bill and an empty bed.
I bring the above paragraph into the equation for a reference point of relevance.
To me, as it relates to humans, the death of the entire human race is less catastrophic than the death of one who is loved by others, simply because nobody will suffer grief if there is no one left. All of what I am saying is in regards to how all of these issues of life, God, science and the survival of the human race relate to each other on a scale of relevance. Science and what it can bring us is way down there.
But it fascinates me, kind of like a Frank LLoyd Wright design can fascinate me. It is not anything near the "end all be all" of mans existence, however. Science is just below art, in my opinion.
But, I repeat, it's cool.
Plus, why is the Christian/Judeo the theroy the only one that should be concidered? Should every "religious" theory of creation be taught too?
Oldcats
As far as I can tell, the Theory of Evolution makes no mention of God whatsoever. Of course, to a paranoid personality everything is a conspiracy, so maybe THEY want us to think God isn't mentioned when He is really in there in invisible ink ...
YES! You have touched the core of the issue, the kernel. You see, in my reality, my life is most assuredly not all I have. In your world view, it is. Therefore we come from two completely different perspectives, and our goals and beliefs are formed from this. That is why our priorities are different and why we disagree. The funny thing about both religions is that neither can actually be proven, ultimately, and both require a degree of faith.
Nobody alive today that sets it in his heart to not believe the eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus will believe. And he can always say that time corrupted the evidence. So be it. The opposite can be said as well.
I had to open my mind and heart to come to my opinion on this subject. Fortunately I understand the ultimate limitations of my intellect. That is, in my opinion, the very beginning first step of wisdom. It's a long road, though.
Not quite. Milk production is part of the definition of mammal, but it also includes all the other stuff mentioned earlier (dentition -- a biggie, hair or fur, number of holes in the skull, warm-bloodedness, single lower mandible and differentiated ear bones, etc.)
Now, the first two, milk production and fur do not fossilize, but as the others are all found in mammals and they do fossilize -- and this combination is not found in any other class of animals -- any fossils exhibiting the complete collection of stuff that does fossilize and denotes mammal, can be assumed to be a mammal -- except by creationists who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse to accept any evidence unless in the form of a living, breathing critter (and then they'd probably claim it was ginned up by geneticists in some secret laboratory to mislead good, God-fearing Christians in an effort to damn their souls to Hell).
Christians should reject State funded education. I have.
I hope you never run for office.
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.
Still waiting for you to source this or back off. It's 180 degrees wrong.
In Nature, it's bacteria that dissolve rock to digest minerals into living protoplasm.
Of course, according to this site the quote is nearly 100 years old. Obviously you should have learned of this in your studies, unless THEY are trying to keep this knowledge from you. But why put it out on the internet where any yahoo could find it? Ah, the conspiracy deepens... wheels within wheels ...
Au Contraire. The following logical proofs demonstrate the utility of the opposite assumption:
1. Religions have a quality of religiousness.
2. Atheism is the lack of any religion.
3. Not having a religion is an aspect of religiousness.
4. Therefore, atheism is a religion.
1. Religions have a quality of religiousness.
2. Evolution is not a religion.
3. Not being a religion is a form of religiousness.
4. Therefore, evolution is a religion.
1. Walnuts have a quality of walnuttiness.
2. Creationists are not walnutty.
3. Not posessing walnutiness is a form of walnuttniness.
4. Therefore creationists are walnuts.
Tomorrow, we will show that evolution is a color, and that all creationists are '72 AMC Gremlins.
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.