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.
I see no necessity:
The objectivist assumes that he (and to this point, only he) possess free will. He cannot provide a shred of verifiable evidence that he does. But neither can anyone provide a shred of verifiable evidence that he does not. So, he states the axiom: I have free will. Not out of objective necessity does he state this, but only out of a subjective preference over determinism.
Given this axiom, a question arises: Do other persons possess free will? Looking for verifiable evidence in affirmative support, the objectivist finds none (post 378). In fact, the objectivist can find no verifiable evidence to support the assertion that any living being or any other matter/energy combination possess free will. He does observe that other persons exhibit complex responses to stimuli. And he knows that he is not able to predict the responses with any regularity. He realizes, however, that people are the most complex combinations of matter/energy he has observed, and that his inability to predict the responses of other people with any regularity reflects his lack of understanding of the complex combinations and workings of the matter/energy that people are composed of. The objectivist has no verifiable evidence or logical necessity in affirmative support of his assumption that the complex responses of other persons to stimuli result from free will in humans, just as he has no verifiable evidence or logical necessity in affirmative support of the assumption that weather (the complex response of the atmosphere to stimuli) results from free will in the atmosphere. Assuming that other persons have free will is not necessary for the objectivist to interact with, respond to, and study other people, just as assuming that the atmosphere has free will is not necessary for him to interact with, respond to, and study the atmosphere.
The objectivist is able to conduct himself as a rational being---observing, hypothesizing, and rejecting invalid conclusions---without extending the axiom that he has free will to anyone or anything outside of himself; there is no logical necessity to do so. Additionally, since neither he, nor anyone else, can provide objectively verifiable evidence that others either do or do not have free will, there is therefore both no objective evidence and no logical necessity that requires him to prefer the theory that the complex response of other persons to stimuli is the result of free will over the theory that the complex response of other persons to stimuli is the result of determinism. One can only conclude that the assumption made by the objectivist that other persons have free will is the result of personal preference, not necessity.
I guess you had no choice but to feel that way.
The objectivist assumes that he (and to this point, only he) possess free will. He cannot provide a shred of verifiable evidence that he does.
That's why it's an axiom.
But neither can anyone provide a shred of verifiable evidence that he does not. So, he states the axiom: I have free will. Not out of objective necessity does he state this, but only out of a subjective preference over determinism.
No. If in fact we are all products of determinism, it doesn't matter what we think. But we all are convinced that we think, so the axiom covers the situation. If we're wrong, it doesn't matter anyway.
Given this axiom, a question arises: Do other persons possess free will? Looking for verifiable evidence in affirmative support, the objectivist finds none (post 378 ). In fact, the objectivist can find no verifiable evidence to support the assertion that any living being or any other matter/energy combination possess free will. He does observe that other persons exhibit complex responses to stimuli. And he knows that he is not able to predict the responses with any regularity. He realizes, however, that people are the most complex combinations of matter/energy he has observed, and that his inability to predict the responses of other people with any regularity reflects his lack of understanding of the complex combinations and workings of the matter/energy that people are composed of.
Well, that's evidence. If you don't think it's iron-clad, that's not a problem. It's the only evidence we have. And the "I have free will" axiom is one which they too can invoke; hence we all have free will. Again, if we're wrong, it doesn't really matter; but if we're right, we can proceed with discussions such as this.
Assuming that other persons have free will is not necessary for the objectivist to interact with, respond to, and study other people, just as assuming that the atmosphere has free will is not necessary for him to interact with, respond to, and study the atmosphere.
No. If I thought that you were truly incapable of reason (like the atmosphere) I wouldn't attempt to reason with you, as I don't with the atmosphere.
One can only conclude that the assumption made by the objectivist that other persons have free will is the result of personal preference, not necessity.
Not my conclusion at all.
How do we know such a thing? We have never been there. I do know that the famous "find" 3-4 years ago of what was supposed to be evidence of proteins on a martian meteorite was found to be false.
The last point means that for every cubic meter of sea water you get a little more than three cubic meters of atmospheric oxygen."
Okay, let's go by your numbers. 3 to 1 ratio. Let's forget that since the atmosphere is higher it covers more area. The atmosphere is some 20 miles deep. Now the lowest ocean dephts are less than 30,000 feet deep. That is just 6 miles at the deepest point. The average depth of the oceans is much less, say 10,000 feet. That is a mere 2 miles. 2 x 3= 6. So yes, if this were going on constantly the oceans would be empty eventually and more importantly, we would have evidence of big, very big falls in ocean levels in geologic times. This is not the case. Vade's statement is total bunk as I said.
No, we are not talking about television, we are talking about evolution. This is a side trip into science because evolutionists keep denying that science gives any proof.
So you say this guy invented the cathode ray tube used for tv in 1855. Great. What did he do with it? Did he get "I Love Lucy" in it? Whatever he did with it, I am sure he died as another pennyless inventor. Reason being that his invention was merely a toy, a curiosity. Even he did not know how it worked apparently, he just knew that somehow it worked. So he could not make any use of it because he did not have the theory behind it. When the theory behind it was learned, then it became an object of science, an object that could be turned into a useful application.
There is no doubt that things are sometimes discuvered by pure luck, however, without the theory behind it, without knowing why a thing works, they are mere curiosities. The job of science is to find out why, to find out how and with that knowledge to make things which work and are useful.
So as I have said, for evolution to be considered science it has to have a stated theory, and proof that the theory works. Care to show such proof or do you wish to continue to sidetrack this evolution thread?
I must say Vade, it is so easy to win a debate with you. You are so kind as to provide proof against your own statements! In post#673 you said:
"We can be sure that there was little oxygen in the atmosphere on earth until life got started, notwithstanding all the lightning."
Gee, I guess that all that life did not do much good eh? Thanks for the help!
Thanks for your continued help in debunking the silly statement made in post#673 by someone who calls himself Vade Retro (perhaps like Clinton you have an evil twin?):
"We can be sure that there was little oxygen in the atmosphere on earth until life got started, notwithstanding all the lightning."
Thanks for illuminating this question and going through so much trouble explaining it. However, I am afraid that the question has already become academic. Vade has been very helpful in debunking his own silly statement about plants creating the atmosphere on earth in post#673.
Without really trying to be accurate, the numbers being used (0.2778 and 8.58) are in a 1:30 ratio not a 1:3 ratio.
There is a very large difference indeed between micro-evolution (if it can even be called evolution) and macro-evolution. Genes are very complex. They consist of chains of from a few dozen, to a few thousand amino acids. You can often change one amino acid in a part of the chain for another without destroying the function of the gene. This can occur by random mutation and be the source of small differences between individuals in a species. Now for macro-evolution to occur, you need completely new genes, completely new functions. This would take the construction by random chance of long chains of amino acids in the exact correct order, it would take other parts of the body recognizing, controlling and making use of this new function. This is quite a task for random mutations to accomplish (which by everyone's admission are quite rare in the nature of things in the first place and detrimental to the individual more than 99% of the time). That is why the challenge to evolutionists is to prove macro-evolution and why this challenge has not been taken by any here or indeed anywhere else.
Well, I was taking Junior's word for it (which he later corrected but I had not seen). Your figures sound more reasonable than his second statement of a 3000 to 1 ratio.
Pun intended, no doubt. (Think black smokers.)
I am sure that "mocro-evolution" was a mistype. If you meant micro-evolution (as it seems to be from the context), I have no problem with it and have not denied that it occurs. However, if you mean MACRO-evolution, yes, certainly post it here for all to see. The poor evolutionists here in spite of their thousands and thousands of links do not seem able to find it.
How helpful you are! I thought you were disagreeing with me! Instead, you are disagreeing with yourself! You keep giving more and more proof that your statement in post#673 is totally ridiculous - just as I said!:
"We can be sure that there was little oxygen in the atmosphere on earth until life got started, notwithstanding all the lightning."-vade retro-
Thanks again!
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.