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.

BTW - evos were trying to pass off the hippo as the ancestor of the whale, but they ran into a little trouble - DNA. The DNA proved conclusively that whales did not descend from hippos.

What, exactly, is the problem with correcting theories by gathering additional information?

BTW - many Christians were trying to pass off the Earth as being less than 10,000 years old, but they ran into a little trouble - radiometric data, scientific evidence from the solar system, and so forth.

"That's because we're talking science and not mathematics."

The "there is no proof outside of math" excuse. Science is not math, but yet it gives proof of its statements. That is why science is so respected - it is not charlatanism (or should I say Charleyism?). Science gives proof of its theories - they give experimental proof, practical proof, logical proofs and many other kinds of proof. Real science not only gives proof of its statements, it strives to give such proof, it searches for such proof, proudly displays such proofs and uses those proven theories to advance newer theories thus giving renewed proof of the validity of the older theories. Only evolutionists expect everyone to take the word of the their charlatan, the petty god Charles as full and sufficient proof of their theory.

"What, exactly, is the problem with correcting theories by gathering additional information? "

No problem at all. The problem here is that science does not make pronouncements that something is proven until the matter has been thoroughly examined, tested and discussed. Evolutionists constantly make half-assed claims with scant or no proof and call everyone and anyone that disagrees about their pronouncements an idiot. This claim about whales was made long after DNA testing became available. They did not test their theory before claiming a miraculous proof of macro-evolution. In fact, I have read articles since this link was disproven claiming that DNA testing is nonsense because the bones (less than 10% of the makeup of a creature) are more valid prove than DNA (which shows 100% of the makeup of a creature. So much for evolution "science".

I was wondering when you would get around to me. :) Seriously though, do you honestly believe Almighty God has a corporeal body? According to Scripture, Jesus does, but why must the Father? Couldn't He have been referring to our emotions, thought processes, passions, etc.? Why must that passage mean a literal physical similarity?

BTW, when my passions do overcome my logic, it is appreciated.

Seriously though, do you honestly believe Almighty God has a corporeal body?

I believe the Bible says God is spirit. When God created man in his image, I believe that means he created man a spiritual being.

Problem with mutations is that they cannot occur fast enough to achieve what the evolutionists say they achieve.

It's not clear whether or not this is true. I tend to think it isn't... if mutagenesis is exclusively random.
But that in itself doesn't disprove evolution.
Creationists will have to do better than transitional hair-splitting to pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary explanation for the fossil record and the radiologic clocks.

The players have been rolling dice for lo these billions and billions of years now. There are trillions and trillions (maybe even quadrillions) of players too. The adequate survive.

Perhaps...
But the evidence for the "endless crap game" model of evolution is far from adequate. Rather thin, actually... Just a series of extrapolations from assumptions.
More stochastic than compelling.
My conjecture is that other, unknown engines are driving evolution.

At least medved made it into the '80's this time. I'm thinking its time to update the old spreadsheet.

I've gotta assume you studied science in public school. I'm not aware of many "proofs" in science. Science works with observations and develops theories based on those observations that can be worked into testable predictions.

Some theories work pretty well for a while, but end up wrong in the end, like Newton's laws of motion. Some theories start slow, work well for a while, and then are wrong in the end, like general relativity. Then there are fun theories like dark matter - raw speculation at times, but interesting results here and there.

I'd like to know one thinig in science that you consider "proven". And no more gel electrophoresis because I know you don't understand how it works.

Now that the "proof" is right here for all to see, perhaps you can explain to us how the above prove the evolution of whales from a coyote!

Did I call that one, or what? gore3000, I've got you figured out!

"Seriously though, do you honestly believe Almighty God has a corporeal body? "

You are being too literal here. It shows a strong streak of materialism in you. If one were to take it too literally one would have to say that all men would look the same. I would say that appearances are ephemeral. What is meant is much more profound than that.

"Creationists will have to do better than transitional hair-splitting to pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary explanation for the fossil record and the radiologic clocks."

You seem to be deceived by the fossils. They do not tell very much about a creature. For example we cannot tell if dinosaurs were mammals, had hair on their bodies, were warm blooded or cold blooded and many other things that are necessary to tell if evolution really did take place.

"I'd like to know one thinig in science that you consider "proven". And no more gel electrophoresis because I know you don't understand how it works. "

All science is proven, else it is not science. How do you think a TV set works? Because the theories of electricity are correct and thus the TV sets functioning prove the theory. Same for steam engines, airplanes, and many other inventions.

Science is not math. It does not give mathematical proofs, but it does give practical proofs. It gives experimental proofs. It gives proof by building one theory that works upon another theory that works. For evolutionists to say that science does not give proof is complete nonsense and complete know-nothingism.

I do not ask for the impossible, I ask for the proof that science has been giving for hundreds of years without any problem. Why can't evolution (if it is a science) not provide the same kind of proof? If it cannot, then it is not science but charlatanism.

""Now that the "proof" is right here for all to see, perhaps you can explain to us how the above prove the evolution of whales from a coyote! -me-

Did I call that one, or what? gore3000, I've got you figured out!"

You and your buddy put this article as proof of evolution. It is up to you to show how it does so.

What is the point in those bones? What is the proof given in that article?

The answer is:
"THE ARTICLE PROVES NOTHING AT ALL"

The evolutionists just put up a ton of links that they claim prove evolution but whenever I examine a link said to "prove" evolution it proves nothing at all.

Its wrong in the sense that Netwon's laws were wrong. It doesn't account for all the observations made after it was formulated. Specifically I'm thinking of the observations that resulted in dark matter theories (galaxies and clusters of galaxies appear to be held together by more gravity than they have mass to account for), the acceleration away from us of objects far away from us, and the "mysterious acceleration towards the sun" (MATS) that was observed with the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft and then confirmed during the last Cassini flyby.

I confess to using the term "wrong" loosely but I'm trying to keep my comments to the short side of technical. However, you're more knowledgeable in the field. Feel free to correct my comments. (Can I get extra credit if I bring donuts?)

A simple link to that gigantic load of insane garbage would have been quite sufficient.

Insane? He gives testimony from dozens of scientists who state quite plainly that evolution is total bunk. Is not evolution supposed to be science? How come so many scientists say it is nonsense? Are we not told by you and other evolutionists that no scientist disagrees with evolution? Perhaps you and your fellow evolutionists have been lying?

The reason why evolutionists use links to "prove" their statements is that they hope no one will follow the link and see that the link does not prove anything. The reason creationists post articles proving their statements is that the articles do indeed give proof against evolution.

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.