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.
Find a source yet for your claim that DNA evidence disproves a hippo-cetacean link?
The quote points out that two of the be-alls and end-alls of evolution - gradualism, and the fossil record are total bunk. Such a statement from someone who still remained and atheist and an evolutionist is certainly a big point in favor of what us creationists have been saying all along about evolution. Many other eminent scientists supported this statement in the quotes posted by Medved.
In addition, no one here has been able to show that any of the quotes are false or that any of the staements made by those scientists are untrue.
What a silly dodge this link-phobia of yours is. What you don't want to see, no one can make you see. Here's the executive summary:
The creationist use of quotes is invalid and does not in any way provide evidence for creationism or against evolution. The reasons for this fall into several major categories: the use of quotations often is a fallacy of "argument from authority," selective quotation may be occurring, the quotations are often out-of-date, the quoted authorities are often not appropriate authorities, creationists are sometimes not honest in representing who the people they quote are, and that many of the quotations are misquotations.From Quotations and Misquotations: Why Creationist Quotes are Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution.
No they are not. The genetic makeup of humans and monkeys differs (according to evolutionists) by some 3%. This seems small, but in actuality it is a very large amount and it shows that human beings could in no way have descended from monkeys. In fact, even the closest relative to man, Neanderthal, which is said to have been only some 1% different in genetic material, has been proven through DNA analysis not to have been in any way an ancestor of man and totally unable to reproduce with homo sapiens. There are absolutely no Neanderthal traces in homo sapiens.
The only way to God is through faith. I can't help you with that, you must help yourself.
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould.Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
. . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Does this help you realize that what you and medved try to say about Gould's beliefs isn't true? (PS: does that stuff about reptile and mammal jaw and ear bones sound familiar? Are you getting it yet?)
You are not a testimonial to the good effects of faith.
I don't believe [H]he exsists, but if you can show me proof of His being, I will believe.
965 posted on 2/27/02 11:21 AM Pacific by xcon
Res ipsa loquitur - the above speaks for itself - loud and clear.
No, your statement is totally false. Medved's quotes are both correct and are indeed true statements of what the scientists in question know to be true. That some of these scientists, in spite of knowing the falsity of many of the pillars of evolution continued to espouse evolution casts shame on them, not on Medved.
If we're only one percent different, we're 99 percent the same as Neanderthals.
Homo Sapiens is unique amongst the species. It has no ancestors. Neanderthal, our closest species in structure and time has been proven not to be in any way related to homo sapiens, has been proven never to have produced mixed progeny with homo sapiens, and has been proven not to have passed on any of its genes to homo sapiens. Since all other similar known species were dead when homo sapiens first arose, and since the dead have no descendants man did not descend from apes, from Neanderthals, from so called hominids, or from any other creature as atheist evolutionists would like the world to believe.
You mean chimpanzees, not monkeys, but never mind.
Wrong. A false theory is worse than no theory at all because to live a lie is always worse than not knowing the truth. This is true both in morals and in science. In science a bad theory makes progress harder. In morals it deceives good people into evil.
Well, I asked in post#916 if you had any shame. You have answered that you do not - loud and clear. To equate religious people with mass murderers like the Nazis and the Communists shows a totally shameless dishonesty on your part. It shows that you are willing to tell as big a lie as you need to in order to defame those who disagree with you.
It's an open question whether Neanderthals and modern humans ever mated. There's evidence both ways right now. The likelihood is that Neandethals were a sibling species, offshooting from archaic Homo sapiens.
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | | |
| | | A.robustus ****** | |
| | | A.boisei ***********| |
| | A.aethiopicus **** | | |
| | | | | | |
O.tugenensis * ? | | | | | |
A.r.kadabba ****** | | | | | |
| A.ramidus * | | | | |
| A.anamensis **** | | | |
| A.afarensis ********** | | |
| | K.platyops * | | | |
| | A.africanus *********** | |
| | | A.garhi * | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | H.habilis ********** | |
| | | | H.erectus **************** |
| | | | H.antecessor * |
| | | | archaic H.sapiens *****|
| | | | | Neandertals **|
| | | | | modern H.sapiens **
| | | | | | |
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
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.