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.
Interesting. I'm wondering if you have an engineering background, because you're starting to sound like an engineer.
I would've said that a TV works because engineers used a set of well-conceived theories based on observational evidence. Cathode ray tubes operate by heating them until the electrons boil off, then applying a negative charge to propel them away. This is just an observation. The theory came later.
Even though the electrons are moving at relativistic speeds, its not necessary to understand relativity theory because this can be observed, measured and then adjusted for.
I think TV's are proof that engineers can build TV's, but the basic components of TV's are based on observations of nature, not proofs. The same is true of steam engines and airplanes. Although the history of the steam engine is more interesting because it resulted from an effort to make scotch more efficiently - a worthwhile goal.
I'm going to mark this down as a breakthrough because I think we've discovered that we're not using a common terminology or methodology.
The part of the list I was impressed with is that there were a couple creationists in there with graduate degrees in biology. I think its important that Christians stay involved in this field. The building I'm currently sitting in has about 500 biologists working in it. They're a sorry lot for the most part.
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.
You need to develop some facility with the English language. The normal term for "Mutations" in Engklish is "Birth Defect", and the normal term for a "scientific proof" is "successful experiment". Scientists working with evolution theory have tried every way possible to come up with one, and some of the resulting failures have been so spectacular as to drive people into the creationist camp or into the position of having to devise novel theories of their own. The most famous such case was Goldschmidt with his "hopeful monster" theory, who described the reaction he got from colleagues as being like the "two minute hate" seance described by Orwell in 1984. Goldschmidt, of course, was driven out of the evo camp by the failure of the famous fruit fly experiments.
Not really; many if not most people never bother with links. I honestly think FR readers deserve to see what competent scientists (as opposed to your little clique or the t.o crew) actually think of evolutionism, and one or two quotes doesn't quite tell the story.
The ear bones.
Do you have any memory of this thread? You were there, and post 49 is addressed to you.
Creationists have two great bludgeons with which they hammer evolutionists. One is the creationists's own amnesia. The other is their inability to imagine or even comprehend.
Just from a theological/crevo prespective, I don't think you want to go around accusing others of being TOO LITERALIST in their biblical interpretations. And you may want to avoid citing observed evidence to support those arguments...
You misspelled "whenever I examine a link said to "prove" evolution I do not understand the evidence and its implications.
Hope this helps. You should avoid generalizing your own experience, especially when it comes from such wilfull blindness. Merely because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not mean that it is not there.
The ear bones.
The location of the fossils in the earth, the age and nature of the surrounding fossils and geologic formations, previous experience with fossils that are similar to these, etc. Years of training and experience in the field. Research done by hundreds of other professionals who have reached similar conclusions. The total absence of any argument that the fossils are not mammals (what else would they be, and where is the evidence for that?).
How do you squeeze hundreds of millions of years of supposed evolutionary gradualism (or happy-monsterism, depending on your brew of choice), into six literal 24-hour days, as demanded by the text your professed Lord affirmed as the inerrant word of God?
Dan
I understand why you hope this is true. Any short trip to Junior's links, the talk.origins archives, or any of the hundreds of ID/Creationist-debunking sites on the internet would quickly illustrate who is primarily engaged in the sham debate tactics you decry. Your only hope is to spam the threads and create the appearance of controversy where there is none.
We might as well mention the lower jaw bone as well. The lower jaw of mammals is a single, seamless bone.
Easy - he doesn't. I guess that means he isn't a Christian, right?
Which raises the interesting question: how many Americans do you think are actually Christians? Can't be more than a couple million, especially since your literalist interpretation would seem to elimination every mainline Protestant denomination, and your theological hairsplitting probably condemns half the evangelical community as heathens. If there are so few real Christians, why should such a small minority dictate educational policy (the subject of the article at the top of the thread) to 300 million heathens? Or does the definition of Christian expand and contract with the needs of your argument, like some morally relative "is"?
Like I said to Gore3000, I think we use the terms of science differently and understand the methodology differently. Experiments create evidence. All experiments are successful in the sense that they either work the way you thought and your confidence in your theory rises, or they don't work the way you thought and you learn something new (or more often confusion sets in). Proof is something that is done from defined elements and defined processes, as in "prove that an electron at rest can't emit a photon". Electrons and photons are objects that are defined based on observations. The process of electrons emitting photons is defined based on observations. Sure there are wonderful theories that go along, but they have not been "proven". There's just a whopping lot of evidence.
By the way, I was assigned this proof on a smart day and received extra credit for generalizing the proof to "prove that an electron at a constant velocity can't emit a photon".
Find where I said that and post it. Read my first posting, and you will (can) know my position.
Which raises the interesting question: how many Americans do you think are actually Christians? Can't be more than a couple million, especially since your literalist interpretation would seem to elimination every mainline Protestant denomination, and your theological hairsplitting probably condemns half the evangelical community as heathens. If there are so few real Christians, why should such a small minority dictate educational policy (the subject of the article at the top of the thread) to 300 million heathens? Or does the definition of Christian expand and contract with the needs of your argument, like some morally relative "is"?
Thank you for asking. You will find my answers in the following:
How Can I Know God?
Encouragement for New Christians
What Is Biblical Christianity?
Assuming those are serious questions from your heart, of course.
Dan
In order to clarify the lineup of this smackdown, would you care to declare whether you consider yourself a Christian or not?
Would you care to define the term? I see too many cases of "Well, if you don't believe X then you are not a Christian" to be able to answer that...
Your implication was clear enough: that one must beleive in the literal inerrant truth of the Bible to be a Christian, and that such a beleif is totally incompatible with evolution. (see post 70) Since the poster (scully, I think) had previouly stated his belief in both evolution and Christianity, your conclusion must be that he is not a Christian according to your definition of the term.
Nice website.
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.