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.
You have yet to show where I misquoted Gould as you earlier claimed. There is no inconsistency in Gould's writings. Punk-Eek is a Darwinian theory.
Please source the following claims which you have made recently:You have attempted to attack my characterization of some of these, but only with sound and fury signifying nothing. Post 1311 explains my understanding of your posts.1) There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.
2) Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.
3) Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.
4) Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.
You have ignored hippo-whale DNA. If you aren't going to defend it, you should admit you made a mistake. This would lend credibility to your claims that you are attempting to have an intelligent discussion and are not some self-imaged foaming-at-the-mouth berserker Holy Warrior who can make no concessions, not even the most obvious, to the dreaded Enemy. You've been hiding from facing your error for hundreds of posts, now. You're a coward.
When I showed that Gould accuses creationists (you and medved, e.g.) of distorting his views beyond all recognition, you accused me of distorting Gould's views. That means that you should be able to go to Gould's article and show where he really meant to say other than what my quotes would indicate. You can't do this and it's time to admit it.
You seek to disown my honest understanding of your claims vis-a-vis the evolutionary ancestry of Homo sapiens. That is, you now say you didn't allege a gap where the ancestor species needs to be. That looks hopelessly wrong. You have your work cut out.
You have also failed to defend your reliance upon the "even evolutionists have shown that man did not come from monkeys" as a catch-all mantra against overwhelming evidence. I have explained at many junctures that 1) apes are not monkeys, 2) evolutionists indeed know modern man did not come from modern monkeys or even any given particular extant ape species but we did diverge from the chimpanzee branch of the tree maybe 5 mya.
In other words, you're 0 for 4 on cleaning up your mess.
When I make a mistake, I admit it.
Oh? Show me where.
Complicating the picture is the fact that, in at least one area of Southeast Asia, a few Homo erectus remained until around at least 60,000 years ago.
No I am not being dense, you are being insulting and dishonest. In post 1278 I said:
"Swisher said the Erectus have never been shown to have developed water transportation. But the more advanced Sapien built boats and probably arrived in Java about 40,000 years ago.
This means that Sapien and Erectus hominids shared that island for hundreds of generations, said Anton, and suggests that the arrival of modern humans led to the demise of the primitive forms." -your article-
How this man has not been kicked out of the scientific community is something to be wondered at. Clearly, the only reason he even keeps his job is because he is a whore of evolution.
How could homo sapiens have been the descendant of homo erectus when the two species met only after homo sapiens was around? Did you read this through Junior? Did you bother to analyze what was being said here? Or do you just throw stuff out hoping that no one will notice how silly it is?
1278 posted on 3/1/02 11:25 PM Pacific by gore3000
If homo sapiens first met erectus after homo sapiens was already around as your phony "proof" states then Erectus could not have been the ancestor of homo sapiens. If you wish to deny this you will clearly prove yourself too stupid and too dishonest to engage in rational discussion (which may be since you posted such an imbecility as proof of man descending from Erectus).
"First met?" Is that the gimmick?
You are making a painful point of being stupid here. You've been on these threads for some months, perhaps a year. Models of speciation have been explained to you. Punk Eek has been explained to you. Turn off the machine and go think about what you're doing.
Nobody's going to change the school currriculum based upon the mixture of illogic and dishonesty you're using above.
I would consider that observation as militating against the reasonableness of the other conclusions. Unless there is other indication of the H. erectus age apart from the dating of ox teeth, I seriously doubt the time being mentioned. Thus, any other conclusions being made I presume are made on similar data.
Clarification to preclude a fugue of postings
Agreed.
This is not the first time that hypothesis has been offered.....
;-)
Yes "first met". Read Junior's moronic proof on post#1098. We have been discussing this for many posts and now you are going to tell us you do not understand it? You are being completely dishonest - as usual.
As usual when your back is against the wall you start denying what even evolutionists have been admitting to for decades (and what you have accepted as a true statement throughtout this thread) - that man did not descend from any of the monkey species - chimps, orangs or whatever. For decades they have been stating that man and monkey "branched out" more than 5 million years ago.
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.