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.

For you, dear boy. Not only have I provided the links you requested, I went out of my way to place a small summary of the link so that you have an idea of what that particular link deals with. Unfortunately, my efforts will probably be in vain as you consistently ignore any evidence contrary to your personal world view. Creationists in general ignore evidence that cannot be explained by scripture, usually chalking up said evidence to some fraud perpetrated by an atheistic, Satan-worshipping cabal of scientists bent on leading all good Christians from the straight-and-narrow path and straight to Hell. Evolutionists, however, take each new piece of evidence and work it into the framework of the theory.

Macroevolution, Speciation and Transitional Species

20 Answers from an Evolutionist {Russell Stewart}

This is a response to "20 Questions for Evolutionists", found on the Center for Scientific Creation web page. My answers appear in separate, italicized paragraphs. The original text of the questions has not been changed, and I have not cut anything out.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution (9 & 10) (2001-03-16)
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (11 & 12) (2001-03-20)
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (13 & 14) (2001-03-28)
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (17 and 18) (2001-04-07)
29 Evidences for Macroevolution - #19, 20, 2 (2001-05-20)
29 Evidences for Macroevolution - #22, 23, 24 (2001-05-24)
29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Thread The Next (2001-04-02)

Evolution, the overarching concept which unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution, as used here, is the theory of common descent with gradual modification.

African Elephants Are Now One of Two Kinds [Elephant Evolution] (2001-08-24)

WASHINGTON -- They live on the same continent, and both have big ears, trunks and tusks, but the forest and grassland groups of African elephants are actually two different species, a new study says.

All About Archaeopteryx {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, January 15, 1999}

Archaeopteryx lithographica ("ancient wing from the printing stone").

Named after the limestone in which it was discovered. The stone is a smooth, fine grained limestone which was used in printing. Quarried from in and around the Solnhofen area of Germany. Formed on the bottom of a hypersaline lagoon in the Late Jurassic, about 150 million years ago.

Archaeopteryx FAQs, The {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, 1995-1997}

All About Archaeopteryx
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery
Archaeopteryx: The Challenge of the Fossil Record

Archaeopteryx's Relationship With Modern Birds {Thomas Holtz, Jr., 1995}

As promised, here are the derived characters with which Gauthier (in his 1986 paper) unites Archaeopteryx with modern birds, outside of all other theropods (with Gauthier's original clarifiers in parens) [and with my editorial comments in brackets]:

Biologists Uncover Darwin's ‘Missing Evidence’ for Divergence of Species in a Warbler's Song (2001-01-19)

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two.

DNA and Darwin: Research Shows that Evolution Repeats Itself in Caribbean Lizards (2001-04-07)

Darwin can rest a little easier tonight. I'm sure he would have been puzzled at the average American's reluctance to accept his theory of evolution. The evidence supporting Darwin's theory is clear, and every year more supporting evidence accumulates.

Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress

Ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander of the family Plethodontidae. The distribution of this species is from British Columbia in Canada, through Washington, Oregon, California and into Baja California of Mexico. Presently, seven subspecies are recognized, and all occur in California. The subspecies are eschscholtzi, xanthoptica, oregonensis, picta, platensis, croceater and klauberi.

Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) (2001-07-09)

The proximate cause of this thread:

Here's where I have the trouble. It is metaphysics and philosophy to suggest that such a change could occur. It is science to show the mechanism by which the change occurs. It is metaphysics and philosophy to suggest that enough small changes would take you from a crawling lizard to a flying one. It is science to lay out all the form transitions in the fossil record that show a lizard with four legs, then several intermediate stages where two of the legs turn into wings and two become like bird legs, with the final result being a flying lizard. Science doesn't talk about the possibility that something could happen given enough time. It shows exactly how it can happen (or did happen) given what we know.

Macroevolution {John Wilkins, Talk Origins, 1997}

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger.

Macro-Evolution versus Moses (Several Parts) (1999-12-14)

The Present Is NOT The Key To the Past

Animals do not turn into fossils over long stretches of time.

Water, mud or sand, and a glue (volcanic ash) with some minerals

Animals of all sorts have been found buried and fossilized together, even prey with predator.

Not everything that is "fossilized" is actually turned to stone. Many deposits are still surprisingly fresh.

Fossils prove nothing about religious evolutionism

Fossils indicate rapid burial, worldwide, at once. A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Simple as that.

Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part I] (2000-03-16)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [ Part II] (2000-04-02)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [ Part III] (2000-04-11)

FAQ About Species and Speciation

Much of this material is written for the specialist. Author Joseph Boxhorn, however, provides some excellent background information that this
non-scientist found invaluable as aids to comprehending the discussion. Other than that, I was "on my own," and the best I could do was to
analyze the text as I would any piece of literature.

Observed Instances of Speciation {Joseph Boxhorn, Talk Origins, September 1, 1995}

This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation.

On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils" {Tim Thompson}

This article addresses one of the unfortunate failings of "creation science" that has turned into an eternally repeated mantra by creationists, despite being quite directly wrong. That is the mantra that "there are no transitional fossils"; it simply is not true. This oft-repeated fallacy does not agree with what paleontologists actually know. What follows is a full citation of the section entitled "Effect of Transitional Fossils on Taxonomic Practises", from the article "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", by Roger J. Cuffey, published in the book " Science and Creationism", edited by Ashley Montagu; Oxford University Press, 1984. The article originally appeared in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 24(4), December, 1972. I will make comments following the text.

Process of Speciation, The {University of Michigan, 1996}

What is biological evolution?

How are theories of microevolution and macroevolution related?

What is a species, and what are the different ways it can be defined?

What are the limitations of each definition?

How is reproductive isolation important to speciation, and what forms can it take?

Why should natural selection reinforce reproductive isolation?

Can species be formed in ways other than reproductive isolation?

Speciation {Kimball's Biology Pages, December 1, 2001}

What Is a Species?
One of the best definitions is that of the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr:

A species is an actually or potentially interbreeding population that does not interbreed with other such populations when there is opportunity to do so.
Note: sometimes breeding may take place (as it can between a horse and a donkey) but if so, the offspring are not so fertile and/or well adapted as the parents (the mule produced is sterile).

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium {Don Lindsay}

A group of creatures gets isolated from the rest of their species. They can evolve easily, because they are a small group. Later, they spread and replace their parent species. Examples are known.

Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists (2000-05-18)

Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation.

Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change (2002-02-07)

The fossil record contains numerous examples of dramatic evolutionary change in animals through time. Exactly how genetic alterations brought about these macroevolutionary changes, however, has proved difficult to ascertain. Now new research into the developmental biology of brine shrimp and fruit flies could throw light on the matter. According to a report published online today by the journal Nature, mutations in genes that guide embryonic development allowed insects to develop a radically different body plan from that of their crustacean-like ancestors some 400 million years ago.

Ted Holden's "Intermediate Fossil" Quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message" {Andrew MacRae}

There is an important caveat in this analysis which is worth emphasizing. The representation of Walter ReMine's work in this article is only as good as the representation offered by Ted. Given the numerous typographical errors in his presentation and failure to provide the original citations (such that some of them had to be guessed at from only the author, date, and content), there is significant potential for errors or misinterpretation. I do not know how far to trust Ted's presentation, and I do not know that the quotes are correctly identified. A legitimate "review" of Walter's book, or even a section of his book, this is *not*. It is a summary of *Ted's*representation* of it. Whether this is accurate or not, I can not confirm.

Transitional Fossils -- Age and Descent {Wesley R. Elsberry}

Some notable SciCre-ists have asserted forcefully that when considering fossil specimens, a species known by a later specimen cannot possibly be the ancestor of a species known by an earlier specimen.

Transitional Fossils Leading to Orbulina {April 26, 1998}
Transitional Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt}

I've recently been re-reading Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates, and was reminded of the old "there aren't any transitional fossils" complaint that pops up on t.o. every now and then. That argument has long been obsolete and inaccurate, as a brief glance at the fossil record shows. I thought it might be of interest to have a list of some of the transitional vertebrate fossils known, so that future t.o. discussions of the fossil record can be somewhat more up-to-date and interesting (I can dream, can't I?).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt, Talk Origins, March 17, 1997}

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned.

Water Lily Study Sheds Light on Evolution of Flowering Plants {Scientific American}

The origin of flowering plants, or angiosperms, stands as one of evolutionary biology's great enigmas. Scientists know that they diverged from the seed-bearing plants, or gymnosperms, at least 150 million years ago, but the details surrounding this split have proved elusive. To that end, new research into the developmental biology of an ancient lineage of flowering plants may offer insights. According to a report published today in the journal Nature, the pond lily Nuphar polysepalum (right) exhibits an intermediate form of a key angiosperm feature.

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.