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.

Fair enough. Then how might you know what the writer's meant regarding anything in the Bible?

I'd say the same thing I've been saying about getting to the root meaning of the word "spirit". Study the culture, the manners and the language of the time.

How would you?

We know, and can easily demonstrate, that consciousness has an electrical component. It appears to be electro-chemical in nature, and the objective evidence of its existence (all those graphic printouts) appear to cease when the host organism dies.

So you are saying when the tracings are present the organism is conscious? That would be news to someone under the knife.

"Spirit" isn't matter. It isn't energy. So say those who claim to know such things. In other words, it isn't anything we know. Nor is it anything the "experts" know. I suspect therefore that it's nothing at all. [Always subject to the presentation of varifiable evidence, of course.]

I don't know from where you're coming. It seems to me you're saying, that for everything we don't know, nor the experts know, then it's nothing at all unless there's some verifiable evidence for it? Do you consider yourself a materialist? Just curious. I see your screen name every once in a while and don't know from where you're coming.

So you are saying when the tracings are present the organism is conscious?

This isn't my field (nor yours, apparently). But my layman's understanding is that the activity generated by our brains is different during sleep, dreams, waking activity, etc. I'm just not qualified to get into this in any detail at all. But this I do know -- there are no verifiable electrical readouts at all for creatures (deities, angels, whatever) from the so-called "spirit world."

It seems to me you're saying, that for everything we don't know, nor the experts know, then it's nothing at all unless there's some verifiable evidence for it? Do you consider yourself a materialist? Just curious. I see your screen name every once in a while and don't know from where you're coming.

I don't know what you mean by "materialist". I'm a rational man, and I want some evidence or some solid logical argument before I will believe that something exists.

But my layman's understanding is that the activity generated by our brains is different during sleep, dreams, waking activity, etc.

That is true, but you equate consciousness to electrical activity. If electrical activity is present, where is the consciousness, for a comatose person? If the electrical activity related to consciousness is not present, which you must admit if a person under the knife is not conscious, where is the consciousness? I believe most people associate spirit with the "person". A "total" description of the "being". Program might be analogous. It is inferred from the conscious being. But not wearing a scarf on my head and peering into a crystal ball I am not an expert on spirits, not even the kind that comes in bottles.

I don't know what you mean by "materialist". I'm a rational man, and I want some evidence or some solid logical argument before I will believe that something exists.

Your previous comment and your comment above have you coming across somewhat as a materialist as defined by Merriam-webster.com (below). I'm not saying you are. You can make that determination yourself.


One entry found for materialism.
 
Main Entry: ma·te·ri·al·ism 
Pronunciation: m&-'tir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1748
1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or

fundamental reality and that all being and processes and
phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results
of matter b : a doctrine that the only or the highest
values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
furtherance of material progress c : a doctrine that
economic or social change is materially caused --
compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

2 : a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather 
than intellectual or spiritual things

- ma·te·ri·al·ist  /-list/ noun or adjective

- ma·te·ri·al·is·tic  /-"tir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective

- ma·te·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly  /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

My theory has always been he's nothing more than a rather primitive computer algorythm.

Yes; a simple stimulus-response machine. You point out errors in his post, and he responds: "SLIMES! SLANDERS! WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!"

Works every time......

but you equate consciousness to electrical activity. If electrical activity is present, where is the consciousness, for a comatose person?

No, I don't "equate" them. I say only that there is evidence of electrical activity and this is associated with consciousness. That's all I said, and frankly, it's all I know. But this is sufficient to make consciousness different from "spirit" which provides us with no objective evidence of its existence.

Gravity is a law.

The phenomonon of Gravity (objects attract each other) is backed up by a Theory of Gravitation; namely General Relativity.

The phenomonon of speciation is backed up by a Theory; namely the Theory of Evolution.

Both are on equivalent scientific footing.

a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

Thanks for the definition. I figured there was some philosophical baggage associated with the term; and definitions "b" and "c" didn't disappoint my expections. I'll go with definition "a", if we can consider "matter" to mean "matter/energy". I don't know that anything else exists (except perhaps those space-time fields which are always being mentioned in discussions about general relativity, and I'm not in the mood to consider them this evening).

as per the order of His Emminence "Medved the Magnificient," all mascots must be restricted to their ASCII representations.

Well, Medved can make up his own rules, and I can ignore them.

[Plato the Platypus says: "Down with Splifford!"]

How does the third law of thermodynamics prevent an electron from being at rest?

Being senile and working from memory at the same time, I was recalling the "you can't get to absolute zero" statement of the 3rd law. Now that I've looked it up, this is Nernst's Heat Theorem statement of the 3rd law from 1907. I'm getting as bad as medved.

So for the unbound electron, I was reasoning that since it couldn't get to zero temperature, the classical picture of it would mean it still had velocity. I see what you were saying Phys, since the temperature of a gas is the result of the average velocity of all the particles, this is not exactly the best approach for a single particle. But quantum mechanics makes my head hurt. The uncertainty approach was much more elegant.

While I'm at it, I'm looking at Kelly's "Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics" and in the chapter on the 3rd law under the section "Exceptions and Restatement" (no snickering from the Creationists please), there is this little gem,

"Thermodynamics...can make no positive statements about transformations which begin or end in nonequilibrium states."

I forgot all this adiabatic stuff, but it sure makes it difficult to apply the 2nd law to living organisms. I'm going to have to get some newer books.

And the propensity to believe 4000 year old desert nomad fairy tales as literal fact is... ?

Some part of what you read in those stories is not fairytales, but if you're looking for somebody who takes ALL of the OT literally, you're not looking for me.

But this is sufficient to make consciousness different from "spirit" which provides us with no objective evidence of its existence.

But how do you know that spirit and consciousness are different. As I posed the question before, where is the consciousness of a person under the knife?

a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

I'll go with definition "a", if we can consider "matter" to mean "matter/energy".

Is free will a manifestation or result of matter/energy?

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.