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.

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

Only living beings have free will. As far as anyone knows, all aspects of living beings are manifestations of matter/energy. If free will is derived from something other than matter/energy, I don't know what that would be.

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.

But classically, an observer could always adjust his own velocity until he was comoving with the electron. (Quantum mechanically, you can think of a single electron as having a velocity distribution, rather than a velocity.)

not obvious...did Adam and Eve have the possibilty to not sin?

Well, the original question is different than this one. The original was: were Adam and Eve free to sin? They did sin, so that makes the answer obvious. They were free to sin; i.e., not prevented from sinning.

Did Adam and Eve have the possibility to not sin? The answer is yes. But it's my perspective. Yes, because God granted true, complete free choice.

"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. "

The above shows how wrong you are. If they did not know the theory behind it, they never would have been able to make a working cathode ray tube. It takes years from the idea of an application to success in almost all fields. The theory always comes first, then the experiments, then the working models, then the practical applications. Reason engineers use (used?) slide rules was so they could use the theories to test what they were building before they built it. If everyone worked the way you say, we would have a lot of bridges, buildings, roads, dams, etc. coming apart.

"Consciousness" isn't matter.

Only partially true. The "brain dead" do seem to lack conciousness. If conciousness isn't matter, it is strongly linked to matter. I (so far) am unaware of any conciousness existing apart from matter. (Miss Cleo and other spiritualists aside, but they knew I would say that.)

I believe the Creator made us in His image. By this I mean our ability to think and how we do it, our emotions, everything that gives us our individual personalities. I do not believe He has a physical body...but our essence, all that makes us who we are, has come from Him. And most likely these are the thoughts which allow me to embrace evolution. The physical evolved, while humanity was bestowed on us at some point in the distant past. I am unconcerned with the "when", but very satisfied to know that He did.

There were a few other famous scientists in that list. Since you cannot disprove their statements when shown proof that what you have been saying is total bunk, in typical Clintonian way, you attack the messenger and try to smear their character.

One of the people quoted in that list was the guy all you evos have orgasms about - Stephen Jay Gould. He himself says that the fossil evidence does not support evolution. There were several quotes from him there. You defaming your own hero. Well, anything for the cause eh?

The ear bones.

This is typical evolutionist nonsense. There is absolutely no connection between ears and the mammary glands. One cannot surmise from a coincidental feature another totally unrelated feature. It is called jumping to conclusions. Something which evolutionists are very good at. They build whole animals from a footprint. Such surmissals are not called science, they are called wishful thinking.

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?

Because God exists outside of time, and He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants...or not at all. He does not need our permission, nor is He required to let us in on all the details. I believe and trust that God reveals the correct interpretation of Scripture to each believer that asks for His guidance. I trust Him far more than I trust humans.

Yes Vade, I remember that thread quite well. I remember my telling you that those drawings were altered by the author to "show the point" he was trying to make. The man did not use the bones because of course they would not have given the proof he was seeking.

This is one thing about evolutionists, they are very wary of showing the bones on which their statements are based because any normal human being will see that the whole "proof" is not based on anything but the author's imagination. For example, the face of the famous "Lucy" which the evos call our ancestor, is more plaster than bone. It was made in the image the finders wanted, and whether it is anything like what the individual really looked like is indeed very doubtful. In the bones shown in post 87 from the link provided as "proof" by lexcorp you will note that most of the bones are not in any way connected and easily could have been assembled in more than one way, therefore whether they are what the animal looked like, whether they are a composite of different animals, or whether they are the wishful thinking of the paleontologist, no one can say.

Only partially true. The "brain dead" do seem to lack conciousness. If conciousness isn't matter, it is strongly linked to matter. I (so far) am unaware of any conciousness existing apart from matter.

While not running away from the words eliciting your response, I wish to make it clear that the statement was a modification of one made by someone else in order to illustrate something that was neither matter nor energy yet obviously real.

Now as to the question of consciousness and matter, put a human into a large matter-tight blender(figuratively of course) set to high. Is the result conscious?

"You misspelled "whenever I examine a link said to "prove" evolution I do not understand the evidence and its implications.

Perhaps since you are so smart and like to insert words I never said into my statements, you can explain how A picture of the top of the heads of two whales, a picture of the top of the head of a coyote, and two partial reconstructions of the bone structures of two land animals "prove" that whales descended from those animals.

I set this challenge to evolutionists on post 87 of this thread, as yet, the only responses have been insults.

Since you cannot disprove their statements when shown proof that what you have been saying is total bunk, in typical Clintonian way, you attack the messenger and try to smear their character.

Ouch. No fair. I was busy reviewing my thermodynamics. So far I have seen very little evidence, much less "proof". Plus I have to put up with seeing a couple hundred scientists every day and they say all kinds of things. They still need evidence.

The above shows how wrong you are. If they did not know the theory behind it, they never would have been able to make a working cathode ray tube.

The cathode ray tube was invented by Sir William Crookes in 1855. Sir J.J. Thompson discovered electrons in 1897. Fortunately I can still keep track of the calendar.

One of the people quoted in that list was the guy all you evos have orgasms about - Stephen Jay Gould. He himself says that the fossil evidence does not support evolution.

I think we covered this mis-quote on the last thread. Actually the guy I have orgasms about is Brian McGuire. In 1982, he discovered evidence that frogs were replacing neurons during his graduate work at Vanderbilt. Unfortunately, he didn't publish because everybody knows "organisms don't grow new neurons." Some days you're the dog, and some days you're the hydrant.

"The total absence of any argument that the fossils are not mammals (what else would they be, and where is the evidence for that?).

Surmissions, suppositions, and extrapolation are not facts. Bats can fly, yet they are not birds. Whales can swim, yet they are mammals. These and many other animals "break the mold" set for them. Surmissions, suppositions and extrapolations are a procrustean bed which not only proves nothing, but in fact is inimical to true science. Science relies on facts, not wishful thinking.

The total absence of any argument that the fossils are not mammals (what else would they be, and where is the evidence for that?).

Your only hope is to insult the messenger. I do not see you giving proof against the statements made by well known scientists on Medved's post #99. I do not see any evolutionist presenting evidence contradicting any of the evidence presented there. If there is so much proof in your numerous links - why don't you and your fellow evos present it here instead of going around insulting people?

"We might as well mention the lower jaw bone as well. The lower jaw of mammals is a single, seamless bone. "

So what is the necessary connection between a single bone and the presence of mammary glands? Are you going to tell us that these two completely different, and totally unrelated features developed simultaneously in all species? You are not that silly - or are you? Furthermore, if they did indeed develop simultaneously, what eveolutionary explanation could there be for such a thing occurring? Simultaneous developmental mutations of two different features? You should think before you post.

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.