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.

However, are you aware that evolution is a totally materialistic theory and is an attack on religion? Are you comfortable with supporting a theory which implicitly denies God and is constantly used to attack those who believe in God?

Genuine, impartial observations made to understand the physical world are just that...observations. Humans unfortunately can and do foster individual agendas, from both sides of the debate. I am comfortable supporting impartial observations and interpretations of both Scripture and the physical realm, but I most definitely do not support the use of same in attacking either camp.

Okay. First off, the coyote head was for scale (you know, the practice where you put something people know next to something people don't know so they can get an idea of how big it is).

Now, as for the two whale-critters in there, if one were to actually research cetacian evolution (something I understand is against your religion/programming), one would see these critters bear a strong resemblance to more whale-like aquatic critters, who bear a strong resemblance to more recent, even more whale-like aquatic critters, who bear a really strong resemblance to modern whales. Now, the fossils of these two critters are very much older than the fossils of any of the later critters that resemble them (following so far? If not, get your programmer to explain the big words). And, these fossils have legs. Now, from the fossil matrix (stuff around the fossil), and the shape and location of the appendages, these fossils were quite evidently semi-aquatic (that means they spent time on both land and in the water). The fossils that resemble them and come later in the fossil record (the fossils don't appear side-by-side, but in distinct layers in the rocks) are much more aquatic (live in the water). Now, all these fossils from the land critters to modern whales can be put into a sequence and paleontologists (the, what you would call "spawn of Satan" folks that study fossils) can trace changes in anatomy over time (the movement of the nostrils farther and farther back on the head, the gradual disappearance of the hind legs and the changes to the front legs and tail, etc.). Now, they can draw one of two conclusions:

1) Each of the younger fossils represents a much more aquatically-adapted descendant of one of the older species.

2) God pops in every now and then to zap a new species into existence.

Now, I understand the illustrated Bible your programmer input into you has pictures of God zapping critters into existence (I know mine does), and I know you are incapable of moving beyond your programming, being a simple looping algorythm and not a full-blown AI, so I don't expect any of this will affect any discussion with you in the least.

I know, I know:

"Slime, slime, slime, slime. Wonderful slime! Glorious slime!"

Both are on equivalent scientific footing.

Not really. Gravity does not have the problems associated with it that evolution does. A theory never has the same weight as a law. Which is why there are so many theories and so few laws. A law is considered incontrovertible, because it has been proven. A theory is a useful instrument, but it does not have the same level of confidence that a law does. As an example, while our understanding and knowledge of gravity has changed and improved over the years, the law itself has not changed, however, the theory of evolution is constantly evolving.

You ask for proof, but as this is the internet your "proof" must come in the form of references. Note that the vast majority of the links I submitted are to reputable scientific publications or universities. ICR and AIG are not reputable scientific publications or universities. But I forgot, according to your programming all universities and reputable scientific publications are in on the atheistic satan-worshipping conspiracy to mislead good Christian folks down the road to perdition. God forbid you should change your programming parameters to encompass any new evidence.

But you would not discard all of our history from the classroom for such a silly conjecture (the idea that God is a vicious jokester who delights in deceiving humans), so why would you discard evolution for the same reason?

Because God would seem more the vicious jokester for writing the book of Genesis and describing the creation the way He did if He really made the universe over 15 billion years through evolution. There are many Christians who have submitted to pop science and believe that the universe must be old. If we see starlight from 10 billion light years away then the universe simply must be 10+ billion years old.

These people feel that God is a trickster for saying the universe is young but making it look old. They fail to consider that when God made Adam He made him an adult. Scully would swear that Adam was 25ish years old 2 seconds after God brought the dust together and made him.

...and statistical improbability amongst other things.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be used to prove anything. For instance, if last year one person died from a fatal computer keyboard explosion and this year two people suffered that fate, you could truthfully trumpet the news that "Fatal Keyboard Explosions Increas 100 Percent!"

So, when creationists scream that the odds are a trillion-to-one that two inert chemicals would form the basics of life, have they taken into account that literall tens of trillions of chemical interactions are going on in any given year? No. They let the trillion-to-one claim stand without actually checking the math. Now, for someone like gore3000, who is nothing more than a simple computer program, checking the math never crosses his mind. However, most creationists aren't nearly as one dimensional as the aforementioned algorythm, so one would expect there to be at least a little questioning of any particular paradigm (this is a tenet of science, so it may be hard for some dyed-in-the-wool creationists to accomplish).

Some ardent creationists have begun questioning their arguments against evolution. The most notable example is Answers in Genesis: Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use. While it does not address the statistics issue, it does puncture a number of the hoary canards used by creationists on these threads.

Because God would seem more the vicious jokester for writing the book of Genesis and describing the creation the way He did if He really made the universe over 15 billion years through evolution.

Well, (a) I disagree that that is the bigger joke. Even assuming the divinity of the Bible, I would regard the existence of facts and observations in the natural world (the handiwork of the Creation) to be stronger evidence for the work of God than a human-copied, edited, and transcribed account. If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many for the planet? But I am still left that God has intentionally deceived me.
(b) If I reject the inerrancy of Genesis (it is divine allegory, or inspirational, or human created, or was intended by God for a specific audience of nomads 4000 years ago, or it was a amalgam of myths, etc.), then the question of trickster-ness vanishes. That seems to be the easier answer: if the facts don't fit the description, it makes more sense to reject the description than the facts.
(c) Finally, your only justification for evolution being wrong is that it disagrees with your religion? I thought the whole point of these crevo threads was to debate the natural evidence (and as the article at the top of the thread points out, the appropriateness of the subject for public schooling, among other things). You seem to have conceded that most important of points: that creationism and the rejection of evolution are entirely and exclusively based on your own personal religious views, and are not scientific questions at all, and that by extension, any person who did not share your literalist religious interpretation would have ne reason to question evolution.

Nice story. However, the bones shown of pakicetus and ichtyolestes show absolutely no proof of their being ancestors of whales. First of all, no bones of whales are shown for comparison. To consider the article in post#29 (for which I show the pictures in post#87) as proof of anything shows a lot of wishful thinking on your part and that of lexcorp.

From Creationist Mindblocks to Whale Evolution:

The earliest known whales, Himalayacetus and Pakicetus are presently known only from cranial material, so they are not much help. However, the position of the inner ear bones in Pakicetus are a perfect intermediate between those of land mammals and the rotated ones of cetaceans (Thewissen & Hussain, 1993), not to mention the fact that the tympanic bullae are composed of dense bone as those of cetaceans (Gingerich, et al, 1983).

[Emphasis mine]

Of course, to your limited mind this is no proof. You could look at the individual frames of a movie and claim there is no such thing as a moving picture. Your programming makes you incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

You don't even know what water is let alone evaporation. You don't know enough about atoms, what ever they are, or molecules or the forces of nature or anything.

Actually, we know quite a bit about the formation and conditions of snow. Why it falls, when, where, how much, with what consistency, why it is 'wet' or 'dry', why it is sleet or hail or ice... It has to do with the freezing point, temperature, humidity of the regional airmass, condensation, and stuff - not having much experience with the stuff I would be at a loss to explain it more precisely, but there are those who can.

As to molecules and such, it's water. H2O. Two hydrogen, one oxygen, it freezes and crystalizes. Not too tough. Subatomically, Hydrogen is (usually) an electron and a proton. Oxygen has (usually) 8 of each, plus 8 neutrons. If you want to know more about snow at the subatomic level, you could ask Physicist. But I'm not sure what more you want to know about it.

There is the additional point that your criticism applies equally strongly to everything - if we are uncertain about any aspect of particle physics, I suppose we don't "truly understand" the universe. But again, would you have us teach nothing to anyone? We'd certainly have to throw out the Bible with the bathwater.

If God says over and over and over that this book is His book and that He wrote it. If He says in many diffent ways that the book never contradicts itself and that believing the book is extremely important to having any relationship with Him, BUT, Genesis isn't true, that makes Him quite a huge trickster.

(b) If I reject the inerrancy of Genesis (it is divine allegory, or inspirational, or human created, or was intended by God for a specific audience of nomads 4000 years ago, or it was a amalgam of myths, etc.), then the question of trickster-ness vanishes. That seems to be the easier answer: if the facts don't fit the description, it makes more sense to reject the description than the facts.

Well, it really wouldn't vanish because the rest of the book shows Him to be a trickster for saying that the whole thing was inspired and can't contradict. If you throw out the whole book then I'd agree that the trickster thing goes away and God can just be the God who created everything how ever He wanted and didn't tell us anything about Himself. Then the whole book is worthless. I think that may be how you feel.

(c) Finally, your only justification for evolution being wrong is that it disagrees with your religion? I thought the whole point of these crevo threads was to debate the natural evidence (and as the article at the top of the thread points out, the appropriateness of the subject for public schooling, among other things). You seem to have conceded that most important of points: that creationism and the rejection of evolution are entirely and exclusively based on your own personal religious views, and are not scientific questions at all, and that by extension, any person who did not share your literalist religious interpretation would have ne reason to question evolution.

Almost. There is still a big problem with evolution other than that it doesn't work at any level. That problem is the existance of the space, time, and matter. To believe in evolution while ignoring the difficulty with why things exist is to be like children playing at a playground thinking that it has always been there and that there is no reason to consider thanking any adults for building it.

I don't know what scientist you are talking to, but I have never heard of any one trying to disprove the exsistance of God. In fact, the main function of the scientific method is PROVING theories.

"Religion does not claim to be science, therefore no scientific proof is required for it. " Then why is it called "creationist theory"?

"It therefore needs to give such proofs or be deened to be mere charlatanism." You ask for proof to substanciate the claims of evolotionism, yet you cannot give proof to support your own. According to your words, then both could be concidered charlatanism, couldn't they?

And before I get accused of being a Godless person, know that I have been a memeber in good standing at my local church for years. And yes it is a Christian church. :)

Oldcats

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.