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.
Would you be so kind as to provide objectively verifiable evidence in support of your theory that some living beings have free will?
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? {Richard Carrier, The Philosophical Scientist, 2000)
All too frequently we hear statistics being offered to "prove" that the odds against the origin of life are so great that we must posit a Creator to explain the event. David Foster, for example, whose book I critique through the link at the bottom of this essay, uses the odds of spontaneously assembling the genome of the T4 bacteriophage, and also the human hemoglobin molecule, as proof of the impossibility of life, even though no one thinks the T4 genome or hemoglobin has ever been assembled at random (for more on these statistics, see Chapter 9 of my review). I have encountered many such references, and since they are always obscure, and often antiquated, it is rarely possible to know how they were derived and thus whether they have any merit. It is helpful to have a summary analysis of all known examples, to be used to check these claims whenever they are brought up in conversations, debates, books, or articles. This essay is an attempt to fill that need (another good place for information is Ian Musgrave's excellent page on this topic). Although I cover a wide range of sources, I am certain that I have not found all of them. If you ever encounter a statistic being cited from a source which is not discussed here, please let me know and I will investigate and expand this essay accordingly. [in response to creationist criticisms of what I am doing in this essay, I have composed a more theoretical discussion of ten typical errors in creationist approaches to and uses of cosmology, biology, statistics, and logical argument.]
Do we know how difficult it would be for the initial chemical building blocks of life to form? Not precisely, but there is strong evidence that those building blocks are not that difficult to come by:
Study Offers Insights Into Evolutionary Origins Of Life -- Life Created in a Test Tube (2001-05-18)
In some of the strongest evidence yet to support the RNA world—an era in early evolution when life forms depended on RNA—scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research have created an RNA catalyst, or a ribozyme, that possesses some of the key properties needed to sustain life in such a world.
Hard Evidence Shows Life Could Have Evolved Naturally (2000-08-26)
The kind of primitive biochemistry that may well have jump-started the emergence of life on Earth occurred naturally, according to hard evidence found by geophysicists.
Possible Key Step In The Origin Of Life Identified [Thread 1] (2001-05-01)
Possible Key Step In The Origin Of Life Identified [Thread 2] (2001-05-02)
For a transition to occur from the pre-biological world of 4 billion years ago to the world we know today, amino acids--the building blocks of proteins in all living systems--had to link into chainlike molecules. Now Robert Hazen and Timothy Filley of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Glenn Goodfriend of George Washington University have discovered what may be a key step in this process -- a step that has baffled researchers for more than a half a century.
And there is also strong evidence that it didn't take life long to form, indicating it may be a fairly common occurrence throughout the universe:
Life on Earth Began at Least 3.85 Billion Years Ago, 400 Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought, Scientists Say {NASA, November 6, 1996}
Life on Earth began at least 3.85 billion years ago, an international team of scientists reports in the cover story of the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Nature. The scientists, from UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCLA's Department of Earth and Space Sciences, the Australian National University and England's Oxford Brookes University, present evidence that pushes back the emergence of life on Earth by 400 million years.
Now do you understand why I consider arguments from statistics to not be worth the paper they are scribbled on? Especially statistics that are derived from incomplete data sets, which is precisely the problem with working the odds on life forming naturally.
The problem is, it is the Bible that is claiming that God said it is His book. There is no evidence outside the Bible that the Bible is the Word of God. Do you understand the circular reasoning implicit in this?
But, my point at that time is that the God who said all of those things would be quite a trickster to say them if they were lies.
There doesn't have to be. A mammal is a mammal, not just by definition, but by a common history with other mammals.
If it has a single dentary-bone mandible and hammer-anvil-stirrup ear bones, it's a mammal.
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.
Don't take this as a slime, but what a total bozo you are!
Again, you have no proof the Almighty uttered those things. You simply have a book claiming such. Greek mythology has the Gods making many comments, but you don't see anyone going around claiming that Zeus must exist because we have documents citing those utterances. Don't get me wrong, I'm a church-going Catholic and I understand that some things must be taken on faith; however one must be rational when determining what may or may not be taught in public schools, and a faith-based curriculum is not necessarily rational.
Yeah---evolution is like a blindfolded skydiver with two chutes freefalling...
one in the plane and the other in the trunk of his car...splatt!
278 posted on 2/21/02 10:17 PM Hawaii-Aleutian by f.Christian
A dodge. On the same thread, I researched 70-80 percent of the fossil species in that chart and found skull bones for you and AndrewC. It's silly to pretend that Cuffey could get away with posting deliberately and grossly incorrect drawings of fossil skulls. His fellow professionals would murder him for it.
For example, the face of the famous "Lucy" which the evos call our ancestor, is more plaster than bone.
Lucy isn't famous for her face. Everybody's seen the pictures of the Lucy bone set, so what's the big exposé here?
So you and I both have access to the SAME DATA about creation, data that is EXTERNAL to us, that can be examined and discussed. And, to a Christian, the issue is seldom what God can do, but what He has done, or has promised that He will do.
And so in this case. We have the data. God states He made the universe in six days, days identical with the six-day work week He enjoined upon Israel (Exodus 20:11). So, regardless of how we feel about it, you and I are both left with identical objective data, to wit: God states He created all in a 6/24 period. As Christians, we pledge to believe Him.
So I still wonder — how do you fit the hundreds of millions of years of supposed processes or lurches guessed at by non-eyewitnesses within that time-frame?
Dan
How can you be sure evolution is wrong if, after all this time and all that has been posted at to you, you don't have a clue what it says or how it works?
Common descent, you idiot! Common descent!
A very good question. Really very good. I can't prove that I have free will. Not directly. However, if we don't have free will, then we can't reason, because we would have no power to reject invalid conclusions. We would be no more free than our calculators, which provide only the answers they are constructed to provide. Therefore, if we are to conduct ourselves as if we were rational beings, we must assume the existence of our free will as an axiom. This is an axiom of absolute necessity, and not one which is adopted arbitrarily; because without such an axiom, all rational thought becomes impossible.
In other words, if we don't have free will, then I'm just typing these words mindlessly, like a music box plays the tune it's been built to play; and you should pay no attention to me -- and I should regard your words as equally meaningless. But we're both assuming otherwise, aren't we?
The Witch Doctor crowd thinks everything is religion. Get enough converts and your reality is reality.
What exactly would be in a biology class in a gore3000 world? What would a future generation of biotechnologists be trained to do? Pray?
My problem continues to be that evolution is a religion yet it is not treated as such. If I say I believe that God made the universe that is universally held as religion. Why? Not becasue I can't prove it but because I dared to invoke the name God.
If I say the universe came from a big bang then that is called science even though I can't prove it. If I say that the universe was made by Aliens then that will probably be called science too. I could go on to describe the aliens and my proof in the pictures in the magazines and ascribe all the attributes to them I want and it is still science. None of these theories is more provable than the other yet only only one is called religion and therefore is not allowed to be spoken among decent secular americans.
Now we're getting into the heart of creationism. In order to maintain their position regarding evolution, they ultimately have to throw away so much that their position amounts to, "we don't know anything about anything", i.e. that science itself--any science--is fundamentally impossible.
Don't worry about leading them out of their cul-de-sac. It is enough to show them the end of it. Getting a creationist to state that "we don't know what water is or any of its properties" certainly achieved that.
Interesting how these things cross on a topic. The same idea (that our very actions in posting here indicate we are prepared to make certain assumptions about the universe) you describe is equally applicable to the creationist arguments that we do not truly understand the universe and cannot know anything. (i.e. snow, history, whether the sun will rise tomorroow) That line of inquiry leads to solipsism, which would demand a rejection of interaction with the universe because it is all a figment of the imagination (sorry Descartes) - yet the creationist speaks and posts and therefore proves that solipsism has been rejected.
This has come up a number of times previously on FR, and "Physicist," among others, has pointed out the correct distinctions between a scientific theory and a Law of Science.
Briefly, a Law in science does NOT hold the prestige that it does in Jurisprudence or Theology. A scientific Law is nothing more than a generalization based on empirical evidence. It has no more "proof" than a theory does. What it lacks is what a makes a scientific theory a theory: a broad conceptual framework to explain the phenomona covered by it, providing a basis for making testable predictions which then bolster, or disprove the theory, depending on the results.
Laws in science, being based soley on empirical evidence, are ALWAYS at risk of being overturned (or reduced in scope) when new evidence is discovered that conflicts with the "law." Thus, they are not "cast in stone" as many sometimes think they are.
Another oversimplified way to seeing the difference between a scientific law and a theory is this: a "law" tells you what should happen; a scientific theory does this and more: it provides an explanatory basis for "what happens" that no law can ever provide.
So returning to my original point, when I said that Gravity and evolution are on the same footing, this is what I mean. Both are supported by respective theories that fit the preponderance of the evidence, provide broad explanatory power of the phenomona within their scope, and have successfully resisted multiple attempts at falsification.
Just because the science of evolution tends to involve less number-crunching than that of Gravitation doesn't, in and of itself, demote Evolutionary Theory a lower rung on the scientific totem pole than General Relativity. Both are bona fide theories, and as such have much more going for them than any scientific Law has.
BTW, there is nothing to say that Evolutionary theory, as it is understood today, and the Theory Of General Relativity are complete; both are subject to revision as new evidence arises (and so are Laws.) Hence, "Punctuate Equilibrum" is a modification to Evolutionary theory, just as Grand Unified Theories will likely supercede GR someday.
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.