What you are saying is that electricity establishes conscience. Change electricity to footprints and consciousness to deer. I reject that.
spir·it Pronunciation Key (sp r t)n.
|
Or do you not believe in the color blue?
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.
Ah, but the creationist never reacts to evidence which is presented to him; he never flinches at contradictions; and he never strays from what seems to be his pre-programmed data. So the creationist may indeed lack free will. More likely, it's been beaten out of him at an early age.
Do you find it interesting that if you set out fresh bread, meat, milk, butter, or cheese, something large or microscopic or in-between will eat it?
Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by; or like a watch in the night."
2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
Metaphor, brother. Doesn't this suggest to you the timelessness of God? He is not bound by the arms of a clock, nor by our feeble, finite understanding of Him. Be very careful in professing to understand the mind of God, it's been my experience that He reveals startling truths through misfortune at such moments of arrogance.
Evolution is simply an effort to explain observations. It has done remarkably well at explaining these observations and helping biologists answer questions as they arise. In other words, evolution is as much a science as quantum mechanics and is not a religion. A religion has dogma that does not change, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Pardon the pun, but the Theory of Evolution evolves as new evidence comes to light -- the exact opposite of a religion. The Theory of Evolution we have now bears only a passing resemblance to the theory first postulated by Darwin a century and a half ago. Creationism hasn't changed one iota in 2500 years, regardless of the evidence.
If I say the universe came from a big bang then that is called science even though I can't prove it.
But you can. The Big Bang Theory predicts, among other things, that there should be a residual background radiation of such-and-such a temperature. This prediction was made long before astronomers were able to measure such things, but when they could, low and behold the background radiation was there just as forecasted.
If I say that the universe was made by Aliens then that will probably be called science too.
Yes it would, unless you had unmitigated proof that the aliens did what you claim they did.
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.
Nope. You still need the evidence. There is a lot of evidence that evolution happens; hell I've created The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource to keep track of all that evidence.
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.
Yes they are. Does creationism predict anything? No. Evolution predicts random mutations in the gene pool. We can see these random mutations in every generation of an organism; most of the time the mutations are benign and have no bearing on the survival of the organism (they happen in a section of DNA not being used -- and there are a lot of these). Every so often a mutation crops up that might be detrimental, in which case the critter dies. Sometimes a mutation occurs which gives the critter a leg up on the competition; eventually this critter's descendents render all competition within its species extinct and the mutation becomes fixed in the gene pool.
Evolution predicts that anatomical functions will occasionally be co-opted for something for which they were not originally intended, and we can see this in the fossil record. And, voila, there is such evidence in the fossil record. For instance, when reviewing the sequence of the evolution of reptiles into mammal-like reptiles into mammals, one can see the alteration of the reptiles multi-boned jaw into the mammal's single mandible and the small bones of the ear -- the latter being coopted for a purpose they were not originally intended to fulfill.
Now do you understand why evolution is a science and not a religion? Science makes predictions and religion relates dogma (not necessarily a bad thing). Science changes to fit the available evidence while religion retains its teachings unchanged.
Thank you for making this point. Science is constantly in the processs of refining accepted theories based on new observations and evidence (e.g. Plate Tectonics). Sadly, I do not generally see the same predisposition coming from the Creation camp.
That tends to happen when the emphasis is on finding evidence that fits the preordained explanation, as opposed to collecting evidence and figuring out which theory fits it best.
None of these articles even mentions irreducible complexity or biotic systems.
Peruse the following articles. Irreducible complexity may, in fact be not.
How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems? {29 June 2000}
Behe coined the name Irreducibly Complex for systems which would stop working if any of their components were removed. An example he gave is the biochemical system that makes clots in your blood. He said that this was like the common mousetrap, which becomes useless if you remove its spring.
Behe argued that such systems cannot evolve by a series of small modifications, each of which is a slight improvement to some initial system. His proof was that he did not know any plausible scenarios for their evolution.
Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe {Talk Origins}
In 1996, the Free Press published a book by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level.
Is the Blood Clotting Cascade Irreducibly Complex?
In his 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe argued that the vertebrate blood clotting cascade was "Irreducibly Complex." What Prof. Behe means by this is that each and every element of the complex cascade of enzymes and cofactors must be in place for blood clotting to work. Since, according to Behe, an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by Darwinian natural selection, it must have been produced by something else. It must have been designed.
Of Mousetraps and Men {Niall Shanks & Karl H. Joplin, East Tennessee State University}
In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe claims that biochemical systems exhibit a special kind of complexity -- irreducible complexity - that cannot possibly have evolved and must have resulted from intelligent design. In common with other creationists, Behe is vague about both the identity and methods of his intelligent designer, though he does distinguish between the hypothesis of natural design (by space aliens, perhaps) and that of supernatural design (1996, p. 243-253).
I'm not asking for proof you have free will. I'm asking for "objectively verifiable evidence in support of your theory that some living beings have free will".
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 --
The conclusion that I should not pay attention to you if you do not have free will does not follow. I can pay attention to a music box (or a CD player) although it is mindless. I can pay attention to and study the weather although it is mindless. I don't need to assume you have free will to pay attention to your words.
Again, what objectively verifiable evidence can you provide that would give plausibility to the theory that you, or any living being, has free will?
What you are saying is that electricity establishes conscience. Change electricity to footprints and consciousness to deer. I reject that.
| spir·it Pronunciation Key (sprt) n.
|
Or do you not believe in the color blue?
I also understand that God bound Himself to being truthful with us. So He tells the Israelites that they should work 6 days just like He worked six days... does He mean that, or not? Did He work six thousand years, and were they to work six thousand years without a break, followed by a thousand-year break? And is your notion of evolution that it all took six thousand years? I know there is no one theory of evolution (a common myth), but that would make yours a unique theory indeed.
Dan
"No one can say." You're basically the lobbyist for ignorance because you like so little of what we know. You can't handle the truth.
I can see where you might quibble about the order of some of the vertebrae, but I don't see how the overall assembly can be challenged.
What you don't know is whether the bones were found all in a heap or in a context itself suggestive of the reconstruction.
Another point: Pakicetus is a multi-fossil species. For instance, here's a skull in much better shape from another find:
Finding more than one fossil gives you an improved chance of getting the reconstruction right.
So many of your arguments are based upon a (willful?) failure to understand or imagine . . . What's a rational, sentient being to think?
I agree to part of what you said. When we see starlight from a galaxy 10 billion ly away, we must conclude that it has existed long enough for that light to have gotten here. We must conclude that the universe is old. When we ask how it got there and only use observation to find the answer it starts getting a little tricky.
We've never seen matter created. We suspect red shift means expansion so we conclude a big bang. Our observation still never tells us anything about where the galaxy came from or why.
I'm struggling to figure out how the theory of evolution has helped in any practical scientific application.
That's kind of a frustrating pun because evolution = spontaneous increase in complexity and there has been nothing spontaneous about the maintenance of the theory. It has required a ton of input.
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.