Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[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.

[AndrewC]

is that electricity is evidence of consciousness.

That still does not follow, that is unless "is" means "may be" ala Clinton.

[js1138]

or perhaps speculate that this quote was a catch-all, to allow the Bible as a whole to be sufficiently confusing and self-contradictory that the priesthood class could use it to justify ANYTHING

But we know this would never happen...

<];^)

[f.Christian]

petrochemical resources.

377 posted on 2/22/02 11:02 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by lexcorp

The latest scientific thought is evolution has nothing to to do with oil--coal deposits...the "fossil" residue is from common bacteria and the earth produces hydro carbons much like a chemical furnace would from common elements--molecules.

The evolution cards are crashing!

[Junior]

You are the only person I've met who suffered from Tourette's Syndrome of the keyboard.

[PatrickHenry]

That still does not follow, that is unless "is" means "may be" ala Clinton.

You are beating a flea to death. Your great original point is that consciousness and spirit are the same. I pointed out that we have evidence of consciousness, and I further said that where there is consciousness there is electricity, which easily distinguishes it from spirit. You are off on some wild tangent now, in a silly struggle to avoid coming to grips with the clear fact that your central point has been demolished. From my end of things, this mini-debate is concluded.

[f.Christian]

the unmitigated immorality of Creationism...

...like giving pure uncut heroin to a junkie--OD!

Why not end his misery--addiction...prolong his habit?

[cracker]

The latest scientific thought is evolution has nothing to to do with oil--coal deposits...the "fossil" residue is from common bacteria and the earth produces hydro carbons much like a chemical furnace would from common elements--molecules.

Link to peer-reviewed research please?

[f.Christian]

You have a reading--THINKING problem...

The latest scientific thought is evolution has nothing to to do with oil--coal deposits...the "fossil" residue is from common bacteria and the earth produces hydro carbons much like a chemical furnace would from common elements--molecules.

The evolution cards are crashing...jerking---are YOU?

[f.Christian]

Do a FR search...

There was a thread here one or two months ago!

On and off---"peer reviewed" by apes--evolutionist--soul dead--zombies--quacks?

[AndrewC]

If you were all over the C side the same way, you'd have no time for anything else in your life.

You are quite right, as I have my plate full with the Darwinians. But why should I co-opt your job.

[f.Christian]

Where ever you went to school...now would be a good time to think about how you can get your money--life back!

[f.Christian]

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork." Indeed, the awesome majesty, the limitless power, and the eternal glory of God, on the one hand, and the intense love and tender care for mankind by our Father, Creator, and Benefactor, on the other, is amply manifested by the design of our universe, of our solar system, and of our planet, and it is manifested equally clearly by the infinitesimal architecture of all life itself. Men are not sophisticated beasts by nature; they are not elaborated kinds of apes. They are children of God, unique among all creation, fashioned in His image. The Prophet Jeremiah wrote, "The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." And... "He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by His understanding."(link)...

[Junior]

Must've said something right. I've gotten three inarticulate replies from you to my post #384.

[Stultis]

but the point I was making is that all of the pre-biotic soup thus far created

No, regardless of what other points you may have made or wish to now make, the point Vade responded to was just as I quoted, your complaint that no "pre-biotic soup" has been observed "in nature". Vade was simply pointing out, in a manner that you did not happen to grasp, that even if it did form under current conditions, we would never know it as it would be "eaten" (metabolized by ubiquitous micro-organisms).

[longshadow]

It reads like someone doped up on something highly illegal.

It is quite common among patients who skip their Thorazine doses.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is head start and affirmative action for the lame...retarded---you must have a phd!

356 posted on 2/22/02 9:10 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by f.Christian

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, what is it with this yahoo?

Imagine someone who flunked out of Bob Jones because he couldn't pass remedial reading, and who then went to study with Timothy Leary.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: For instance, here's a skull in much better shape from another find: [image]

AndrewC: The reason it is in much better shape is, it is a replica.

It's in better shape because it's a replica? How accurate is that statement?

Main Entry: rep·li·ca
Pronunciation: 're-pli-k&
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian, repetition, from replicare to repeat,
from Late Latin, from Latin, to fold back --
more at REPLY
Date: 1824
1 : an exact reproduction (as of a painting)
executed by the original artist <a replica of this was
painted... this year -- Constance Strachey>
2 : a copy exact in all details <DNA makes a replica
of itself> <sailed a replica of the Viking ship>
broadly : COPY <this faithful, pathetic
replica of a Midwestern suburb -- G. F. Kennan>
synonym see REPRODUCTION

Now, originally I was telling gore3000, whose statements you seldom if ever parse for accuracy or intelligent content of any sort, that this skull

is in "better shape" (as in "more revealing of the original creature's head") than the skull of the Pakicetus (left) in this picture:

You chimed in to unequivocally state that the superior condition of skull A stems from its being an exact duplicate of an original.

Or did I just forget that you aren't interested in the accuracy of your own statements?

[f.Christian]

Nothing mixes with liberalsm--evolution...you need a... transfusion---deprogramming!