Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience
Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: crevolist; educationnews; evolution; ohio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,421-1,440 next last
To: longshadow
If you are expecting coherent discourse from him, you're in for a very long wait.

I guess so. He just equated all of us that accept the evidence for the scientific model of evolution with murderers and assassins. Sheesh!!!!

41 posted on 02/20/2002 1:06:14 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
God would have to be lame---incompetent to come up with that rubbish--evolution!

Can we know that?

Do you accept that God made a Universe in which free will and the possibility of sin could exist?

Is God lame to have allowed for the need for Salvatian?

Why do you assume a perfect God would only make a perfect Creation... by your reckoning?




42 posted on 02/20/2002 1:08:27 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I asked "patrick henry" if before science creation existed...didn't get an answer yet!
43 posted on 02/20/2002 1:11:48 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Sabertooth
Do you accept that God made a Universe in which free will and the possibility of sin could exist?

Anytime someone chooses wrong--dumb...I wouldn't call that "free"!

45 posted on 02/20/2002 1:14:49 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I "know" evolution is the most valid scientific model we have (it is not a belief system like religion). The physical evidence is overwhelming.

Agreed that evolution is the best explanation thus far for the physical evidence.

Where I think the evidence gets rather thin (not that the thinness disproves evolution itself), is on the matter of what causes evolution. Fortuitous combinations of random mutations over time and filtered by natural selection is certainly a possibility... but is that demonstrated?




46 posted on 02/20/2002 1:15:06 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
If by "science" you mean the scientific method, the short answer is "yes". The naturalistic way of looking at the world and organizing these observations is fairly modern. But I would guess that isolated instances of this have occured in the past.

(Thanks for the book reference. I'll check it out.)

47 posted on 02/20/2002 1:17:07 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cracker
This article adds no evidence to the crevo debate. It is simply an attempt to shout down creationists. When actual evidence is presented, I'll take a look at it.
48 posted on 02/20/2002 1:17:52 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Anytime someone chooses wrong--dumb...I wouldn't call that "free"!

Tell me, were Adam and Eve free to sin?




49 posted on 02/20/2002 1:22:11 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Lurking ...
50 posted on 02/20/2002 1:22:45 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Fortuitous combinations of random mutations over time and filtered by natural selection is certainly a possibility... but is that demonstrated?

There is far more involved here. Genetic drift and other factors play a part also. Unfortunately I start roaming into territory that is outside of my specialty and formal education. Astro/space is my expertise. Hopefully some of the Biologists/geologists will chime in. :)

51 posted on 02/20/2002 1:28:26 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Tell me, were Adam and Eve free to sin?

to not sin...no---no freedom!

52 posted on 02/20/2002 1:30:44 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
It strikes me that evolution is a survival strategy.

The random mutagenesis model strikes me as rolling dice. Now, maybe time is sufficient to get enough rolls to come up with new species... but look at all the species that have either existed or currently exist... that's rolling a lot of sevens.

Where I think evolution overreaches in in the presumption that we have a good handle on the mechanism for it. Maybe it's random, but I don't see how that's confirmed in the time frames we've been observing living species scientifically.



53 posted on 02/20/2002 1:37:33 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Were they forced to sin? If so, why were they held accountable?




54 posted on 02/20/2002 1:38:47 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Fortuitous combinations of random mutations over time and filtered by natural selection is certainly a possibility... but is that demonstrated?

Galapagos finches (Geospiza fortis) have been studied for years by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University. They have been studying the beak sizes of these birds relative to the amount of rainfall the islands receive annually. In wet years, finches with smaller beaks are favored because of the abundance of small, easy to crush seeds. During drought years, only larger, tougher seeds are available. Finches with small beaks are unable to open these seeds and die out, while finches with larger beaks survive. This is natural selection (or evolution).

55 posted on 02/20/2002 1:39:42 PM PST by Scully
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Were they forced to sin? If so, why were they held accountable?

As a child...the sign baffled me---"Jesus Saves"---green stamps!

Your will doesn't exist till then...vegetables--alfalfa sprouts!

56 posted on 02/20/2002 1:43:16 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Where I think evolution overreaches in in the presumption that we have a good handle on the mechanism for it. Maybe it's random, but I don't see how that's confirmed in the time frames we've been observing living species scientifically.

I think we use the word random too often. At the fundamental level (where it really matters) the chemistry is not random. Chemical bonds and long chain polymers follow a very distinct set of "rules". But remember, biochem is not my formal educational background. So if I have posted in error, I hope I will be corrected.

57 posted on 02/20/2002 1:43:44 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Scully
This is natural selection (or evolution).

I don't dispute evolution per se, but "natural selection" in the circumstance you're talking about may only a mechanism for filtering a pre-existing gene pool.

That by itself doesn't mean you have a new species.

Let me be really clear... I'm not making the claim that I've disproven evolution.

I'm only suggesting that our handle on the causes of it aren't quite as firm as is frequently claimed.




58 posted on 02/20/2002 1:46:43 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I think we use the word random too often. At the fundamental level (where it really matters) the chemistry is not random.

Nor is the deeper physics underlying the chemistry.

My own big issue on these threads is the carelessness with which the term "random" is tossed around.




59 posted on 02/20/2002 1:49:51 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I've long thought that Creationists make bad scientists, and Evolutionists make bad theologians.

You've scored a rare coup.




60 posted on 02/20/2002 1:51:36 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,421-1,440 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson