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.

From something I posted 2 years ago, in response to a creationist who said that my belief in a natural origin for life was "pure faith":

Ah, but there are differences. (1) My statement is testable. It comes with a prediction, namely that under certain conditions, certain consequences will follow. So in principle this could get accomplished in some lab, and then others could replicate the results, etc., although we know that it hasn't happened yet. Verifiability is what makes science different from theology. There are other differences: (2) my statement is based, loosely of course, on my understanding of chemistry, which is a science derived from observations of reality. A theological proclamation (about original sin or something) is based only on faith that the revelation came from a reliable source and was communicated accurately. And (3) my statement involves events which are comprehensible in a step-by-step, cause-and-effect way. Theological doctrines, involving the miraculous doings of the deity, are by their nature beyond our comprehension.
These are just some of the ways in which my statement about biology can be distinguished from a statment of religious faith. I know you understand this. It is only the extremely ignorant, who know nothing of science, who don't grasp these distinctions, because they regard everything as an incomprehensible miracle. Those are the ones who see science as just another cult.

And here's something else on point, which I posted back in November of 1999:

I guess another problem we have with creationoids is their difficulty with inductive reasoning, which is a major tool of scientific thinking. Theology is a glorious example of deductive reasoning: doctrines handed down from on high, alleged to be universally applicable, and therefore the faithful must fit everything into those doctrines. And if the doctrines fail, they are lost, as there is no way they know of to develop new ideas.
Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, involves beginning with observed particulars, and reasoning from these data to a general proposition, which might then become a theory. The theory (such as Darwin's work) is thereafter used as a starting point as in deductive reasoning, but it is always subject to being contradicted if some future observation doesn't fit. Then, as science-minded people, we go "back to the drawing board" to develop a better theory. But creationoids don't know how to do this. They never developed their doctrines. They merely "received" them.
In theology, it's always deductive reasoning. Thus, doctrine (such as Genesis) must always carry the day, and any data which contradicts the doctrine must be ignored, or suppressed, or perhaps worse. If Genesis is wrong, their doctrines collapse and there is no way to solve any problem, at least not until some revelation provides new doctrine.
And this, perhaps, is the problem with some of these creationoids. Deductive reasoning is all they've ever been exposed to; it's all they know, and when presented with the methods of science, they just haven't a clue as to what we're talking about.

We use both inductive and deductive reasoning. We move from the general to the particular and back to the general. Together they work to build a body of knowledge which leads ever closer to truth.

Maybe so. But the creationist is not "building a body of knowledge." He's got it already pre-packaged. And yes, creationists sometimes use inductive reasoning, but where will it take them? Will they use newly-discovered facts to build new theories? Oh no, that road could lead to hell.

That's why I say it must be assumed as an axiom.

By it, do you mean you must assume you only have free will, or that in addition to yourself, you must assume that some other living beings have free will as well?

If you say you must assume that some other living beings have free will, I must ask why? If there is no objectively verifiable evidence, what is the logical imperative that you must assume some other living beings have free will? I see no logical reason why you must assume the persons you converse with have free will.

I'm a rational man, and I want some evidence or some solid logical argument before I will believe that something exists.

227 posted on 2/21/02 4:22 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry

If you say you must assume that some other living beings have free will, I must ask why? If there is no objectively verifiable evidence, what is the logical imperative that you must assume some other living beings have free will? I see no logical reason why you must assume the persons you converse with have free will.

That's interesting. I could, perhaps, assume that I am unique in possessing free will. But if everyone else were just the product of determinism, would I be able to detect this? I observe that other people generate what I judge to be creative work. That's a clue that they're not going through life like termintes through a log. And in conversation, people are rather quick to respond to what I say, and I'm assuming that my comments aren't predetermined. I could be talking with very clever Turing machines, I suppose. But if that's true, they're very good Turing machines. Anyway, I find others to be unpredictable enough that their possession of free will seems a sensible conclusion. But I guess I'll never really know if I'm all alone, will I? Not unless we can develop telepathy. What's your opinion on this topic? I'm sure you have one.

But life arose, burned the book, and pulled up the ladder behind it.

Burned the book. I do not accept that. An ocean of organic molecules will leave a trace.

First until the eater molecules are formed there will be organic materials reacting with , crystallizing on and etching the seascape with evidence of its presence. Second, these artifacts will be treated in exactly the same way as all other fossils are. Soft tissued jellyfish leave traces, they are food. Using Occam's razor your assumption that something unique prevents this evidence from reaching us is an additional factor lopped off with the razor. Thus evidence exists if the pre-biotic soup existed. I don't normally use Occam's razor to prove anything(because it doesn't), but you guys do all the time so what the hay.

Anyway, I find others to be unpredictable enough that their possession of free will seems a sensible conclusion.

Your inability to predict the action of others is no evidence of free will. Is every event you observe but cannot predict the result of free will?

But I guess I'll never really know if I'm all alone, will I?

Using observation and logic only, no.

Not unless we can develop telepathy.

Telepathy does not help; you would have no objective way of knowing if the "other" thoughts originated from within or without your mind.

What's your opinion on this topic? I'm sure you have one.

Two.

1) Objectivism results is solipsism.

2) Man is created in the image of God.

I don't deny that you or I have free will. That is part of being created in the image of God. What I believe I have demonstrated is that free will, like spirit, is a non-entity in objectivist thought.

In objectivism, free will is an axiom, and the reasons for this have already been given in post #313:

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.

The axiom works because: (a) it's necessary; and (b) it's bullet-proof. I think that your reason for accepting free will has problems. I have no idea how you get from: (1) "being created in the image of God" to: (2) "I don't deny that you or I have free will." It is very possible that God can create beings with no free will; and I don't see how it can be otherwise for a God who knows the future. I know there are cliche' responses to this problem, but it certainly seems to me that a future-knowing god (if that's what god is) is contradicted by our possession of free will. This uninverse ain't big enough for both.

Can you refute that objectivism results in solipsism?

solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.

Certainly. Objectivism has an axiom which deals with this: Existence exists. We perceive the world which is external to ourselves through our senses, which are also axiomatically presumed to provide data about the external world. Given such axioms -- which again are absolutely necessary to proceed as rational beings -- we are then equipped to get through the day (and through conversations such as this) without each of us imagining that we are the only functioning entity in the universe, and unable to know anything but ourselves (plus of course, what some swammi then preaches to us).

"Now, as for the two whale-critters in there,"

My point is that there are no two whale critters in there. You have two four legged animals in there which bear no similarity to modern whales. Now, if you wish to show a transition from these to whales, you need quite a lot more such as intervening species which show signs of aquatic locomation, adaptation to water, etc. The bones in the article do not show that at all. So the article that lexcorp linked to and I showed the "evidence" of in post#87 is not proof of anything at all.

"Now, as for the two whale-critters in there,"

Read the whole post (#68) for heaven's sake! I even underlined it for you! He invented the cathode.

You have a totally unscientific turn of mind and have absolutely no idea how hard it was to accomplish most of the inventions we take for granted. Even after a theory is known and understood it takes years to make a working application of most things. For example, Intel's new Itanium chip, in a well researched industry, with lots of theories known already, lots of similar applications from which to learn the do's and dont's, lots of sophisticated tools to help in the development, nevertheless took seven years and uncounted man-hours to design and develop. Your adherence to the pseudo-science of evolution, where solutions miraculously appear at random must be the reason why you insist on the silly notion that applications are created without any scientific knowledge behind them.

First until the eater molecules are formed there will be organic materials reacting with , crystallizing on and etching the seascape with evidence of its presence.

The first life arose no later than 3.8 billion years ago prior to that we could assume the prebiotic soup. Very few rocks from this period still exist, which makes hunting for fossils, let alone traces of pre-biotic soup problematic at best. IIRC, there are only two or three places on Earth where rocks from this period still exist and the only one that comes to mind at this moment is in Australia.

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.