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.
Before I say anything else, your link goes to a personal page which the author did not even bother to assign his name to. It also does not have any examples of bones showing any proof for what he mentions in the text.
Aside from that, we have a very real problem with this article and I am surprised you did not notice it. Look at the bolded words, look at the bottom picture in post#87. The statement is false. We indeed have a lot of bones from Pakicetus besides the cranium. Those bones show a four legged animal.
So there we go Junior, another article "proving" whales came from land animals that does not show any such thing.
Let me just say one more thing about this matter. DNA analysis has shown that whales are in no way related to hippos and have not shown them to be related to any known land animal. So much for evolutionist fantasies.
We are finally getting somewhere!
Since evolution claims to be science where is the proof of the theory of evolution? I have been asking for over 200 posts and have yet to see it. Care to give it to us?
Note, first you have to state the theory and then give proof for the theory.
It is evolution that is pseudoscience. Conservatives are trying to banish this pseudoscience from the classroom. It is interesting that evolutionists, though they claim to be scientists, completely refuse to allow any criticism of their theory. Science is based on criticism. Science depends on open minds in order to advance. Evolutionists try to forbid both criticism and open minds.
The above shows the problems with evolution "science" quite well. The shape of the ear and the mammary glands have nothing to do with each other. Evolutionists say in one sentence that species evolve gradually and acquire new featires, abilities, etc. in steps. Yet here, they are saying that two totally unrelated features evolved simultaneously. Do you not see the illogic of your position?
Further, your statement is a tautology. It leaves no room for new findings at all. It gives no room for learning anything about the development of mammals. It just "freezes" and extrapolates backwards from the point we already know. This is not science. This is fantasy. Science relies on facts, not assumptions. Proof consists of facts, not tautological extrapolations which add nothing to our knowledge.
Then you should have referred to your "research" instead of to the phony drawings which you - with such a fantastic memory for old threads - should have known had been discredited.
You want to start the whole thing again here, you are welcome to. Post the stuff here and I will refute it again.
There are traces of biomolecules. Antarctic lakebeds, rock formations, extraterrestrial traces (what's their origin?). Preservation is a genuine problem on earth. Evidence of early microorganisms consist of only traces and polymers don't survive degradation. The food issue is not important. Erosion is. Erosion is not unique to prebiotic biomolecules. It's a problem for all old biomolecules, whether they are traces from microorganisms or, later, traces from multicellular organisms.
The prebiotic soup is not the only theory about how life arose. What's your theory?
A tautology does not prove common descent. A tautology proves nothing at all. When one says that all mammals have a certain kind of ear and therefore anyone with a certain kind of ear is a mammal, one has said nothing at all. Mammary glands and ear shape have no necessary connection. As I say in a post above, using your illogic, you could never find an exception to your rule. Therefore your rule cannot be proof of anything at all, it is just evolutionist sophistry designed to prove what it wants to prove.
I have debated evolution with many, many people and I have lurked where I haven't participated, and the majority of the "rank and file" believers in evolution fit the bill.
So, for those in Rio Linda and West Palm Beach I will repeat it and the "you" in this sentence can apply to PatrickHenry: "He is trying to see if it passes the smell test as a religion. For many - maybe not you, but many - it does."
We could for example teach the true science of genetics. We could teach the parts of the body, we could dissect frogs, we could teach about DNA, genes, blood, bones, reproduction and many other things which science, true science, has taught us - none of which either require or are enhanced by the theory of evolution..
Please see my post 608 to PatrickHenry. And I will add that the latter of the two statements above applies to most of the evolutionists with whom I have debated. They will all - every single one of them - deny it, but their attitude and arguments ultimately come down to faith and a desperate desire for converts from the creationist community.
My statement, and Freds article, still stand.
Actually, the facts are even worse than that for your side!:
At the molecular level not much changed at all: the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical.
National Geographic, January 2002, page 4.
So much for the macro-evolution of dogs. Another evolutionist lie laid to rest.
gore3000: The above shows the problems with evolution "science" quite well. The shape of the ear and the mammary glands have nothing to do with each other. Evolutionists say in one sentence that species evolve gradually and acquire new featires, abilities, etc. in steps. Yet here, they are saying that two totally unrelated features evolved simultaneously. Do you not see the illogic of your position?
Many totally unrelated features can be evolving at the same time. The fossil record is quite good for the therapsid-to-mammal transition and we can see the gradual change in the reptilian multi-bone lower jaw to the configuration found in later therapsids and early mammals: a single-boned mandible plus three ear bones. That figure you seek to discredit (but have not laid a glove on) shows it very well. The fossil record does not show where the mammary glands and other reproductive changes come in, but we have a hint of that in the monotremes (literally "one-holers"), which are mammals but still have the reptilian cloaca and lay eggs.
In short, you don't understand evolution. Everything you think you know about it is from creationist screeds and it's wrong.
Further, your statement is a tautology.
No, it isn't. Hammer/anvil/stirrup ear bones are diagnostic of mammals, not defining.
It leaves no room for new findings at all.
We're still free to find anything we want. The diagnostics get revisited from time to time. For instance, the presence of feathers on a fossil no longer automatically means "bird." Now we know that it might mean "dinosaur."
Here's another point about how evolution has real information content, whereas creationism is simply a bullet-proof delusional system. We think we know when and in what lineage those hammer-anvil-stirrup bones evolved. Finding a modern lizard or an ancient salamander with those ear bones would be a SUPER anomaly, a sign that something is very wrong with what we think we know. Creationism shrugs. HE made that one that way. He can do anything.
It gives no room for learning anything about the development of mammals. It just "freezes" and extrapolates backwards from the point we already know. This is not science. This is fantasy. Science relies on facts, not assumptions. Proof consists of facts, not tautological extrapolations which add nothing to our knowledge.
An interesting mumble, but I like f.Christian's blank verse better.
What experiments does your religion do? What data does it seek? Does it converge to an ever-better understanding of the world or does it just keep saying "Goddidit" over and over.
I really think science and religion are two different activities. I don't tell your preacher what to tell your kids. You shouldn't tell science teachers what to tell their classes.
Compare that to a 3% difference between humans and chimps.
Well, after Andrew C did some research on your post, he found, and you admitted that the picture shown is a replica:
It's a replica of an original somewhere.
373 posted on 2/22/02 12:52 PM Pacific by VadeRetro
So again you are offering as proof something which is a construction, not the real thing.
As to the bones of Pakicetus and Ichtyolestes - you will note that not only do they have legs, but also we do not have the breast bones which are quite different in whales as opposed to land animals. Therefore there is quite a large jump between what we know about these land animals and whales. Also note that no pictures of the bones of whales (which are plentiful and easily available) were given for comparison in the article. Therefore my statement that the article posted as proof of macro-evolution by lexcorp is no proof at all.
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.
Back in post#84 I asserted:
NOT ONE, NOT ONE EVOLUTIONIST WILL POST PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION - BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY PROOF OF EVOLUTION IN THE 150 YEARS SINCE THE CHARLATAN CHARLES DARWIN WROTE HIS HEATHEN BOOK.
I have yet to see any evolutionist give such proof. Will you take up the challenge?
Keep reading. You'll eventually see where it's a replica of a single fossil in another museum. I also note that you took AndrewC's correction exactly as he meant you to take it. "All yer missin' links are Piltdowny Nibrasky-Man Eeeee-vol-oo-shunist Fakes!"
Therefore there is quite a large jump between what we know about these land animals and whales.
See also, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, etc. The whale series has added quite a few steps since we started excavating the Tethys Sea sediments in the late 80s. That's what punctuated equilibrium says. The changes happen not only in a time but in a place. You have to find the place.
Once we found the place, things started happening in cetacean paleontology. They're still happening.
Not correct at all. Yes, certain fossils do indicate a high degree of likelihood of oil beneath. However, this is more in the realm of archaelogy, not evolution. It is just more evolution taking credit for something it has nothing to take credit for.
Your statements of this form are particularly meaningless. I marvel that you still want to go there.
Two points: First, Holy cow man, you're up early on a Sunday (for an evolutionist). Second, your statement misses the point of my posts and Freds. At no point did either of us say that religion is science.
BTW, some of us are just as tired of hearing people say "evolutiondidit" over and over. Evolution, to me, is like rust. It is what is happening to the old Nash rusting away in the field. But rust did not build the Nash.
If only God had stamped serial numbers on us. But that would have taken away all the fun. People need challenges, that's why the rubic cube was so popular.
I love science. The more we learn, the more we discover just how complicated the "it" is in the statement "Goddidit." The more we know, the bigger He is...
Ultimately, of course, science is irrelevant. We are just the little boy taking apart the alarm clock to see how it works. Once we think we can figure out the meaning of life if we figure out how the alarm clock works, well, now that's religion.
Remember, science asks "what." - - Religion asks "why."
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.