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.
Well, I found the reference (Evolution of Oxygen and Ozone in Earth's Atmosphere), but.....
Two important loss processes for oxygen do operate: oxidation of reduced volcanic gases, primarily H2 and CO; and oxidation of crustal materials at Earth's surface, which may be written schematically as
The crustal loss rate is difficult to evaluate. It turns out not to be necessary to do so, however, since the H2 and CO outgassing from volcanoes appears [152] to be more than sufficient to overwhelm the production of O2 from H2O photolysis followed by hydrogen escape. |
As to the release of oxygen from other sources, this seems to be precluded by the nature of the discussion, "oxygen atmosphere is indicative of life", which is where I started. If the discussion proceeds as to non-biologic sources of oxygen then along with the photolysis of water we should add the production of oxygen by lightning. From the same source...
The lower limit on oxygen is a result of the production of O2 in lightning discharges, which can be estimated by assuming thermodynamic equilibrium at high temperatures.
Note that the mechanism and reactants are not mentioned.
There are many ways to interpret what I said, apparently. Your inference is not what I meant. I am reflecting the fact that Christ died for each person individually as well as for all. Politically, I believe in the rights of the individual. Would I kill 1000 to save one? Of course not. My God allowed one to die to save billions. I was not trying to say that six billion lives were worth one life, but rather, that one life is as valuable as six billion. That is, 3000 deaths from one catastrophy are actually 3000 tradgedy's, each one equal to any other. I don't see them as one event. I see them as 3000 seperate events, with individual groups of survivors.
However, if my wife was killed in a plane crash along with 300 others, I would only feel the one death. The others would not matter any more than someone in a different state dying in a car accident. So the death of 300, to each survivor, was the death of only the person they knew. Which, if every person on the plane left one survivor, then, for those actually directly affected by the crash, the death of 300 was really only the death of one. The other 299 fatalities would not be rolled into their individual tradgedy any more than the loss of people killed in car accidents that day would impact their lives.
You should also be aware that a professing Christian considers death a good thing. It is a changing of circumstances more profound and more positive than physical birth itself! It is hard on the survivors, though.
NO, he didn't.
See: Answers in Genesis, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
It's the second one listed...
Technically, you are correct. But I can quantify that degree and say, with confidence, that it crosses the line between reasonable faith (do I trust my brakes enough to drive 70 mph on the freeway) and stupid faith (If I leave bill Clinton alone with my beautiful 23 year old daughter, can I trust him to not hit on her).
Believing in santa, the easter bunny, the gold tablets of maroni, et. al, requires BLIND faith. That is, there is no physical evidence whatsoever. When it comes to the religions regarding the origin of species (evolution and creationism), there is some degree of physical evidence for both. Neither requires blind faith, but both, like virtually all beliefs held by men, require a measure of faith.
Based on my research, and it is extensive on both sides (although I am sure it is inevitable that there are some here who retain more raw data in some areas of this subjet than I), it takes more dependence on faith, regarding the origin of life, to believe the mainline evolution theories than the mainline creation theories.
BTW, I keep highlighting the word "origin" because I have no doubt that evolution takes place - but I see it more as "rust." The machine, having been built and set into motion, is slowly wearing out.
With all due respect, I heartily disagree. Read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." He covers this concept quite nicely.
I don't believe that is so. If you have an original source for that please post the reference to it. Darwin did "clarify" a bit...
Chapter XV: Recapitulation and Conclusion
It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection. But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position- namely, at the close of the Introduction- the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.
Why use evidence so far removed from the source? A says B says C wrote that D did this. Go straight to C wrote that D did this.
Did Darwin repent? Did he become a believer in God, or a Christian? The answer to both questions is a resounding no. Creationists and Christians do themselves no favor by circulating, even if inadvertently through good intentions, stories such as these that ultimately are without foundation. When the truth finally does come out (and eventually it will!), it reflects poorly on those who propagate such falsehoods.
I'm not sure the conclusions expressed in the first sentence can be reached, but the link provides enough to "reasonably" exclude a deathbed conversion(or reaffirmation).
The whole thing is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution is good science. If, however, what creationists call "Darwinism" were really some kind of cult, and if the cult leader renounced his doctrines, then it would all crumble. But Darwin's recanting -- even if he did such a thing -- would be no more significant than if Isaac Newton announced on his deathbed that: "Gravity is bunk!" All that such a statement would prove would be that poor ol' Newton was bonkers at the end. But gravity would still be here to stay. Ditto with evolution. [I know you understand this. Please don't respond by saying: "But Newton didn't die in bed."]
Absolutely. You mentioned that which I forgot. And Newton's are digested, preferably with lactose-free milk, not buried.
Only sissies go for Newtons. I'm an Oreo man.
Lexcorp, I respect your right to have an opinion, but I need to "out" your statement as opinion only. I have yet to witness a single raw fact that can only be explained logically, by your statment. It is a valid opinion, don't get me wrong. But there are equally valid explanations for the supposed evidences that support your statement.
If only God had put "accept" and "I do not accept" buttons on DNA strands, he could have saved us all this debate, but that would take away everyones fun. Besides, it causees us to search. And ultimately, we may not find what we're looking for, but we are sure finding a lot of other cool stuff.
Heavy metal poisoning from his (al)chemical experiments. Traces from his hair samples do indicate such. Yes, he was in bad mental shape at times.
In 1693 Newton suffered another nervous breakdown. He began to send angry letters to his personal friends, including the writer Samuel Pepys and the philosopher John Locke, accusing them of things that were completely imaginary. In the case of Locke, Newton charged him with trying to entangle him with women. Both friends became alarmed and feared Newton was going insane, but shortly after he seemed to recover again.From This Web Bio.. . .
Years after Newton's death it was proposed that much of his erratic behavior might have been caused by mercury poisoning. He used a great deal of mercury in his experiments in alchemy and at the time, no one recognized the dangers. Recent studies of a hair sample from Newton showed he had forty times the level of Mercury considered normal.
It's the work, not the man.
What, you reject a delicious fruit-filled cookie for some confectionary crap sandwiched between two crumbly wafers?
This could deserve a thread of its own....
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.