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.

It's an open question whether Neanderthals and modern humans ever mated. There's evidence both ways right now. "

Let's see the proof. Your table proves nothing. No one denies that Neanderthal is the closest species to homo sapiens. There is also absolutely no trace of "archaic homo sapiens". If there were it would have a name and the evolutionists would be shouting its existence from the rooftops. Show the evidence, right here - unless you are ashamed to show everyone what nonsense you base your claims on.

If we're only one percent different, we're 99 percent the same as Neanderthals.

Showing again your ignorance. Neanderthal and homo sapiens were still too far apart to ever have had progeny. The 1% difference is a tremendous amount when considering that the time for such a difference to arise is a mere 50,000 or so years. There are numerous places where Neanderthals and homo sapiens lived nearby, yet the two species never mixed. This would not be the case if Neanderthal was the ancestor of homo sapiens.

[to Junior]Thanks for the post of links and summaries.

A waste of time for who you posted them to, but I appreciate it.

Thanks for reminding me! Junior posted those links supposedly in reply to my post#84 where I issued the following challenge to evolutionists:

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.

In post 261 I issued the following post to Junior regarding his links:

"Okay Junior, pick the article above which you think most clearly and definitely proves evolution. I will post it here for all to see and proceed to tear apart and show it is not proof at all

He has not taken up the challenge (neither has any evolutionist taken up this or the challenge in post#84). Now one would think that with so many wonderful links right there for the taking, the evolutionists will not take up the challenge because they all know that their links do not prove anything.

Now since I know that none of you will give the proof of macroevolution, in order to save bandwith, instead of writing a lot of excuses, just give the number you like for your excuse from the list below:

1. evolutionists do not need to give any proof - everyone knows evolution is true.
2. the proof has already been given but I cannot tell you on what post it was given because this is a deep secret only to be told to members of our own secret society of evolutionists.
3. the post is in yet another link which is so stupid taht I am ashamed to post it here for all to see.
4. you are an idiot.
5. you are a ##!!@@##!! creationist.
6. you are a ##!!@@##!!##!!@@##!!##!!@@##!! creationist.
7. we would rather talk about space aliens.

Now, let the race start to see how evolutionists can go another 1000 posts ignoring the challenge and making excuses.

Your quote is a complete misrepresentation of Gould's position. Medved's quote of Gould that the fossil record disproves Darwinian evolution is completely true. It also shows exactly Gould's thoughts on the matter. It was because he saw that gradualism was not proven by the fossil record that he developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which he himself calls punk-eek). That he still remains an avowed supporter of evolution is more a sign of his lack of character and pecuniary desires than to his honesty because punk-eek is essentially a theory which can never be proven, can never be disproven. It is an excuse in other words for doing what evolutionists have been doing on this thread for over 1000 posts - saying that evolution is true and not giving any proof of it.

do you concede that bacteria evolves and becomes antibiotic or drug resistant?

I certainly do, but that is not due to mutations. That is because in all species there are slight differences in the genetic makeup that make some more resistant than others. The dead produce no progeny. The ones that could not resist the drugs did not reproduce. It was the ones that were already resistant that reproduced. This can be easily ascertained by a simple example. The black plague destroyed about a 1/3 of the population of Europe within a few years. There was no time for mutations to occur while the plague was going on. The ones that survived were those that had genes which were able to resist the plague, not those who mutated.

"Second, what is your explanation for all the DNA that man has that is identical to DNA in other life forms, "

The explanation is really quite simple. Many houses are made of brick, the bricks may be the same, but the houses are not. Put it another way, all matter is made of some 100+ elements. This does not show though that man descended from water or from the air.

Is that what you mean by "no new information" (if you were the one who said that).

...has been proven through DNA analysis not to have been in any way an ancestor of man and totally unable to reproduce with homo sapiens.

It has not been "proven." It has been hypothesized and for the most part the hypothesis has a goodly chunk of evidence to support it. However, there are dissenting voices and they also have evidence to support their stances (personally, I think their evidence is slightly shaky). Once again, you seem to have this "thing" for proof. Proof is a mathematical term; preponderance of evidence is a scientific method.

Miraculously, I appear.

My original argument was that science couldn't provide "proofs", only evidence. My reasoning being that theories being based on observations, they don't generally describe affects that have not yet been observed. There are some glaring exceptions, but time will tell.

I used television as an example of a physical affect where the CRT was invented 50 years before electrons were discovered when gore3000 declared that the CRT was delevoped according to Faraday's theories on electromagnetic induction and electrolysis, although he didn't seem to know what those were. At which point I referred him to the history of the gas discharge tube and Jean Picard's work in the late 1600's and asked how a theory espoused (love that word) in the 1800's generated a device in the 1600's. At this point he bailed and lost track of my 000's.

I'm thinking maybe gore3000 isn't an algorithm like longshadow thinks, he might be a timelord and can't keep track of when he is. Possibly he's in his last re-generation and his mind is failing him.

"It has not been "proven." It has been hypothesized and for the most part the hypothesis has a goodly chunk of evidence to support it.'

There you go again, with your phony semantic arguments. Look up the word proof in the dictionary, it applies to a lot more than mathematical proofs. People are everyday proven guilty in courts of law without any mathematical proofs at all.

However, I am glad that you at least admit the statement that homo sapiens has no ancestors and hence did not descend from monkeys, Neanderthals, or any other species is correct.

As I stated, the cathode ray tube would have been impossible without Faraday's discoveries, nothing false about that statement. As I also stated, in 1855 it was a totally worthless toy. Not until after the theory behind it, not until many experiments were conducted, and not after much work was done, did it become a practical application and one was able to use it for it what meant for, watching "I love Lucy". That serendipitous discoveries can be made, no one can deny, and I do not. That those discoveries only produce toys until the theory is formulated and understood is the point I made and you have not disproven it.

It is quite interesting that evolutionists, who call themselves scientists, constantly try to attack and demean the methods of science.

Look up the word proof in the dictionary, it applies to a lot more than mathematical proofs.

We are not talking about the dictionary definition of "proof" -- we are talking about the scientific definition, which is something else entirely. In science, "proof" is a mathematical construct and has very little relationship to observation. What must God think of you that you are reduced to bantering semantics, twisting words, willful ignorance, and outright lies to support Biblical creation?

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.