Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[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.

[VadeRetro]

Your quote is a complete misrepresentation of Gould's position.

It's a long quote which makes totally clear Gould's actual position. I defy you to falsify it by going back to the linked article and showing where he actually intended to say something else.

By comparision, when creationists quote Darwin questioning how an eye could form, they never mention that it's a rhetorical question which he immediately answers.

[Junior]

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.

I never said that, you liar and twister of words. The serpent in the Garden of Eden could take tips from you. I said the hypothesis that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis could not interbreed has a lot of evidence in support of it. However, I never said that there were no human ancestors. As a matter of fact, it's pretty much been established (not proved, but the preponderance of evidence points to it) that Homo Erectus was the forerunner of both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Remember, God said, "Thou shall not bear false witness" (which means lying). Of course, you probably think lying for God makes you a saint, don't you?

[cracker]

7. we would rather talk about space aliens.

Now now - you leave medved's ideas out of this!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As I stated, the cathode ray tube would have been impossible without Faraday's discoveries, nothing false about that statement.

I'll keep this as simple as I can. A CRT is an evacuated gas discharge tube. How did Faraday's theories in the 19th century result in the invention of the gas discharge tube in the 17th century?

(Is that your TARDIS buzzing in the background?)

[VadeRetro]

Let's see the proof. Your table proves nothing. No one denies that Neanderthal is the closest species to homo sapiens.

There are no gaps of overlap in that table.

There is also absolutely no trace of "archaic homo sapiens".

Is a skull a trace?

Discovered at Arago in southern France in 1971 by Henry de Lumley. Estimated age is 400,000 years. The fossil consists of a fairly complete face, with 5 molar teeth and part of the braincase. The brain size was about 1150 cc. The skull contains a mixture of features from archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus, to which it is sometimes assigned.

Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia) (Woodward 1921). This was a complete cranium that was very robust, with large brow ridges and a receding forehead. Estimated age is between 200,000 and 125,000 years. The brain size was about 1280 cc.

Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day 1986)

(Emphasis mine.) Some Neanderthal characteristics in a skull from Greece 250,000 years ago? But aren't they all supposed to be separate and distinct kinds, gore? But a biblical kind is a slippery concept. Maybe you're the same biblical kind as a howler monkey.

Discovered in the Sima de los Huesos ("Pit of Bones") at the Atapuerca cave site in northern Spain in 1992 and 1993 by Juan-Luis Arsuaga. It is about 300,000 years old, with a brain size of 1125 cc. The face is broad with a huge nasal opening, and resembles Neandertals in some traits but not in others. This is the most complete pre-modern skull in the entire hominid fossil record. (Arsuaga et al. 1993; Johanson and Edgar 1996)

"Neanderthal in some traits but not in others." There they go again. Since you don't believe Neanderthals evolved from any older stock or mated with modern H. sapiens, there is no explanation for a mixed creature except yet another Goddidit bin to lump the mixed-feature fossils.

Yet you screech and jabber that you're the only one with the science.

[VadeRetro]

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

gore300: 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.

Excuse me, but you had the gall to say there was "no trace" of Neanderthal in humans. Is 99 percent a trace?

But then, you said there was "no trace" of archaic homo sapiens.

What is it with you guys? (You can run, but you can't hide.)

[cracker]

Your statements are fuzzy - you are hiding behind a maze of continually shifting definitions. First the theory came before CRTs. But CRTs came first. No - Faraday came first with cathodes. How are cathodes the same as CRTs? and what of gas discharge tubes? Oh... those are mere toys.

Sands do not shift as much...

Are you aware that it was only recently that applied science has become the norm in engineering? That for the majority of recorded history, invention has preceeded BEFORE theory, and that theory played catch-up? It was thus with gas discharge tubes. Cannon and catapults were developed before the science of ballistics. Greek fire was used long before anyone could explain why it worked. DaVinci designed helicopters and airships a hundred years before Newton's gravity, and Watt and Newcomb built steam engines 40 years before Carnot's theory of engine efficiency. Your argument for the way science and invention progressed through history is simply wrong.

[Junior]

Since all other similar known species were dead when homo sapiens first arose, and since the dead have no descendants man did not descend from apes, from Neanderthals, from so called hominids, or from any other creature as atheist evolutionists would like the world to believe.

Ahem, Mr. "I've got to lie for God," But there were three (count them, three) extant species of humanity sharing the planet up to 50,000 years ago. Of course, you have the extant Homo Sapiens and the extinct Homo Neanderthalensis. But there was also a remnant population of Homo Erectus -- the ancestor of both of the latter species. Now, if you'd actually read anything on the subject that was less than, oh, say 50 years old, you might have known this but instead you go on spreading falsehoods and misinformation all in the name of God. Fella, if I were you, I'd reconsider your tactics.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolutionist should be honest about the border between fact and theory

We always are. It's the creationists who love to distort terminology (and everything else) for their own mystical ends.

[AndrewC]

But there were three (count them, three) extant species of humanity sharing the planet up to 50,000 years ago.

This source says H. erectus range ended 400,000 years ago.

Homo erectus: The first large-brained humans

Homo erectus lived from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago

But, you also might use them as a citation to show they've lasted later than John Belushi

The nearly complete skull shown above left was found in Africa; the skull at right is a composite reconstructed from the remains of several indviduals from China. The nearly full skeleton at the top left belonged to a teen-age boy, 12 or 13, who lived 1.65 years ago near what is now Lake Turkana in east Africa.

[Junior]

I am currently hunting for the article, but about five years ago, paleontologists reported they found evidence for Homo Erectus surviving in East Asia until as late as 50,000 years ago.

[Junior]

Here's one mention of it from the Human Ancestors Hall site:

The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens).

While this is not "proof" as G3K would like, there is strong evidence that a remnant population of H. Erectus lived long enough to rub elbows with their descendents.

[AndrewC]

While this is not "proof" as G3K would like, there is strong evidence that a remnant population of H. Erectus lived long enough to rub elbows with their descendents.

Thanks, I'll read it later, I've got to run.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I thank you for your straightforward and forceful support.

I think VadeRetro has a picture of my skull up there. At least it looks like mine feels.

[longshadow]

Your [G3K] statements are fuzzy - you are hiding behind a maze of continually shifting definitions.

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

Well done.

[js1138]

DaVinci designed helicopters and airships a hundred years before Newton's gravity

Not to nitpick, but Bernoulli is more to the point than Newton.

[Junior]

This article appears on this site dated 12/14/96, but I haven't been able to track down the original, so take it or leave it as you will:

Ancient Homo Erectus may have lived in Java with the Homo Sapiens, a new study suggests.

By Paul Recer

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Beetle browed, humanlike creatures may have been neighbors with anatomically modern humans in Java as recently as 27,000 years ago, researchers say. Their study suggests the primitive species lived on the Pacific island almost a million years after it died out in Africa.

Using new techniques to age date fossils found on Java, a team of anthropologists concluded that a primitive species known as Homo Erectus lived in Java from 27,000 to 53,000 years ago.

Carl C. Swisher III of the Berkeley Geochronology Center said this new date indicates that Homo Erectus lived in Java at the same time that Homo Sapiens, the modern human, was also there.

"These are the youngest dates ever found for Homo Erectus and it Is quite startling," said Susan Anton, a University of Florida anthropologist and co-author of the study. "This is the first time that they have been shown to coexist. Even in Africa, they didn't overlap."

A report on the study will be published today in the journal "Science".

Most experts believe Homo Erectus arose in Africa about 1.8 million years ago and then spread throughout Asia. Anton said it is widely believed that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, perhaps from Homo Erectus, about 200,000 years ago and then spread into the rest of the world.

Java "was sort of a refuge"

Homo Erectus disappeared from Africa and Asia, but Java "was sort of a refuge" for the species, said Swisher.

Java was once connected with Asia by a land bridge, he said, but when the sea level rose, it became an island, trapping and isolating the primitive humans.

Swisher said the Erectus have never been shown to have developed water transportation. But the more advanced Sapien built boats and probably arrived in Java about 40,000 years ago.

This means that Sapien and Erectus hominids shared that island for hundreds of generations, said Anton, and suggests that the arrival of modern humans led to the demise of the primitive forms.

"I find it hard to imagine that there wasn't some effect from a new hominid moving in," she said. There's no strong evidence that warfare wiped out the Homo Erectus, said Anton. It is more likely, she said, that Homo Sapiens simply out-competed their primitive relatives, producing more children and learning to live more successfully.

Philip Rightmire of the State University of New York, Binghamton, said the fossils used in the study by Swisher and Anton "are pretty convincing." But, she said, there may be some "technical issues to sort out" about the age dating.

"The results are intriguing," said Rightmire, an anthropology professor. "We need to think about what this means."

But Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan said he doubts that the fossils are actually Homo Erectus, noting that they are very similar to Australian natives, and believes the dates are "unreliable."

Finding threatens theory

Swisher said the find threatens the "regional continuity" theory, supported by Wolpoff, that holds that primitive humans arose in Africa, migrated elsewhere and that modern humans arose from these separate groups. A key part of the theory is that the Java people were the ancestors of modern Australians.

Wolpoff said the Swisher study has not disproven the Java-Australia connection.

Swisher says the coexistence in Java of both Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens supports the "out of Africa" theory that all human species arose at different times in Africa and migrated in waves separated by hundreds of thousands of years.

The Java Homo Erectus fossils mostly skull fragments, were found on a terraced bank of the Solo River in Java.

Officials in Java will not permit chips of the fossils to be used for age-dating so the researchers instead dated water buffalo teeth dug from the same site.

The buffalo teeth were age-dated using two techniques, uranium

The Java Homo Erectus fossils, mostly skull fragments, were found on a terraced bank of the Solo River in Java.

Officials in Java will not permit chips of the fossils to be used for age-dating so the researchers instead dated water buffalo teeth dug from the same site.

The buffalo teeth were age-dated using two techniques, uranium decay and electron spin resonance, which measures electric charges added to tooth enamel by natural radioactivity over time. The work was performed at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

Wolpoff said the buffalo teeth may have come from a different deposit and age than the human fossils, making the dates unreliable.

Homo Erectus was similar to modern humans, but had a flat skull, a sloping forehead and a dental bridge that thrust forward. The brow ridge was very large, as if casting a shadow over the eyes. Swisher said the Erectus bones were dense and strong, and some of the individuals were five and half feet tall.

"They were stocky and very powerfully built individuals," said Swisher.

But the key difference between Erectus and Sapien was in the brain. The Sapien brain was about 25 percent larger and this may have been the difference between the survival of one species and the demise of the other.

[Junior]

While looking for the original AP article by Paul Recer (who happens to be the the AP science correspondent), I came across the following site:

Evolution 1:8

This guy makes medved's rantings sound tame...

[Virginia-American]

The genetic makeup of humans and monkeys differs (according to evolutionists) by some 3%.

How much does it differ for everyone else?