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.

[PatrickHenry]

Please decide. Do you base the belief that others have free will on evidence, or is it an axiom (or, perhaps more accurately, a theorem based on the axiom that you yourself have free will)?

As for my free will, I've explained that it's an axiom, essential for me to do any thinking at all. As for others, I've explained that their conduct provides me with evidence that they too have free will. Thus, such evidence is consistent with my regarding the axiom of free will as being universally applical to all humans. In other words, it's an axiom all the way around, but one which, having been assumed, is seen to be in accord with the available evidence.

Were I to deny that others had free will, and that I alone am in possession of this attribute, I could then act capriciously, even maliciously, secure in the expectation that no one could make any decisions to respond (other than pre-determined decisions, of course). One individual, uniquely endowed with free will in an otherwise determined world, would be the death of morality. Only free will gives the concept of morality any meaning.

Without exploring this in greater depth, which I'm not inclined to do, I think I'm justified in assuming that not only do I have free will, but so does everyone else. If I'm wrong in this, then I'm probably wrong in just about everything else. Could be, but I've been satisfied with the results of my life as it is. So I'm sticking with my assumptions about free will. If you want to believe otherwise, that's up to you. But I don't see where else we can go with this topic.

[scripter]

Recapitulation is not out. Organisms with similar bodyplans go through similar stages during development. And it's because development and bodyplans are controlled by the same genes.

Just got back from shooting my HK 9mm and Ruger 357. Though that's not a hint to start a new discussion. :-)

You say "Recapitulation is not out". That's part of the reason I'm still on the fence with this issue. I've heard many say it is out, and occasionally hear someone say it isn't. Some say vestigial organs are "out" while others don't. Still on the fence!

[Nebullis]

That's part of the reason I'm still on the fence with this issue.

I doubt it. I wonder what's keeping you from reading the literature which will explain evolution properly? Have you read anything recent by Ernst Mayr or Stephen J. Gould?

[scripter]

Among other things, I said "That's part of the reason I'm still on the fence with this issue."

I doubt it.

And that is precisely that attitude that keeps me on the fence. The creationist side has their own issues. But the evolutionist side has this attitude of: well, you just haven't read the right books or you would understand everything and accept evolution as fact. Or you didn't understand what you read.

I wonder what's keeping you from reading the literature which will explain evolution properly?

Yet more of that attitude. I hope you realize the insults to the creationists and this tone and attitude you hand out does nothing for your cause.

Have you read anything recent by Ernst Mayr or Stephen J. Gould?

Yes I have, damnit. Just because I don't accept evolution as fact on blind faith doesn't mean I'm not well read on the subject.

I just went downstairs to my library and wrote down some books I have on the subject. The following is a partial listing of books I own and have read on the issue:

Brief History of Time - Hawkings
Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins
Analysis of Vertebrate Structure - Hildebrand
Science and Earth History - Strahler
Bully for Brontosaurus - Gould
Wonderful Life - Gould
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes - Gould
Time Frames - Eldredge
Evolutionary Biology - Futuyma

There's a lot less from the "other side", but here's what I own and have read:

Evolution: A theory in Crisis - Denton
Darwin's Black Box - Behe
Reason in the Balance - Johnson
Darwin on Trial - Johnson

Don't ever ask me again "what's keeping [me] from reading the literature which will explain evolution properly." I've read more than most, so cut the tude.

[VadeRetro]

Pointers? URLs?

Regarding whale hips:

Skeleton of a baleen whale.

Skeleton of fossil whale Basilosaurus with hip closeup.

From a Slide Show On Whales as Evidence for Evolution for a Debate Between Dr. Ben Waggoner and the Notorious Kent Hovind. (No idea how it went.)

[VadeRetro]

One caution before AndrewC jumps in with his usual correction: Mesonychus is in there. Mesonychus is what the DNA cast doubt upon, to the benefit, not the discrediting, of hippos. Dr. Waggoner was aware of the DNA evidence for hippos, but this slideshow is from before the latest from the fossil record came in.

[scripter]

Thanks. I'm looking at it.

[AndrewC]

One caution before AndrewC jumps in with his usual correction: Mesonychus is in there.

There is no need to do that. You have appropriately posted the information and should be commended for your forthrightness.

[Nebullis]

What I'm getting at is that I doubt that conflicting messages or attitudes account for your creationist beliefs.

Recapitulation is out in the way that Heackel formulated it. But developmental ontogeny is a trajectory through a phenotypic space and the patterns which emerge within that space are broadly reminiscent of ancestral forms. However, the wide variety seen between organisms and their development allows precise comparisons only between closely related species and then only during certain points of development. The conflicting messages come from viewing various aspects of development.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Did he ever get the masses of the oceans versus the atmosphere correct? The last time I looked, he had a 20 mile high atmosphere and a 6 mile deep ocean and not much else. It's an amusing computation to do correctly. (But not beyond an eight grader.)

[scripter]

What I'm getting at is that I doubt that conflicting messages or attitudes account for your creationist beliefs.

What I'm getting at is you're attempt to label me a creationist when you know so little about me. And I have no reason to believe what you say above. In fact, I think you're so surprised somebody can read everything I've read and not accept evolution as fact, that you don't know what to say other than try to minimize my issues with the creation/evolution debate to something so trivial. I'm so sick of that elitist attitude.

[Junior]

We appear to have overwhelmed and run G3K off. Usually he's in fine fettle at this time of the morning.

[Junior]

Did he ever get the masses of the oceans versus the atmosphere correct? The last time I looked, he had a 20 mile high atmosphere and a 6 mile deep ocean and not much else. It's an amusing computation to do correctly. (But not beyond an eight grader.)

I don't know. I'm 36 and I could only get a ballpark estimate after an entire morning of work.

[VadeRetro]

We appear to have overwhelmed and run G3K off. Usually he's in fine fettle at this time of the morning.

New Theory: It's a virus that activates on the FR servers every 3-4 months, then goes dormant.

[VadeRetro]

There is no need to do that. You have appropriately posted the information and should be commended for your forthrightness.

Most kind of you, Sir! I think you once asked if the cetacean-looking head of Mesonychus that caused all the controversy had to be explained by convergent evolution. From the figures in that Scientific American article, I don't get the impression that such an interpretation is necessary. After all, there's a better chance of you looking like your great uncle than like someone selected at random in the population.

The "For-Dummies" naming on this figure is unfortunate. (What ever happened to the old Sci-Am?) "Arlene" is non-hippo artiodactyls. "Megan" represents the mesonychids. "Celia" is the cetaceans and "Heidi" is hippos. There's a still-viable competing version--uncoupling "Heidi" from "Celia" and hooking her up to "Arlene"--but it doesn't change the position of "Megan."

Am I saying that camels descended from savage carnivores? Maybe. I hear they're still rather evil-tempered.

[scripter]

We appear to have overwhelmed and run G3K off. Usually he's in fine fettle at this time of the morning.

I hope not. He needs to respond to VadeRetro and support his statements/claims. As competition in the free market keeps prices fair, I think G3K keeps it interesting.

G3K mentioned something that I've never heard of - What do you guys think about the 250K offer from Dr. Hovind. I would think somebody would take him up on his offer. Or has someone tried only to be shot down with bogus arguments - I couldn't find anything on the net other than references to the offer.

[VadeRetro]

Kent Hovind's Challenge.

Kent Hovind Refuses to Debate.

The Wild, Wild, World of Kent Hovind. Nice details about KH's PhD, with a picture of the issuing institution.

[cracker]

with a picture of the issuing institution.

Great! Best part: the Application for Patriot university. States Mr. Hovind: "Had it not been for Patriot University, I would have had no way to even consider a degree." ...Don't doubt it for a second, Kenny.

[AndrewC]

Am I saying that camels descended from savage carnivores? Maybe. I hear they're still rather evil-tempered.

Kinda like QM, hard to believe. The figure could be used to conclude that Megan and Heidi were contemporaneous

[VadeRetro]

Well, I'm not saying that Megan is the ancestor of Arlene, just that if Celia and Megan have strikingly similar skulls, maybe Great Grandmother was a toothy critter too. Not everyone in my family has my Uncle Ralph's funny-looking chin, but I do.