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.
I haven't contacted the good doctor, but these nice professors from the University of Witwatersrand and the University of Botswana have. Evidently, Mr. Hovind would prefer not to risk his nest egg.
Maybe they could try Ben Stein?
From the article, regarding Mr. Hovind's response: "The rest of the response was a list of quotations (at least two of them, including Stephen Jay Gould, entirely out of context) about evolution being nonsense." Looks like "Dr." Hovind has been cribbing from medved?
Yes, that might be, but teeth are a distinguishing characteristic used to identify membership in a group.
I'll keep reading.
A camel doesn't look much like an elk, either, but there you are.
Of course, Pensacola is also home to a campus of Liberty Bible College ...
Given that a "kind" is about as unscientific a taxon as you can get, I wouldn't pursue this much further either.
For evolutionists, there is no possible rational response to the overwhelming case these collections of quotes make other than say to themselves "Gee, how did I ever believe in anything like that?" and cease being evolutionists. Obviously nobody should hold their breath waiting for that to happen, and one may therefore anticipate that their response will be irrational. They won't disappoint you; the basic response of the evolutionists on the net to anybody attempting to quote any of these lists of quotes on discussion groups has always been that each and every one of the scientists being quoted is being quoted out of context, that the gist of what they were trying to say has been inverted in each and every case, and that the person posting such a thing is therefore a liar. That's precisely what this dolt using the penname "Cracker" is claiming.
In real life, the full context of each of these quotes is basically irrelevant despite the rest of the page in most cases giving reasons why the author remains an evolutionist.
It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..."
"Cracker" would insist that the data be interpreted as meaning that the general had no problems; in real life the general would be insane to assume anything other than that he had a major problem on his hands.
Then, of course, there's always the ultimate evolutionist quote, taken from an interview with the famous evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Come on; Make my day, "Cracker": tell me how Dahmer really believed in evolution, and how I'm a liar for quoting him out of context!"
I don't have to. Dahmer is not an evolutionary biologist, has not studied the discipline, and to my knowledge has not kept up on the last few years of research.
Strangely enough, that's the newest quote you've yet offered. I guess that's a step forward, in some bizarre and twisted sense...
In actual fact, guys like Dahmer, Hitler, and Stalin were real evolutionists in that they actually lived their lives in accordance with evolutionist logic and precepts and according to the evolutionist notion that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral law in nature. The people you'd call evolutionists, in contrast, are basically just a bunch of yuppie nerds using evoluitionism as a kind of an ideological fashion statement.
So let me get this straight. Do you trust the words of a man convicted of killing and eating several different people? And you believe those words to be absolute truth? Does this mean you advocate the skinning and eating of people then?
I guess, by that note, the actions and words of that Yates fella where he used his religion to drive his wife nuts means that people shouldn't worship the Bible, eh? Or the writings of the Christians of the US in the 1860's, using the bible as justification to keep slavery intact.
What about the writings of the Bible itself, where it says that it is ok to kill the household of those you are at war with and rape their women? I think there are several dozen quotes I could easily take from the bible and use them as justification for all sorts of unsavory acts. I guess that means we should ban all Christianity as well, eh?
Give me a break, quote mining is the last ditch act of a person who can't come up with any better arguments. That's a good sign of how much trouble your intellectually bankrupt arguments are in.
Yes, you're really on to something. As we all know, Charles Darwin himself, in his later years, ran amok through the streets of London and was known as "Jack the Ripper." That ol' eeevilooshin will do it every time.
Don't count on it; his subroutine is probably just down for maintenance.
It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..."
I like the analogy and agree with it. To me, a problem creationists have is not explaining the context of quotes and giving the impression the quotee does not support evolution or has serious problems with it. I see creationists using the quote to show there is a problem with a certain area of evolution. But evolutionists see it as an attack on the entire theory. In summary, creationists need to better document the quote and evolutionists need thicker skin.
Between the dishonesty and the extreme selectivity, you have what amounts to a lie. The overall picture is that evolutionists think that evolution is the answer to the diversity of life and that they have evidence for it. Creationist quote salads are an exercise in making photo-micrographs of specks on a whitewashed wall and then claiming that the wall is black.
If you are going to rely on Dahmer, Hitler, and Stalin for a definition and explanation of evolution, you are seriously in need of help. Their misbegotten beliefs are no more representative of evolution than Torquemada and Jim Jones are representative of Christianity.
Whatsamatter, "Cracker"? Cat got your tongue??
No, lunch did.
...Assorted personal attacks and mindless analogies omitted...
A quote is not an argument. An argument consists of a proposition (or claim), followed by evidence (a warrant). Your quotes are frequently bereft of both.
The only thing the quotes attempt is an Arugment From Authority. But the argument from authority is at best only persuasive, and even then requires that the authority be an expert on the subject at hand, that their opinions be reflective of the current state of knowledge on the subject, and that the quoted material be a fair statement of their opinions. Again, your quotes have few if any of these attributes.
Your quotes are all more than 14 years old. They are unsourced or unqualified in may cases, and are from individuals whose expertise lies outside the fields they are commenting on. And, in the few cases where you cite recognized luminaries in the fields, as in Darwin and Gould, you do so OUT OF CONTEXT. Did you not read the lengthy discussion by Gould, posted by Vade at #1146, wherein Gould directly contradicts your assertions and clarifies the quote you use? Or perhaps #1198, where Gould is again explained?
When the author of your quote states that he is being quoted out of context, and explains himself, I think you have a far larger burden to meet if you are going to continue to cite him for support of your crazy Saturnian theories.
Thus far, you have not responded to Gould's defense, you have not produced any recent quotes, you have not produced anything current from ANY major peer-reviewed scientific journal in support of your obscure lunacy, and then you suggest that I am not willing to defend myself? My good man, your chutzpah is amazing. Delusional, even.
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.