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.
That may be true, but once software is put out to the public and tested by millions, then it becomes proven. It's the same in scince. One experiment does not prove a theory, nor two or three. What proves it is the applications of the theory, when it is put into practice, when it goes out into the world and it is put to use in millions of different ways and millions of different places.
Evolution, and this abiogenetic nonsense, can never be science because it can never provide such proof.
There are no creationists, there are Christians. Creationism is a mislabel and an insult devised by atheistic evolutionists to insult religious people who disagree with their views. Christianity is not a theory, it is a religion, and if you want to know what it is about, all you have to do is read the Book. It is widely available. I hear it sells much better than the one written by your buddy Chuckie.
Which of you has the courage to admit "I don't know"?
I don't know if it's courage... could be. I think some of us could swallow some pride and admit they don't know. I, for one, don't know. But you weren't asking me. :-)
How dishonest of you! In post#701 I said:
Wrong. Doctors have found uses for both the appendix and the tonsils. Your statement is an example of the know-nothingism of the evolutionists:
"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.
And then you agreed with my statement in the following:
"I didn't know the appendix was actually needed" 705 posted on 2/24/02 8:33 PM Pacific by Virginia-American
But then, like a dog with a bone, evolutionists keep repeating the same lie long after it has been disproven, hoping that people will forget the truth and believe the lie through constant repetition.
Categorically untrue.
As I already pointed out, it is impossible in any practical sense to execute every possible data value through every possible combination of execution paths in anything other than trivially complex software. This means there will ALWAYS be some combination of data paths and data values that have NEVER been executed by the software, even after it is in the "real" world. Thus it is never "proven."
This is exactly analogous to scientific theories, as I explained. That is why scientific theories are NEVER "proven." They are "accepted" based upon their ability to fit the data and to withstand repeated attempts at falsification.
What a brilliant proof! However, there is one little problem with your whole "proof" of macro-evolution in this post. The problem is that regardless of your "proof", scientists, even evolutionists have for more than 30-40 years all agreed that man did not descend from monkeys - whether they be orangutangs, chimps or whatever. Therefore for you to cite this as a proof of macro-evolution is highly deceitful. For the authors of that famous article you keep referring to "the 29 proofs of macro-evolution" to say that this is a proof of macro-evolution is a deliberate lie, because long before they wrote it, they knew that man did not descend from monkeys.
I know of course that you will continue to insist on the above lie and will ask me for proof against it. I tell you now, I do not have to disprove the lie. It has already been proven wrong by many scientists.
Well Vade, again your "proof" has been blown out of the water by me in the post above this one. So I am still looking for the proof of macro-evolution.
Funny that each time that you post something from your "list o'links" it gets blown out of the water with a simple wave of the hand. Just comes to prove again that the evo links are a pile of garbage as I keep saying. Heck 1100 posts and you folk have not been able to find a "proof" of macro-evolution which will stand any scrutiny.
I answered you that question way back in post#270. I said:
Religion does not claim to be science, therefore no scientific proof is required for it. Evolution however, not only claims to be science, but also claims to disprove God's existence through scientific proofs. It therefore needs to give such proofs or be deened to be mere charlatanism.
You of course did not respond to it and now act as if you had "forgotten" it. Seems you evolutionists keep just repeating the same mantras and ignore the responses as if they never had been made. Does not seem like a very honest way of discussing things does it?
Fact of the matter is that we would have no atom bomb without the theory of relativity, we would no tv without Faraday's numerous discoveries. Science builds upon previous discoveries to produce new ones. The know-nothing attitude expressed by you is an insult to the great advances real science has accomplished. The proofs of real science are all around us, from tv's to airplanes to automobiles, to medicine. Each one uses the discoveries, experiments, theories of a hundreds, thousands, and perhaps even millions of scientists who came before. And what is most important each one of these new applications give renewed proof of the scientific theories, the scientific experiments done to test them and the truths of science.
Evolution of course, not being a science, cannot do any of the above.
It may have preceded both homo sapiens and Neanderthal, but it did not exist when homo sapiens arose. A dead species cannot reproduce. Since Erectus was long gone when homo sapiens came around, it could not have been our ancestor. Since the only hominid that was living at the time of homo sapiens's arival was Neanderthal and it has been shown that it could not have been our ancestor, you have indeed been dragged kicking and screaming perhaps to admit that man does not descend from any other species.
Problem is that they are totally irrelevant to the discussion. They are all too old to be ancestors of homo sapiens.
What is most important though is that just as soon as homo sapiens arose, we begin to see an almost miraculous increase in technology. We see cave paintings, we see large cities, we see farming, and many other of the things which we consider particular to man, the thinking being. These evidences show that homo sapiens was a great jump from whatever came before. Such a great jump in such a short time is completely unexplainable by evolution.
Excuse me, but you had the gall to say there was "no trace" of Neanderthal in humans. Is 99 percent a trace?"
Your statement is a total non-sequitur. First of all, I never denied that man and Neanderthal had 99% the same makeup. The point is that man did not descend from Neanderthal, could not mate with Neanderthal and therefore MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM NEANDERTHAL. You can bleat all you like about percentages, skulls, etc. but that does not change the scientifically proven fact. Seems anytime real science disproves your stupid evolutionary theory you either ignore it, or try to cloud the issue.
Science, as we think of it has only been around for some 500 years. But look what it has accomplished in that time! It has accomplished so much in such a short time because through theory, experimentation, and development it builds upon each discovery new discoveries, new technologies, and new inventions. It methodically researches nature to see what it new things it can discover. It uses every new tool to make new discoveries. It uses each new theory to develop new applications.
What you advocate as the ideal seems to be un-science. The random stupid search for the unknown. The way that was found to provide very few results. Of course, your insistence on the stupid way of doing things does not surprise me, since the stupid way, the undesigned way, the undirected way, the thoughtless way, the mindless way, is the way of evolution.
No doubt that "remnant population" was down in Hawaii with Gould's punk-eek species hiding from paleontologists!
I would have asked for proof of that statement, but since I have been waiting for over 1000 posts to my question of the proof of macro-evolution, I figured I would look into it myself. A quick search found the following:
Homo erectus lived from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago.
FROM:http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html
By 1.8 million years ago, one of the early transitional human populations evolved into a new, fully human species in Africa. Most paleoanthropologists refer to them as Homo erectus . However, some researchers now split them into two species--Homo ergaster and Homo erectus. The ergaster fossils were earlier, dating 1.8-1.5 million years ago, and have been found only in East Africa. The erectus discoveries mostly date 1.2-0.4 million years ago and have been found widespread in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The approach taken in this tutorial is to treat these two possibly distinct, but closely related, species as one--Homo erectus.
FROM:http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm
Early Man: Homo Erectus (Erect Man)
In the quest to explain human origins it is necessary to find a species that bridges modern man (Homo sapiens) with the apes. To fill this gap evolutionists have set forth Homo erectus, having lived by their time scale between approximately 400,000 and 1.6 million years ago. Although their definition is somewhat vague the following characteristics are generally accepted.
FROM: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emhe.htm
when one denies basic, observed scientic fact and just throws out nonsense it is readily apparent that they are neither serious nor intellectually honest.-you-
My answer had been:
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.
Now you cut off my explanation, do not respond to it, and insult me.
If you are correct, kindly show how it has been "proven" that what happened during the black plague, what happens every day - that some people catch an illness while others in the same place do not - is not what happened in these evo experiments. Also kindly explain to me how the dead manage to reproduce.
On the post one or two before this one, I give you 3 definite citations that homo erectus has not been around for some 400,000 years. Note also that none of the citations are from "creationist" sites. You give me a "maybe" citation. The least you can do is apologize for your insults. I know I will not see that however.
The problem with accepting your source though is that these Java fossils had been "definitely" dated much earlier than 50,000 years ago. Now, when the evos need an ancestor for man, the dates of the fossils are suddenly "revised" to create an ancestor for man. Forgive me if I am very suspicious of the new dating.
And they were such a success that they never flew.
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."
How this man has not been kicked out of the scientific community is something to be wondered at. Clearly, the only reason he even keeps his job is because he is a whore of evolution.
How could homo sapiens have been the descendant of homo erectus when the two species met only after homo sapiens was around?
Did you read this through Junior? Did you bother to analyze what was being said here? Or do you just throw stuff out hoping that no one will notice how silly it is?
The largest difference betwwen humans is 0.2%. In spite of what many think are vast differences between each other, they are really quite insignificant.
Sometimes they're accepted for political reasons which have nothing to do with science.
In forming a judgement of evolutionism, you must at some point consider the circumstances under which it arose and the most probable set of reasons for its rise to dominance.
You've heard of the Medelin Cartel, El Pino, Pablo Escobar, the Pagans, and all of the other drug dealers of our times. The truth is, all together they probably don't add up to a hill of beans compared to the operations of the British empire in the 19'th century. At least one major eastern city was set up for no other reason than to serve as a conduit for Indian opium into China and an entire war was fought to protect the opium trade.
Now, you don't need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend that for a supposedly Christian nation to be engaging in this sort of business must have created at least two problems on an organizational level. One was the question of motivating men to fight and die for such causes: "For God, Bonnie Queen Vickie, and the Opium Trade, CHARGE!!!!!!" probably wouldn't get it...
The other problem which springs to mind immediately would be that which the CEO or chairman of the board of the East India Company must have faced in conducting board meatings. Picture it:
"Gentlemen, I have some good news, and I have some bad news. The good news is that profits are up 73.2% on a volume of trade which has increased 27% over the same three-month period last year, and that all of our operations appear to be running smoothly. Indigenous peoples of India, Burma, China, and several other areas with a propensity to cause problems are now happily stoned out of their minds on our products, and are causing no further trouble.""The bad news is that we're all probably going to spend the next 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years roasting on a barbecue pit for this shit..."
Now picture Chuck Darwin walking into this scene and telling all of these people that they're sitting around worrying over nothing, and that the only moral law in nature is "The Survival of the Fittest". Can you not see all of those peoples' eyes lighting up, their hair standing straight up, and somebody screaming "By Jove, I think he's got it?"
I mean, it doesn't even matter what led Darwin to devise the theory of evolution. In any normal time or set of circumstances, he'd have either been laughed to scorn, hanged, or burned. He succeeded precisely because he solved several major problems for the Godfathers of 100 years ago. In other words, there's more than a little truth to my claim that someone has to be stoned to buy off on this BS.
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.