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.
Better yet, how could homo sapiens be descended from erectus when it's been demonstrated that we could not possibly have descended from the neanderthal and erectus is clearly much further removed from us THAN the neanderthal? Neanderthal DNA, of course, has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", thus making comprehensible the otherwise enigmatic lack of evidence of interbreeding despite long periods of contact between the two groups.
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?
Junior is basically just a propagandist. He keeps on throwing out the same stupid garbage even after it's been totally refuted as in his accusing me of dishonesty for posting quotes from various scientists regarding evolution as if I hadn't provided a thorough refutation of that kind of claim on the previous page of posting. I mean, I've basically just gotten tired of his stupid gratuitous insults and, since the FR moderators apparently lack the willpower to do anything about him, will simply reply in kind henceforth.
Hear that, "Junior? I mean, if you don't feel like being insulted, don't post anything with my name on it. Real simple, isn't it?
Most Christians have no trouble with science. Some of them are scientists.
If there is something wrong with being a creationist--and there is--it's because people like you have made the label poison. Nobody's a communist anymore either. And there's no socialism; it's called Economic Democracy. (Doesn't that sound wholesome?)
When you blow out your credibility, just re-emerge with a new cover.
What are you spewing about? Did you know that chimpanzees are not monkeys? And no, we're not descended from chimpanzees, but you'd be unhappy to meet that common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. It would be some kind of ape. But cheer up! It wouldn't be a monkey.
Funny that you sit there, wave your hands, and say there's no proof.
Don't be silly. You said there was no trace of archaic Homo sapiens (AKA Homo sapiens heidelbergensis). I posted the skulls. I also posted the chart which shows no gaps of overlap in hominid species after 4 million years ago.
Gaps don't help your case even where they do exist. Was your great great great grandfather too old to be your ancestor? Just because you don't know who your father is doesn't mean you didn't have any ancestors.
Read your own words and weep:
First we got the biology, then we got the culture. But you don't give your Neanderthal cousins enough credit. They did ceremonial burial (an important early advance if you play Civilization II) and had stone tools.
Futhermore, the evidence about interbreeding is far more ambiguous than you state. In Europe, the Neanderthal fossils do not intergrade at all with H. Sapiens and the Neanderthals are particularly robust. Elsewhere, especially in the Middle East, it's much harder to type fossils because they intergrade so much.
You cut off the number. Wonder why? Anyway, let's fix that.
. . . less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093).
Do you understand what is being shown here? Functionally, all the cytochrome c are the same. You can take the original cytochrome out of a yeast organism, put in human cytochrome, and it will work fine. Most of the molecule is just structural padding. You can have mutations all over the place as long as they don't change 1) the overall geometry or 2) a few critical amino acids at sensitive junctures.
Thus a Designer can reach into his toolbox and use any old cytochrome c when He's designing a new organism. They all work everywhere. That's the significance of this molecule.
But a funny thing happens when you look at the cytochrome of organisms. The more related the organisms seem to be, the more related their cytochromes are. Humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c. Why? The odds are stupendous.
This is what you "refuted" in this way:
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.
A change of subject. Anyay, apes are not monkeys. Evolutionists do think that humans arose from the line of anthropoid apes. You have simply dodged.
When I posted the cytochrome c evidence, you responded with a stream of nonsensical garbage.
So anyway, I defied you and you clammed up. I still say that Gould has repudiated your abuse of him. Please show where he really meant to say you were right.
Tell your seeing-eye dog to shape up!
And I have no problem with science. You have been reading my posts for a long time and you know better than to imply that. Your statement above is therefore completely dishonest. What I have a problem with is phony science and that is what evolution is.
The evolutionists constantly keep saying that evolution is science, that evolution is true, that evolution has been proven. However, the first requirement of anything that calls itself science is a detailed consistent theory. Evolution cannot even lay claim to that. Evolution is a mish mash of what-if's maybe's and contradictory statements. As proof of my statement, I will make the following challenge: post exactly what the theory of evolution is, right here.
You have a lot of trouble with science in every sense of "have trouble with."
I will give you the opportunity to show some honesty. Have you been answered on this question before?
That is why you do not post my answer. That is why you do not address what I said and try to refute it. You got caught with your pants down. Your post was totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Whether the cytochrome c of man and monkeys are identical or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether man descended from monkeys because the question has been answered for decades in the negative by scientists. Man did not descend from any of the known apes and science says so.
Now you're simply brazening. And why do you keep saying "monkeys?" Do you see that as crucial to your dodge?
The actual current thinking is that humans and chimpanzees--not monkeys--share a common ancestor 4.5 - 5 million years ago. This is what evolutionists do think and it's where the molecular evidence (including cytochrome c) does point.
The only thing that anyone needs to understand is that man did not descend from monkeys, which means that your entire post (and your reposting after it has been shown to be irrelevant) is irrelevant to the question of man's descent from monkeys.
As to your claim about being able to switch around the genes of different species, that is total bunk also. While the blood of different species is functionally equivalent if you put the blood of one species in another you will kill the individual.
You continue to show a total lack of analytic thinking - as do all evolutionists. This is why evolution is not science, it is pop-scientism for atheists.
The cytochrome c molecules, not the genes that encode them, have been extensively swapped in experiments to prove their functional equivalence. How much of your misunderstanding is real and how much a convenient excuse to thrash bandwith and proclaim triumph in large blue fonts?
Stop the excuses, post it here. Getting a straight answer from an evolutionist is like pulling teeth. Post the darned thing! It is a secret? Or is my statement true? Evolution is not even a theory, it is just a mish-mash of contradictory nonsense.
Do you remember?
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.