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.
Creation is the Truth. A proven fact. God's one Religion.
Archaic is a generic word which can be used for anything so your statement is just your usual attempt at confusionism.
You posted skulls that were irrelevant to the discussion, they have all been long extinct. None of them could have been ancestors of homo sapiens because they were long extinct by the time that homo sapiens appeared. As I have said, the dead do not reproduce. Let's see you refute that.
Your bleatings and excuses only serve to confirm my statement: evolution is not science, evolution is not even a theory, it is just a mish-mash of contradictory statements of know-nothing atheists.
Please source the following claims which you have made recently:
1) There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.
2) Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.
3) Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.
4) Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.
Watching G3K plow the same ground all over again is hilarious.
I think he's doing it to avoid responding to you for nailing him on the Hippo DNA and for exposing his bogus, out-of-context Gould quote.
I have been asking since post#85 or thereabouts for proof of macro evolution. Lexcorp posted one which was thoroughly shown not to be so. You just posted another which I destroyed. Try again and stop making excuses.
By the way, I asked the evolutionists here to stop wasting bandwith and refer to the excuses by number. The above was #2 - the proof has been given but I will not tell you where or when.
Your silly tactics are the reason that Junior's The Ultimate Resource begins with Physicist's definition:
At some finite time in the past, life began somehow. (How it began is beyond the scope of the theory, but the observational evidence strongly suggests that only one such beginning on Earth has left descendants to the present day.) As life reproduces and multiplies, mutations occur with small but finite probabilities, causing new genes to be added, and creating new alleles of existing genes. The different alleles confer different traits upon their owners, rendering them more or less successful in coping with their environments. The organisms that are more successful in coping with their environments consequently have a slightly greater probability of passing their genes to the next generation of organisms than do the less successful organisms. This causes allele frequencies to change over time.I generally accept the above. I'd have worked gene duplication into it to anticipate a few objections from the C crowd, but it's a good overall statement.Because mutations are random according to their probabilities, there is essentially a zero probability that two non-interbreeding populations will get the same set of mutations. (Even if they somehow do, there is essentially a zero probability that the frequencies of the alleles will end up the same in both populations.) The alleles and new genes available in each population will therefore diverge, with the result that the populations become genetically more distant from each other over time. Eventually, the two populations will become genetically so distant that they lose the ability to produce viable hybrids between them. This is the cause of the origin of species.
Your game is all smoke, noise, distraction, deliberate misconstruction, lies, and evasion.
I'm going to go pay some bills. Keep spewing and I'll pick apart what needs picking apart in a few hours.
That's the most hilarious feature of arguing with these guys. Even when they're nailed, they can't admit it, ever. G3K's the most spectacular example, but he's far from alone.
I'll be chomping at the bit to get back to this.
No vade, you will not put words in my mouth. If you want me to answer something I said, quote me.
You have been given a chance to respond to my statements when they were made. Why did you not refute them then? If you disagree with something I said, quote what you disagree with and respond to the post in which it was made so everyone can see the context of the statements being discussed.
In addition Vade, I am not the subject of this discussion. Evolution is the subject of this discussion. Your attempt to make it into a personal discussion of the messenger that opposes your views shows your utter desperation. Like Clinton and his commie bunch, when you cannot deny the facts you attack the messenger.
Ah, but in a thread or two, he'll be back again with those discredited arguments, as if the "nailing" had never happened.
Tell me you aren't trying to run away from your irresponsible spewing! Quote you? Certainly!
Claim 1, paraphrased by me as
There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya.
is based upon
You posted skulls that were irrelevant to the discussion, they have all been long extinct. None of them could have been ancestors of homo sapiens because they were long extinct by the time that homo sapiens appeared. As I have said, the dead do not reproduce. Let's see you refute that.You seem to be claiming a gap between the archaic Homo sapiens skulls I posted and modern H. sapiens. I see no other interpretation. But you have not documented this claim.
Claim 2, my paraphrase
Hippos have been eliminated by DNA evidence as a nearest-relative of cetaceans.
is based upon
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.Your post 615.
Here I document your one feeble attempt at evasion, the refutation, and your subsequent silence. Again, you need to substantiate this claim (but it's just dead wrong) or admit you messed up.
Claim 3, my paraphrase
Gould actually meant to say that creationists quote him correctly.
Is based upon your post 1067 in which you said
Your quote is a complete misrepresentation of Gould's position.
I've challenged you repeatedly to explain yourself, as summarized some time ago here.
Which brings us to
Evolutionists believe that humans descended from one of the modern primate species (all those apes and monkeys are really the same thing anyway) and simultaneously have known for thirty years that this is false.
I mention this because you believe that citing evolutionists--presumably, you do this for credibility--as knowing that "man did not descend from monkeys" trumps any other line of evidence for common descent.
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.That's not the only example I could cite, of course. Did you really mean to pretend you didn't say this? It wasn't that long ago, was it?
But what does the above spew trump, what does it mean, if nobody thinks humans are the direct, linear descendants of modern chimpanzees? The cytochrome c and other evidence shows common descent of humans and chimps. The chimp is your brother, not your father.
So, your claims are documented. Explain yourself.
I'm not claiming to know anything about your non-FR life. Your behavior on these threads is relevant because this is where we try to discuss evidence. Your brazenly dishonest approach to these discussions, your eyes-closed Sergeant Schulz "I SEE NOSSINK!" act, your feigned amnesia, your unresponsiveness when challenged on the hopelessly unsupportable stuff you spew -- all completely preclude a normal, intelligent discussion.
But at least you make it obvious that something very wrong is going on with you. Which is to say you're even easier and more fun than medved with his hopelessly looney stuff about instantaneous light and the earth orbiting Saturn.
Ok, do you accept the theory of evolution as you posted it or not?
If you do not, then put it in your own words. But let's not have a "shifting" interpretation of the theory when (note I say when, not if) I show it to be totally wrong.
In the same vein, it seems that you are going for the gradualistic Darwinian explanation presently espoused by Dawkings rather than the jumping jelly bean hypothesis espoused by Gould. Is that correct?
I think once we hash out the above, we can engage in an intelligent discussion of evolution. Thanks for taking the important first step.
You and your fellow evos always keep saying that I lost the point, yet you are never able to point out on what post I was refuted. How come Patrick? How come you cannot substantiate your attacks on me? How come you cannot refute my statements to my face and are always attacking me indirectly? Is that what you call honest discussion? Or is perhaps character assassination the only way you can win a discussion?
I accept it.
If you do not, then put it in your own words. But let's not have a "shifting" interpretation of the theory when (note I say when, not if) I show it to be totally wrong.
I don't know how I'm going to break this to Physicist.
In the same vein, it seems that you are going for the gradualistic Darwinian explanation presently espoused by Dawkings rather than the jumping jelly bean hypothesis espoused by Gould. Is that correct?
No.
I think once we hash out the above, we can engage in an intelligent discussion of evolution.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Thanks for taking the important first step.
Thank Physicist, who posted this to you a long time ago.
The second part doesn't hold for plants, doesn't hold for sympatric speciation, doesn't hold for...well, it's too specific.
Speciation, very simply, is the divergence of a single reproductive breeding population into two isolated reproductive breeding populations. The divergence is due to reproductive barriers that are either genetic, behavioral, or geographic.
The second part doesn't hold for plants, doesn't hold for sympatric speciation, doesn't hold for...well, it's too specific.
Speciation, very simply, is the divergence of a single reproductive breeding population into two isolated reproductive breeding populations. The divergence is due to reproductive barriers that are either genetic, behavioral, or geographic.
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.