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.
Right. Allopatric speciation is already too much for him.
Polyploidy works in asexuals, plant or animal. Hybridization is an instant speciator in plants, sometimes.
It does because it ascribes reproductive isolation to divergency after separation rather than as a cause of separation. I don't have any loyalties to defend and G3K, obviously, doesn't have a clue, but I'm all for having bases covered ahead of time.
VadeRetro: You said there was no trace of archaic Homo sapiens.
gore3000: Archaic is a generic word which can be used for anything so your statement is just your usual attempt at confusionism.
When I refer to archaic Homo sapiens I mean the fossil species of that name. It's on the chart.
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | | |
| | | A.robustus ****** | |
| | | A.boisei ***********| |
| | A.aethiopicus **** | | |
| | | | | | |
O.tugenensis * ? | | | | | |
A.r.kadabba ****** | | | | | |
| A.ramidus * | | | | |
| A.anamensis **** | | | |
| A.afarensis ********** | | |
| | K.platyops * | | | |
| | A.africanus *********** | |
| | | A.garhi * | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | H.habilis ********** | |
| | | | H.erectus **************** |
| | | | H.antecessor * |
| | | | archaic H.sapiens *****|
| | | | | Neandertals **|
| | | | | modern H.sapiens **
| | | | | | |
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
You have no case. There isn't even a gap, not that gaps prove anything.
Vade, you have the word archaic in a chart you yourself drew! And that is supposed to mean something? Paleontologists all the time refer to archaic this and archaic that for bones that they have not found. As usual you are talking semantics, not substance.
You seem to continue to try to deny the truth of the self evident statement that dead species do not reproduce. Since none of these archaics, Erectus's or limps were around when homo sapiens arose, they are irrelevant to the discussion of ancestry of man. I have shown quite clearly that your Erectus was not around when homo sapiens arose (see my post#1278 to Junior putting an end to that evolutionist lie) and that was the last of the candidates for man's ancestry you evos tried to pawn off.
The statement you misrepresented does not say that. You continue to try to assassinate my character with total lies about what I said.
I showed quite clearly that Neanderthal is not the ancestor of homo sapiens. I also showed quite clearly in post#1278 that Junior's post about homo erectus still being around to be an ancestor to homo sapiens was a total imbecility and I showed in a previous post that your statement that homo erectus was around at the time of homo sapiens was a full and complete lie (post#1274 and by Andrew C in 1088).
But then what can one expect from an evolutionist? Even a hundred years after Haeckel's fetus drawings were thoroughly shown to be blatant lies, they kept putting them in children's biology books. So much for evolution as science.
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Is correct, both factually and as an expression of Gould's opinion on the matter. You know quite well that he created his punctuated equilibrium due to the statement above. His partial denial in your quote just shows him to be a whore of evolution as I have already stated in several posts which you continue to ignore, and misrepresent
Your post is just another example at character assassination. In this one, as usual you do not have any quotes. As I have said before, if you disagree with my statements - challenge them when I make them. Quote what you disagree with and refute it. Posts like this are just slimes and the rantings of a sore loser.
Do you dispute my examples? 500 years?!? - you still have not refuted the CRT - cathode - gas disharge LIES you have been promulgating, and which were the central thrust of my post. Perhaps you should re-read my post again, rather than selecting 10 words from a 4 paragraph discursion to respond to.
Moreover, you are still wrong. The theory-application-invention paradigm you assert is of very recent development, perhaps 150 years.
And I am sure you will have something to say about "LIES" = - rest assured I understand that lying requires an intentional mistatement, and that your ignorance is an absolute defense.
Hmmm. Interesting. Evolutionists cannot agree on what the theory of evolution is. Is there no official definition of it? Can anyone quote the official definition or is the theory evolution "whatever we want it to be"?
Evolution cannot be science if there is no definition to be proven or disproven.
I guess you never heard of Sir Francis Bacon. True, it was not adopted right away, but the start was there. And the paradigm that I assert is what has been the reason for the vast (and ever increasing speed) of scientific development. And you know what else? I do not know or care what a gas tube is and I doubt that anyone else does either. The paradigm: theory, experiment, analysis, criticism, and application development is the way of science, of real science and evolutionists cannot even tell us what the theory of evolution is and therefore have absolutely no right to claim it is science.
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.