Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[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.

[gore3000]

"Also, various pre- and post-zygotic barriers which can arise by mutation of single genes. Species is such a loose concept that any definition has to be sufficiently broad.

In other words 'species' is whatever you want it to be? How can you call evolution a science when no one can agree on what the theory is and on what a species and speciation means?

When you guys finally find the answer to these questions (perhaps in Junior's Ultimate Evolution garbage pile?) let me know so we can explore whether the theory of evolution is true or false.

[cracker]

Science, as we think of it has only been around for some 500 years.

Are you so daft that you have missed the entire debate surrounding Post #99? Medved's quote mining was specifically refuted, including that post. I addresse the age and veracity of the quotes. Vade posted Gould's reply to the quote-miners, which refuted your interpretation. You then JUMPED TO MEDVED'S DEFENSE!!!!

Is any of this ringing a bell?

Now, like one born yesterday (and just as bright) you ignore all that went before and claim the Gould quote as your support. Amazing.

G3k, you are so incomprehensible a defender of creationism, that I accuse you of being en evolutionist, in disguise, in your study, with the lead pipe. Further, I accuse of smoking the lead pipe.

[cracker]

I do not know or care what a gas tube is

That much has been obvious for quite a while.

[cracker]

As to Gould, the quote in post#99

The observant will note that my earlier post should have been directed at this idiocy... I apologize for any confusion.

[cracker]

The evolutionist 1/1,000,000,000 or whatever amount of zeros he uses was propounding the ridiculous notion that scientific advances occur miraculously without knowledge of the theory behind the advances.

I draw your attention once more to this statement. This is the paradigm of scientific development you asserted. You cited as your support the invention of the cathode ray tube. It was pointed out to you at post 1040 that you were incorrect. After a short back-and-forth, I exposed you as a fraud at post 1087. Your recent responses can only constitute an admission.

I take then you admit that you were wrong, and that science does not operate now as it did 200 years ago (before you answer, please note that all the relevant events in the gas discharge tube - cathode - CRT series took place after Francis Bacon).

I take it that you also admit that you were totally wrong regarding the development of the gas discharge tube, and that your assertions regarding M. Faraday were so much poppy cock.

And you still have not answered Vade's whale-hippo DNA challenge. I would say you were slipping, but you could not fall any further behind.

[VadeRetro]

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.

Your arguments are so pathetic! I sourced the chart the first time I pasted it in. (I only pasted it because you're such a notorious slacker at clicking links.) Once again, the chart is from The TalkOrigins Fossil Hominid Species Page. Lest you go after the messenger for making up this species, we'll try a web search:

980 hits.

Let's look at the first page up:

Early Modern Homo sapiens. (Is "early modern" an oxymoron? Is Homo sapiens an oxymoron?)

Current data suggest that Homo sapiens sapiens very likely evolved from archaic Homo sapiens relatively rapidly in Africa and/or the Southwest Asia.

Link 3 has a nice timeline of the archaic/modern/neanderthal overlap:

From Archaic Homo Sapiens. Your gap game is over for this era.

The text with this figure speaks of the intergrading of the various specimens that makes species assignment so difficult:

It is difficult to speak of our ancestors in terms of specific species during this long period of accelerated change from 600,000 to 100,000 years ago. Some paleoanthropologists now classify the more biologically progressive post-600,000 B.P. populations in Europe and parts of Africa as a distinct species--Homo heidelbergensis. By 300,000 years ago, some of these populations had begun the evolutionary transition that would end up with Neandertals and other peoples that have been collectively referred to has archaic Homo sapiens (shown as red in the diagram below [Well, now it's above.--VR]). By 100,000 B.P., some of the later archaic Homo sapiens had evolved into modern Homo sapiens. Complicating the picture is the fact that, in at least one area of Southeast Asia, a few Homo erectus remained until around at least 60,000 years ago.

Some of the other links look pretty interesting too, but I'll get on to your other replies.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: "There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya." is based upon . . .

gore3000: The statement you misrepresented does not say that. You continue to try to assassinate my character with total lies about what I said.

You are/were saying that modern humans (which arose about 120K years ago) have no ancestors. (Older hominid skulls are "too old," etc.) That's gap-gaming. Please show where I misrepresented anything.

[Nebullis]

Evolutionists cannot agree on what the theory of evolution is.

We know what evolution is. The disagreement is over how to best to write a version for dummies. You were given the kindergarten version earlier and have yet to mount a substantive response against that one.

[VadeRetro]

Here you simply repeat medved's original quote of Gould. Brazen. What's wrong with this?

1) Medved posted that quote.
2) Various people called him on the known dishonesty of creationist quote salads, especially quotes of Gould who once had to spend a lot of time defending his Punk-Eek against "Neo-Darwinists."
3) I linked and excerpted Gould's long article in which he lays out in detail what he believes about transitional fossils (citing several examples, including reptiles-to-mammals and the hominid series) and repudiates such insidiously abusive quote-mining as you and medved do.
4) You told me that I in my quoting misrepresented Gould's article.
5) Challenged on that, you repeated Step 1.

Note that you might have accused Gould of repenting and recanting in one lying article just to hit back at the creationists riding on his coattails, but you were too dumb to parse your own statements. You accused me of misrepresenting Gould, when his article totally repudiates your position and your attempts to hijack his life's work. (Punk-Eek is not creationism.)

[VadeRetro]

Further, I accuse of smoking the lead pipe.

Hey! That's a good one! :)

[VadeRetro]

Don't forget his claim, circa post 1260, that a central tenet of the theory of evolution is the non-existence of God. I'd like to see him cite that from any peer-reviewed journal or biology textbook...

Easy, isn't it? All you have to do is get this guy going and he shoots all his toes off.

[medved]

We know what evolution is. The disagreement is over how to best to write a version for dummies.

It's been done. The adult version can be expressed in a paragraph or two, i.e. a reasonable person might could at least listen to a theory which required one or two probabilistic miracles in the whole history of the Earth, but evolution requires an endless sequence of probabilistic miracles, and no reasonable person should want to hear about that.

The version for kindergardeners and feebs is here

[VadeRetro]

The version for kindergardeners and feebs is here. [Jack Chick]

You can say that again!

[gore3000]

We know what evolution is.

Yes, then tell us exactly what the theory of evolution is. You and Vade keep disagreeing with each other. If it were a scientific theory there would be no disagreements as to what the theory is.

The reason I will not respond to it yet is quite simple. Once I refute your theory, you folk will say that you forgot something, that you did not mean something or that the theory had changed in the last 6 seconds. I will not play that game. Agree to a definition and we will discuss it.

[VadeRetro]

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.

-- gore3000

You have unfinished business. You said that DNA studies show whales and hippos to be unrelated. Source, please?

[VadeRetro]

Hadn't read your 1345 when I posted 1349. I notice we noticed the same thing.

Not that it'll lead gore to reappraise his behavior.

[medved]

Like I say, them as can comprehend the adult version of the thing, don't NEED Jack's version...

[VadeRetro]

Incipient Neanderthal? Don't these hominid species appear from nowhere and then disappear leaving huge gaps between them? And aren't they all so different it's easy to agree how many kinds there are and what goes where?

[VadeRetro]

Like I say, them as can comprehend the adult version of the thing, don't NEED Jack's version...

The problem with Jack is he's taking advantage of the kindergarteners and feebs. I think you guys should sue.

[gore3000]

(Punk-Eek is not creationism.)

I never said it was, I said the opposite. That is why I call him a whore of evolution. The point is in spite of all your sophistry and semantics that the quotation is true, that the quotation expresses Gould's beliefs about paleontology when he made them and now. Let's review what he, one of your icons of evolution, said: the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution.