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.
Secondly, you're citing poetic license on the part of the author as proof that Homo Sapiens did not descend from Homo Erectus (which is proof that either you don't understand what you read or you purposefully twist the words -- lie -- to make them sound palatable. Have you asked God if it's all right for you to lie, especially after He specifically said not to?). Homo Erectus arose in Africa a little over one-and-a-half million years ago and spread throughout the northern part of that continent and southern and southeastern Asia. After they'd been around for awhile (about a half million years ago, or so), one group of H. Erectus evolved into Neanderthals. These displaced their ancestors in the Near East and spread to Europe where they were the dominant species. H. Erectus was still around in southern and southeast Asia, though. Then, a couple of hundred thousand years ago a new species of human , H. Sapien, arose from an isolated East African population of H. Erectus (isolation is a wonderful evolutionary catalyst). It eventually spread to Europe, displacing the H. Neanderthalensis there; plus H. Sapien spread to Asia, displacing the H. Erectus populations there. About 50,000 years ago (one researcher says 27,000, but I've only found the one reference to that date) the last remnant population of H. Erectus shuffled off this mortal coil.
Now do you understand, or will you be willfully ignorant, or twist my words so that you can prove your faith to God? You must be one of those Christians who believe the 10 Commandments no longer apply to you because you're special.
1) if it's creationism,
2) if it's non-Darwinian.
Well, you wouldn't know the latter so I'll help you out. It's Darwinian.
All your quote-engineering is dishonest and that's what he was exposing in his article. And beyond all that, what your post fails to address, is that in this post you accused me of what you routinely do, misrepresenting by misleading quote. You have not substantiated this claim and cannot do so. The article by Gould which I linked and extensively quoted exposes and repudiates your selected out-of-context snippets, which is all I was saying it does.
I have posted several sources that show this to be false. You have substantiated nothing but just keep spewing.
As usual when your back is against the wall you start denying what even evolutionists have been admitting to for decades (and what you have accepted as a true statement throughtout this thread) - that man did not descend from any of the monkey species - chimps, orangs or whatever. For decades they have been stating that man and monkey "branched out" more than 5 million years ago.And all the evidence I've ever cited to you is in support of what they do say and not what they don't. So what is all that spewing about what they don't say?
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.Nothing shows your cowardice and dishonesty more than the way you run away from this one. Nothing makes the lurkers wonder "What's wrong with that boy?" more than the way you cannot face admitting any sort of mistake when debating an Evo.-- gore3000
The thing is, it's really too late. You've let it go for 500 posts, a dozen or more unanswered challenges. There's no pretending anymore.
Yup as usual, the evolutionists playing the bone game. Redating bones, reclassifying bones as needed. Bones in Java reclassified according to ox bones when a gap shows up, Australopithecus being turned into a homo sapiens when the need arises. Are you folk now trying to give us the moronic theory that the ancestor of homo sapiens came out of Australia (that's where the date for 60000 comes from Australia)????? Your whole post on this matter is pathetic.The spew of garbage above is your idea of an answer to post 1346, which showed your claim that I invented archaic Homo sapiens (and drew the T.O. chart) to be ridiculous. That post also contains another timeline showing that there are species around to be the ancestor of modern H. sapiens.
How does your reply address any of this? Do you anywhere say "OK, you didn't coin the term archaic Homo sapiens?" Does it say, "OK, you have continuity of species throughout the last several hundred thousand years, at least according to those evolutionist paleontologists whose word you take over mine?"
No. You pretend you cannot see.
I'm going out for a late breakfast. Spew away and I'll expose the silliness when I get back.
Don't forget to visit the Crevo List for all the latest!
I first raised the issue in post 642. 1388 minus 642 ain't 500. (When I make a mistake, I admit it.)
Well, there's been a lot of hollerin' about it, but not much action. The attention will surely torpedo the state Senate and House bills. The Board of Education will not make its decisions on science standards until "later this year" - I'm not sure when. A cynic would suggest that the Evo/ID hearing was just to curry favor with conservatives in this GOP-owned state, so that the BoEd won't get it's funding cut. Ohio is also embroiled in a decade-long feud between the legislature and the Ohio Supreme Court over school funding inequities, so the BoEd may be trying to mollify the budgeteers.
Based on public statements by the BoEd members, there is a 7-4-8 split for evolution - ID - uncertain/decline to state. (ID proponents include those who favor both.) The following list is from the Feb 24th Cleveland Plain Dealer:
State Board Members on Teaching "Intelligent Design"
02/24/02
The Ohio Board of Education will decide this year whether public school students should be taught only the theory of evolution, or evolution and a controversial alternative called "intelligent design."
Here is where board members stand and how to reach them.
Richard Baker
937-997-2101
At-large member first appointed by Gov. George Voinovich. Term ends in December.
"My basic thoughts are that you team them both or you don't teach either one."
Marlene Jennings
440-256-1585
Elected representing District 5. Term ends December 2004.
"Evolution is a valid scientific theory, but it hasn't been proven and I would hate to exclude the other evidence that is coming in."
Deborah Owens Fink
330-972-8079
Elected representing District 7. Term ends December 2004.
"I am open to discussing whether it would make sense to include intelligent design in the life science curriculum."
Jo Ann Thatcher
740-858-3300
At-large member first appointed by Gov. George Voinovich. Term ends December 2004.
"We have to go along with new scientific discoveries and issues, but I want all sides presented."
Michael Cochran
michael.cochran@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 6. Term ends December 2004.
Did not return calls, but has proposed ordering a draft of science standards that includes intelligent design.
Thomas McClain
614-424-7728
At-large member appointed by Gov. Bob Taft. Term ends December 2004.
"I can't say I am undecided. I should not be stating a position at the beginning since I'm co-chairing the committee."
Cyrus Richardson Jr.
513-734-6700
Elected representing District 10. Term ends December 2004.
"The curriculum ought to include science and not go off on a bunch of tangents."
Jennifer Stewart
jennifer.stewart@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 9. Term ends December 2004.
"I have very strong reservations against alternative methods. I doubt I will be swayed."
Carl Wick
carl.wick@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 3. Term ends in December.
"I'm still unconvinced that intelligent design should be part of the curriculum. I'm quite concerned about the separation of church and state."
Martha Wise
440-934-4935
Elected representing District 2. Term ends in December.
"Alternatives to evolution to me relate to theology and religion . . . but they're not science and should not be taught in class."
Virgil Brown Jr.
virgil.brown@ode.state.oh.us
Elected representing District 11. Term ends December 2004.
"I'm going to do my best to keep an open mind. [Intelligent design] seems to be very analogous to creationism."
Joseph Roman
joe.roman@ode.state.oh.us
At-large member first appointed by Gov. Richard Celeste. Term ends in December.
"I haven't learned enough yet to make that decision."
Emerson Ross Jr.
419-537-1562
At-large member first appointed by Gov. George Voinovich. Term ends December 2004.
"I need a lot more information [about intelligent design] . . . before deciding to include it in the science curriculum."
G.R. "Sam" Schloemer
513-821-4145
Represents District 4. Appointed by Gov. Bob Taft in January to fill a vacancy; will face election in November.
"I really haven't had an opportunity to discuss the issue."
James Turner
jturner@cinergy.com
At-large member appointed by Gov. Bob Taft. Term ends December 2004.
"Unless . . . there is zero evidence of design in the universe and in humans, then I don't know why we wouldn't talk about it."
State Board of Education
DistrictsEleven members of the State Board of Education are elected from the districts shown on this map. Eight others are appointed to at-large positions by the governor.
Board members Virginia Jacobs of Lima (419-999-4219), Sue Westendorf of Napoleon (419-592-1786) and Board President Jennifer Sheets of Pomeroy (740-992-2151) did not return telephone calls.
The District 8 board seat is vacant.
KEN MARSHALL THE PLAIN DEALER
Actually, this is not that far from what I think -- though I doubt this board member shares my views. I think the best way is to include both -- that is, teach evolution, and debunk intelligent design/creationism. (I think RadioAstronomer first described this possibility.) Exploring the problems with the alternatives helps emphasize the explanatory power of evolution, IMO.
On the other hand, some folks would see ID-debunking as a gratuitous attack on Christianity, no matter how carefully the faculty avoided it.
At first blush, this seems like a reasonable way to go, but on further reflection, it raises a concern. My concern is that education is about teaching what we know (to the best of our knowledge), not debunking bad ideas.
If we start down the that road by debunking ID in the classroom, where does it stop? Do we need to set aside class time to debunk the Flat Earth Theory in geography class?
Do we set aside time in Math Class to debunk Numerology?
Do we stop in the middle of Astonomy to debunk Astrology and to explain why the Moon is NOT made of Green Cheese?
Do we halt chemistry students in mid-experiment to explain how Alchemy is folly?
Education is faced with the task to teaching a large volume of information in a very finite period of time. It is a zero-sum game in the sense that every minute taken to debunk a bad theory is a minute that is NOT available to explain the ones that work.
It is time to stop coddling and humoring the Creationists and their kissing cousin ID theorists; neither of them is a scientific Theory, let alone one accepted by the scientific community. It must be at least one if not both before it has any business in the science curriculum.
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.