Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

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:

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.

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.''

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.

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.

"Now, I know you get all ga ga in my presence, but it would be nice if you could at least get a good URL for the quotes you've attributed to me. Of course, you are not renowned for your fact checking ..."

I am sure that you were most dissapointed in missing out on reliving one of your great moments. However, so you will feel better here's:

A Portrait of "Junior"

(in his own words) - Part 2

Would that be folks who worships soft, silky fabrics?
posted on 2/18/02 9:05 AM Pacific by Junior

Because his pet bat, Splifford, tells him to.
149 posted on 2/21/02 9:27 AM Pacific by Junior

My theory has always been he's nothing more than a rather primitive computer algorythm.
152 posted on 2/21/02 10:37 AM Pacific by Junior <

I know, I know:
"Slime, slime, slime, slime. Wonderful slime! Glorious slime!"
280 posted on 2/22/02 3:10 AM Pacific by Junior

The above must be one of Junior's most profound statements because just two posts later he says:

I know, I know:
"Slime, slime, slime, slime. Wonderful slime! Glorious slime!"
282 posted on 2/22/02 3:29 AM Pacific by Junior

The problem is, it is the Bible that is claiming that God said it is His book. There is no evidence outside the Bible that the Bible is the Word of God. Do you understand the circular reasoning implicit in this?
303 posted on 2/22/02 7:43 AM Pacific by Junior

Again, you have no proof the Almighty uttered those things. You simply have a book claiming such. Greek mythology has the Gods making many comments, but you don't see anyone going around claiming that Zeus must exist because we have documents citing those utterances. Don't get me wrong, I'm a church-going Catholic
306 posted on 2/22/02 8:02 AM Pacific by Junior

It is not a bozo. It is simply limited by his programming to be incapable of learning from experience. In other words, the gore3000 is not an expert system, but rather a simple DO LOOP algorythm.
308 posted on 2/22/02 8:06 AM Pacific by Junior

The Theory of Evolution is far from being complete. It is constantly evolving.
348 posted on 2/22/02 10:27 AM Pacific by Junior

Must've said something right. I've gotten three inarticulate replies from you to my post #384.
393 posted on 2/22/02 2:08 PM Pacific by Junior

Face it, gore3000, your brain (or programming) has been trained to force a cognitive disassociation between the pariticulars of evidence and the sum total of evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees. You'll pick at individual pieces of evidence given you, but fail to understand the overall picture painted by the evidence coming in from dozens of scientific disciplines. And, you show an inherent inability to actually learn anything, which is why you come back with the same inanities time and again. About the only difference is you don't automatically call those who disagree with you "slimers." So, maybe there is hope yet.
632 posted on 2/24/02 7:45 AM Pacific by Junior

You are right in that last statement! I just give proof of it now.

I've doubled up on my Bible studying and church-going to counter my atheistic urges. Being Catholic, though, I'm already considered a heathen...
(I've given up meat and alcohol for Lent, and I'm fasting, so occasionally I get a little addle brained)
687 posted on 2/24/02 4:41 PM Pacific by Junior

This coming from a guy who can't get over the fact that Earth orbitting Saturn and surviving the experience is pert near impossible. Still haven't gotten over the mathematical analysis of that, have you?
818 posted on 2/26/02 6:48 AM Pacific by Junior

One cannot give "proof" for anything.
820 posted on 2/26/02 6:54 AM Pacific by Junior

Remember, God said, "Thou shall not bear false witness" (which means lying). Of course, you probably think lying for God makes you a saint, don't you?
1082 posted on 2/28/02 6:37 AM Pacific by Junior

Careful, you might trigger its "Slimer and the Ghostbusters" subroutine.
1133 posted on 2/28/02 12:35 PM Pacific by Junior

We appear to have overwhelmed and run G3K off. Usually he's in fine fettle at this time of the morning.
1172 posted on 3/1/02 3:01 AM Pacific by Junior

So that explains why you hide in the basement with your pet bat!
1216 posted on 3/1/02 11:39 AM Pacific by Junior

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.
1383 posted on 3/4/02 3:03 AM Pacific by Junior

gore3000: God did it. I have special dispensation to lie for God. Besides, I'll ignore all your evidence so that I can complain you never give me any.
medved: God came from Saturn.
1408 posted on 3/4/02 11:09 AM Pacific by Junior

Why are most conservatives so thrilled by their own little derogatory names for things that they don't understand? "ISID"..."dog-stupid" I doubt you would last five minutes in a real debate.
I disagreee with your thought that "evolving ANY complex creature involves a probability which is basically a tenth or twentieth order infinitessimal"...Could it be that we just do not understand all of the workings of evolution? Plus, eveolution is not an instant occurance, it takes eons and eons of time to nake changes. All thru history, what man thought were impossibilities have disappeared under the light of continued scientific and technological growth. Hell, I am old enough to remember when it was thought impossible for man to travel faster than the speed of sound, much less survive the radiation of outer space, and now it is done so often, we seldom give it a second thought.
I see no need for (what you call) miricles in the evolutionary theory. Again, remember many things that were once were thought to be miracles are now common place, thanks to scientific study.
"Christianity has been barred from our schools for the last thirty years and is still thriving. Could the same be said for evolutionism some thirty years hence?"
You keep making the same mistake of comparing a scientific theory with a religon. One is a doctrine...a way to live...based on faith and believe. The other is a scientific theroy that never mentions how to live ones life. But to keep the discussion going...I do believe that if evolution was not taught in primary or secondary schools, it would still be just as prevalent and true. You may wish to suppress science, but sorry, science IS what makes the world go round.
Tell me sir...what part of Rastifari is based on science? Well of course none of it. On a personal note...do you have something against Rastafarians? That is the second time you have mentioned them. Just wondering why you focus on them and not any of the other thousands of religous beliefs?
Oldcats

I disagreee with your thought that "evolving ANY complex creature involves a probability which is basically a tenth or twentieth order infinitessimal"...Could it be that we just do not understand all of the workings of evolution?

As I note, the tenth - 20'th order infinitessimal is a best possible case scenario; the reality of the situation is much worse than that. First, natural selection could not feasibly select on the basis of hoped-for functionality; you could never get the desired unidirectional march from an arm to a wing, all you'd ever get would be some sort of a random walk around a mean for an arm, which is what you started with. Second, since any new kind of creature would need more than one new kind of organ, assuming you were to ever evolve the first such new organ, then during the time the second such was evolving, the first, being at best useless and at worst antifunctional, would DE-EVOLVE and become vestigial.

Plus, eveolution is not an instant occurance, it takes eons and eons of time to nake changes.

Unfortunately, in real life, the "eons of time" turn out to be a sort of a whiteman's fairytale and aren't really there.

Evolution, and the Redneck Watermelon Truck

The story goes that two old boys named Luke and Ray-Bob had themselves a truck and were buying watermelons in Fla. and Ga. for $2 and trucking them to Chicago and Detroit and selling them for $2. After awhile, they noticed that they were not making any money; naturally enough, they had a big business meeting and came to the conclusion that they needed a bigger truck.

Evolutionists, of course, are using time in precisely the same manner in which the two rednecks are using truck size, and there is no real reason for anybody to take them any more seriously than they would take the two rednecks.

Now, You couldn't easily prove that Luke and Ray-Bob couldn't possibly make money buying and selling for $2 since they could always say they merely needed the next size bigger truck. There is one thing which would really demolish their case however: that, God forbid, would be for somebody like Algor to get elected president and immediately outlaw the internal combustion engine; after THAT, guaranteed, nobody would ever make money trucking watermelons from Florida to Chicago and selling them for what they paid for them.

Likewise, If comebody could provide a coercive case for the fact that American Indians dealt with dinosaurs on a regular basis, then the time-frames which evolutionists so love to use as a magic wand to enable their doctrines would be demolished, the entire doctrine of evolutionism, broken. Not that there is any lack of logical proofs that no amount of time would suffice for macro-evolution but, without those time scales, no version of evolution is even thinkable, much less possible.

In this regard, evolutionists and geologists would appear to have developed a sort of a dinosaur-in-the-livingroom problem over the last few years. Take the case of Mishipishu, the "Water panther" for instance.

Petroglyphs show him with the dorsal blades of the stegosaur and Indian legends speak of him using his "great spiked tail" as a weapon. Remarkably, the Canadian national parks which maintain these pictographs are unaware of the notion of interpreting Mishipishu as a stegosaur, and refer to him only as a "manatou", or water spirit.

Vine Deloria is probably the best known native American author of the last half century or so. He is a past president of the National Council of American Indians, and several of his books, including the familiar "Custer Died for Your Sins", are standard university texts on Indian affairs.

One of Vine's books, "Red Earth, White Lies", is a book about catastrophism and about the great North American megaufauna extinctions which occurred around 12000 years ago (using conventional dating). In this book, Vine utterly destroys the standard "overkill" and "blitzkrieg" hypotheses which are used to explain these die-outs.

Vine informs me that "Red Earth, White Lies" is one of several books which arise from decades of research including conversations with nearly every story-teller and keeper of oral traditions from Alaska down to Central and South America. He tells me that, if there was one thing which used to completely floor him early on in this research, it was the extent to which most of these tribes retain oral traditions of Indians having to deal not only with pleistocene megafauna, but with dinosaurs as well. In "Red Earth, White Lies", he notes (pages 242-243) that:

Indians generfly speak with a precise and literal imagery. As a rule, when trying to identify creatures of the old stories, they say they are "like" familiar neighborhood animals, but then carefully differentiate the perceived differences. I have found that if the animal being described was in any way comparable to modern animals, that similarity would be pointed out; the word "monster" would not be used.
Only in instances where the creature bears no resemblance to anything we know today will it be described as a monster. Since no dinosaur shape resembles any modern animal, and since the reports are to be given literal credibility I must suggest that we are identifying a dinosaur. Thus, in the story of large animals at Pomme de Terre prairie in southwestern Missouri, a variant of the story suggests that the western animals were megafauna and the creatures who crossed the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and invaded the lands of the megafauna were dinosaurs. The dinosaurs thus easily displace the familiar, perhaps Pleistocene, megafauna and move west, where we find their remains in the Rocky Mountains today
In numerous places in the Great Lakes are found pictographs of a creature who has been described in the English translation as the "water panther" This animal has a saw-toothed back and a benign, catlike face in many of the carvings. Various deeds are attributed to this panther, and it seems likely that the pictographs of this creature which are frequently carved near streams and lakes are a warning to others that a water panther inhabits that body of water. The Sioux have a tale about such a monster in the Missouri River. According to reports, the monster had ". . . red hair all over its body . . . and its body was shaped like that of a buffalo. It had one eye and in the middle of its forehead was one horn. Its backbone was just like a cross- cut saw; it was flat and notched like a saw or cogwheel" I suspect that the dinosaur in question here must be a stegosaurus.

Then there is the case of the Brontosaur Pictograph on rough stone.

This petroglyph, in fact, first came to light with the Doheney Expedition to Java Supai, the report of which comes not from the National Enquirer, but from the Peabody Muscum of American Ethnology at Harvard University.

Then there is the case of the man and brontosaur petroglyph at the Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah:

A book on Indian rock art sold atthe park visitors center notes:

"There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all." (Prehistoric Indians, Barnes and Pendleton, 1995, p.201) The desert varnish, which indicates age, is especially heavy over this section.

Then again, there is the picture which the people at Bible.ca snapped of Don Patten with the petroglyph of the triceroptops:

And the pterodactyle at San Rafael Swell in Black Dragon Wash, Utah:

Like I say, it's never been easy to be an evolutionist, and it's not getting any easier.

As for others, I’ve explained that their conduct provides me with evidence that they too have free will.

The evidence you have put forth does not support the existence of free will in others. Here’s why:

He does observe that other persons exhibit complex responses to stimuli. And he knows that he is not able to predict the responses with any regularity. -Tares, post 782

Well, that’s evidence. If you don’t think it’s iron-clad, that’s not a problem. It’s the only evidence we have. -PatrickHenry, post 787, in response to post 782

No, that’s observation. The question is, are the observations you put forth evidence in support of your belief that others have free will? You have not explained why some complex responses to stimuli are evidence of free will, while other complex responses to stimuli are evidence of complex deterministic reactions of complex compositions of matter/energy. If anything, increasingly complex responses by increasingly complex compositions of matter/energy seems to be a consistent progression in deterministic behavior, rather than evidence of emerging free will. (The more complex the response, the greater the degree of free will?) . What is the verifiably observable differentiating characteristic (or characteristics) between free will responses to stimuli and deterministic responses to stimuli?

The inability to predict the complex responses of others is no evidence of free will. Can the ability to predict the complex responses of others increase over time? If you answer that the ability to predict human behavior (the complex responses of persons to stimuli) cannot increase, then you have just closed off numerous avenues of scientific inquiry because our knowledge in these areas must necessarily be complete. But if you answer that predictive ability can increase, then your evidence in support of free will in others (the inability to predict their behavior) disappears as predictive ability increases. If you say there is an upper limit on the ability to predict human behavior, which limit preserves free will, does that mean there is no limit on the ability to predict non-human behavior? But if there is also a limit on the ability to predict the complex responses of non-human compositions of matter/energy, then the differentiating characteristic has disappeared, and we are back to the question: What is the verifiably observable differentiating characteristic (or characteristics) between free will responses to stimuli and deterministic responses to stimuli?

If you don’t think it’s iron-clad, that’s not a problem.

The problem is not that the evidence isn’t iron clad; the problem is that the evidence is non-existent unless you can answer the question: What is the verifiably observable differentiating characteristic (or characteristics) between free will responses to stimuli and deterministic responses to stimuli?

Thus, such evidence [!] is consistent with my regarding the axiom of free will as being universally applical to all humans.

The extension of the axiom of free will from one’s self to others may be logically possible, but is it logically necessary? Let us examine the argument put forth in favor of necessity:

Were I to deny that others had free will, and that I alone am in possession of this attribute, I could then act capriciously, even maliciously, secure in the expectation that no one could make any decisions to respond (other than pre-determined decisions, of course).

Are there decisions to respond that are neither free will decisions nor pre-determined decisions? If these are the only two types, then substituting the term “free will decisions to respond” for the term “decisions to respond (other than pre-determined decisions” is permissible. Making this substitution, the statement above becomes:

But of course! This tautological statement does not, however, establish the necessity of extending the free will axiom to others than oneself.

One individual, uniquely endowed with free will in an otherwise determined world, would be the death of morality. Only free will gives the concept of morality any meaning.

A lone individual with free will must still make decisions concerning his survival and well being. Are these decisions amoral? Not related to morality? If the decisions are amoral, then survival and well being are not the bases of moral choice. What then is the basis of moral choice? But if decisions concerning the survival and well being of the lone individual possessing free will are related to morality, then one individual, uniquely endowed with free will in an otherwise determined world, is not the death of morality, and there is no logical necessity to extend the free will axiom to others than the self (assuming, for the moment, that morality is a logical necessity, which also must be demonstrated).

Summarizing the case, two bases for extending the free will axiom to others than the self have been presented. The first basis, evidentiary, requires an answer to the question “What is the verifiably observable differentiating characteristic (or characteristics) between free will responses to stimuli and deterministic responses to stimuli?”

The second basis, logical necessity, requires a definition of morality that does not depend upon the survival or well being of the lone individual with free will (and a demonstration of the necessity for morality as well, once morality has been defined).

Faith is the belief in something (often it's a belief in the validity of the message which some prophet has obtained through revelation), notwithstanding the absence of evidence or logical proof for the thing being believed. (And an article of faith, being arbitrary, can easily be distinguished from the axioms of necessity which are embraced by science, such as logic, free will, the validity of sensory evidence, etc.) –PatrickHenry, quoting himself in post 579, emphasis Tares.

Wherrrrrrre’s the beef?...Where’s the beef?

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.