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.

[VadeRetro]

Until then, the contest was won 1-0 by Louis.

But Schmelling had knocked him out once, earlier.

[Nebullis]

Yeah, but ol' Louis slipped on some soup. Unfair call.

[f.Christian]

Pasteur is the father of modern medicine---God is the Father of all(pasteur) in all(medicine-science)...

except for the self proclaimed...********'s!

Did America exist before Christopher Columbus?

[Nebullis]

If you have evidence that the other side, you know the "spontaneous generation" folks, showed life arising please reveal it.

iff "spontaneous generation"="pre-biotic soup"

[AndrewC]

...Pasteur has anything to do with the origin of life on earth.

It has as much to do with the origin of life as the Miller-Urey experiment.

Miller/Urey Experiment

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Still, assuming the reducing atmosphere was present, there should have been left evidence of the presence of that soup. The ocean is deep. You put on your thinking cap and ponder the fate of all the chemicals present before something arose to "eat" them.

[AndrewC]

iff "spontaneous generation"="pre-biotic soup"

Fine, then you have evidence that life "arises in jars" or Louis disproved pre-biotic soup.

[Nebullis]

Nonsense. I'm pointing out to you that they are far from the same thing.

[Virginia-American]

The presence of liquid water and a source of energy (heat and electromagnetic), plus carbon, nitrogen, minerals, etc. It may in fact be too cold and have too little energy for much to have happened (compared to earth). But, assuming there's liquid water, either there's life, or there's several million years worth of Urey-Miller type reactions. If there is no life, I'm not sure it's fair to call it prebiotic.

[PatrickHenry]

Has anyone posted or linked to this article yet? I'm not in the mood to start a whole new thread with it:
Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change.

[AndrewC]

But, assuming there's liquid water, either there's life, or there's several million years worth of Urey-Miller type reactions.

Consider these things

1. The energy density in the M/E experiment.
2. The resulting concentrations of the by-products of each and every zap of electricity.
3. The beginning concentrations of the reactants subject to the coming zap of energy.
4. The time involved in producing a soup of concentration X.
5. Consider the above values in relation to a planet with an atmosphere and an ocean.

How do the two relate? Is it just a difference in time? Or is there a possibility that completely different chemicals will be produced. Or is it possible that other chemical reactions might prevent a soup from being formed?

[Virginia-American]

No-one knows, we just have to await the exploration. IMO, it won't be too much longer until the next generation of telescopes demonstrates the presence of extra-terrestial life by observing an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

[AndrewC]

I know that the pre-biotic soup, if it ever existed, is a problem for your belief system

I missed this. How do you know that it is a problem for my belief system? It isn't. I just don't believe there is evidence of pre-biotic soup.

[AndrewC]

demonstrates the presence of extra-terrestial life by observing an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

I am interested in how that follows?

[Nebullis]

...Louis disproved pre-biotic soup

He disproved "special creation". Granted, Pasteur's flask was probably not big enough to hold more than a few locusts, at most a sparrow, but that merely simplified the task.

[VadeRetro]

That's the study that Discovery Institute and Jonathan Wells embarrassed themselves trying to rebut before they had even read it. The FR thread on that one was a riot.

Karl_Lembke's reply 57 was the crusher. (Jonathan Wells is the extinguished author of Icons of Evolution and Great High Muckety-Muck of the Discovery Institute.)

[Scully]

Thanks for an interesting article! However, it brings to mind another question for creationists at large: How to explain substantial segments of genes within our own human DNA that appear to have been "switched off"? But I'm sure that's another topic for another argument...

[Virginia-American]

Oxygen is very reactive. If it weren't being constantly replenished, it would react with organics and metals and disappear from the atmosphere in a fairly short time. The only known way of replenishing it is life.

[Nebullis]

There's another thread here that discusses the same article.

[AndrewC]

He disproved "special creation".

I'm not sure about that, he did disprove "spontaneous generation". The stronger form of his disproof in your statement would be "He disproved creation", that would mean life's always been here.

[Sabertooth]

The foregoing are two simple examples of rational, experience-based, cause-and-effect thinking, something scientists and others do all the time. I know you're with me so far, even if you're dragging your feet a bit, sensing where this is going, so I shall continue.

If you see a planet full of life, such as the Earth, you can -- quite reasonably, based on our knowledge from chemistry and biology -- suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup. (Or you could, as some here do, assume that space aliens or supernatural creatures are responsible.) Occam's Razor is a useful tool in such cases.

Not in this one.

Your foregoing examples, the dead man and the crater, are based on circumstances which have a history of previous observation. Such is not the case with pre-biotic soup, space aliens, or supernatural creatures.

We've never seen life arise from lifelessness, not in even the one example where we've seen a planet with life.

Invoking Occam in this instance is no more compelling than "abra cadabra," a genuflection, or "take me to your leader."