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.

"Your statements of this form are particularly meaningless. I marvel that you still want to go there."

Okay, if any proof has been given on this thread of macro-evolution, kindly give us the number of the post giving it.

Even better, Vade, how about if you take up the challenge and give us proof right here of macro-evolution?

"electricity is evidence of consciousness."

So a lightbulb is conscious?

We have been burying people because they did not show this "evidence" of life (just as we used to bury people because their heart stopped beating or we could not feel any breath in them). However, in the last few years we have found that we can stop all bodily functions by freezing, perform an operation, and "revive" the person with no harm done at all. What this proves (again) is that there is a lot more to life than what materialist theory can account for.

"You're saying its a conjectural reconstruction and not a replica? "

All that Andrew C was saying was that "replicas" are not evidence. The originals are evidence. One never knows what has been changed, or what has been added or subtracted from a replica. His "proof" is therefore not proof at all.

<Perhaps you'd like to read some of UCMP's self-serving evolushunist propaganda:

Too funny! You quote what you know to be an advertisement as proof!

You really need to do a lot better Vade! Or maybe not, we need some myrth in this thread which sometimes gets too serious.

Even better, Vade, how about if you take up the challenge and give us proof right here of macro-evolution?

OK. 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.

The posts directed at you since your time on these threads have been rife with evidence, actually. That therapsid-to-mammal series is another one. Cuffey, whose artwork you seek to impugn, didn't invent it or discover the fossils or write the important papers on the subject. He simply wrote a popularizing article that referred to that series.

Dino-to-birds. You've been dragged kicking and screaming through it many times. You've only proven that no one can make you see.

And then there's the platypus. You told Louis Figo you'd never had an answer about the evolutionary explanation of the platypus.

It has been quite a few threads since I first asked that question and I have heard tons of excuses and evasions, but not a single answer.

I eventually showered you with evidence of the falsehood of that statement. Before then, however, you indulged in an orgy of brazening, lying, and name-calling as eventually summarized in this post.

You get pummelled with evidence every time you come on one of these threads. Your word is the last thing anyone should take that you do not.

"Pakicetus is a multi-fossil species, etc. Gore was of course assuming that the picture he had was the only basis for reconstructions"

Wrong again Vade! The only thing I was assuming was that the link provided proof of macro-evolution as lexcorp stated it did. As I showed, it did not. Even adding your replica to the "evidence" in the article, it is totally insufficient to show the evolution of whales from Pakicetus since no whale bones are given for comparison, the breast bones are missing from the cadaver of Pakicetus (which is an important difference between whales and land animals) and the Pakicetus cadaver has legs which obviously whales do not. You would at a minimum have to show some intervening cadavers to prove the point of evolution from Pakicetus to whales.

What this whole discussion shows more than anything else though is that the links given by evolutionists do not prove what the evolutionists claim they prove.

That's why I don't want the theory of evolution being taught in public school as anything resembling fact.

Does the theory of gravity bother you? Gravitation is both a fact and a theory. So is evolution.

Again, I'm not telling you your religion is ultimately wrong, but it shouldn't be telling you to go out and impose wrong answers on science.

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.

"The "pre-biotic soup" is only one of many hypotheses for beginning of life. "

That is correct, and the reason for there being so many hypotheses for the beginning of life is that none of them seem to work.

One of the problems with formulating a non-God created hypothesis for life's beginning is that simple matter of food. Living things cannot eat minerals. They can only eat proteins manufactured by other living things. The only exception to this is plants which either through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis can create their own nourishment from sunlight and chemicals. Both these processes are quite complicated. They require quite complicated genes to function and the very first life would have required such a functioning system in order to survive at all (in addition to genes for reproduction and other essential functions). Of course such a living thing could not have "evolved" since there can be no evolution until there is reproduction and working living beings.

Ultimately, of course, science is irrelevant. We are just the little boy taking apart the alarm clock to see how it works. Once we think we can figure out the meaning of life if we figure out how the alarm clock works, well, now that's religion.

I've been reading your posts, and frankly I'm struggling to figure out what it is that you're trying to say. You've told me, and also VadeRetro, that we've missed your point. Perhaps so, but I had a lot of fun posting some of the many profound differences between science and religion. Anyway, if you truly believe that science is irrelevant, then even though you've said that you love science, I'm getting the impression that you may not know what science really is.

And as for your point, whatever it was that VadeReteo and I keep missing, would you please state that point, explicitly, so that we can have the benefit of your views?

gore3000 woodenly assuming that each scrap of fossil bone is all the evidence there ever is or was for the reconstruction of said fossil.

You keep posting this even though I have said no such thing. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

What I said was that lexcorp offered a link as proof of macro-evolution and the link did not provide such proof. In spite of your harping on this for more posts than I cared to read, and even adding up all the additional "evidence" presented by you, you still have failed to provide proof of the macro-evolution of whales from terrestrial animals. You have failed to give evidence of any intervening species showing the change in the breast bones towards those of whales and the gradual loss of the legs.

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.

No you cannot assume such a thing. You cannot prove the existence of something for which there is no evidence. You are making an assumption (that there is no God) and using it to prove that there is no God. Such reasoning is called a tautology in logic and sophistry in common speech.

No you cannot assume such a thing [pre-biotic soup].

I can; and I do. For the reasons I gave.

You cannot prove the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

That cuts two ways, doesn't it? Think about it. {Oh, I forgot to whom I'm speaking.)

"his [Pateur's] "no spontaneous generation" demonstration has absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life. "

It does show that it has been scientifically proven that at least nowadays there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of life. That is all that science knows about it right now. Now on a previous post (#517 posted just 19 minutes before the one I am responding to here!) you said that science can extrapolate from what it knows now to what is yet unknown. Therefore, the only scientific extrapolation that can be made (according to your previous statements) is that there can be no spontaneous creation of life.

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.