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.

Living things cannot eat minerals.

Plants "eat" minerals all the time, as do certain microscopic critters. Hell, there are whole ecosystems based upon the hot chemical effluvium spewing from deep-ocean vents -- hot effluvium that is completely inorganic in origin. Methinks you are completely out of your depth here.

Maybe God made the Big Bang so perfect He hasn't needed to intervene since.

Hey! That's my hypothesis! Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prove it or even test for it. Oh well ...

Maybe God made the Big Bang so perfect He hasn't needed to intervene since.

While I appreciate the glib, Panglossian irony, elements of this statement work just fine for me.
While not exactly clockwork, the natural Universe does appear to run in a ratherly orderly fashion. Splashes of complexity, uncertainty, imperfection, and chaos keep things interesting.
If the Universe is 16 billion years old, what's that to God?
I don't think God needs to intervene in the ongoing material affairs of the Universe to keep things going, so I'll go along with the Big Bang being "perfect enough."
The ongoing spiritual affairs of man are another matter, but that shouldn't intrude much on a properly agnostic science.

In my capital-D Deistic moments--I'm a practicing agnostic most of the time--that's where I put God myself. He's clearly not running around violating the laws of His physics here, there, everywhere.

The bad news is that the more I argue with creationists, the more atheist I get. It's very disillusioning in that area, although there's enough to enjoy overall that I make a hobby of it.

The bad news is that the more I argue with creationists, the more atheist I get.

This is one of the really horrible side-effects of creationism. It gives all religion a bad name. It gives conservatism a bad name. It gives Republicans a bad name. The media loves to get hold of someone like ... well, we've got a dozen or so I could name, and put them up as a talking head as a "typical" respresentative of the conservative viewpoint. It's the very worst thing we've got, and it holds the conservative and Republican movements back. No sane person wants to join a movement that seems to be loaded with creationists, and that's the way the media like it. If only we could persuade the creationists to become democrats ...

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)

You asked gore3000 if he had avoided some mistakes listed at a creationist site (AIG). And you listed the following mistakes:

Hows about: ‘Natural selection as tautology’ ; ‘Evolution is just a theory.’ ; ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’

I couldn't not find the above at the AIG site you had prviously provided a link to, and was wondering if you could provide a specific URL to the above.

I've never heard the first mistake you mention, but I have heard creationists use the second mistake, and the third, creationists believe in micro but not macroevolution, I thought was true but here you're saying AIG is calling it a mistake...

As a fence sitter, I would greatly appreciate it.

Great post!

Thanks!

I don't follow these evo vs creation threads and I have not read much of this one, but just let me say you are bang-on about the difficulties of "formulating a non-God created hypothesis for life."

Science will never grasp creation.

JWinNC

About the only difference is you [G3K] don't automatically call those who disagree with you "slimers." So, maybe there is hope yet.

I offer this as further evidence for my hypothesis that more than one person is using the G3K screen name on FR. This particular incarnation of G3K lacks the accusatory inclinations of his predecessor, though in all other ways they are indistinguishable.

Either that, or his "Slime" subroutine has been temporarily disabled.

God did what? Create micro-organisms some 3.5 billion years ago?

Someone else assumed ---"I know that the pre-biotic soup, if it ever existed, is a problem for your belief system, " to which I answered "..It isn't. I just don't believe there is evidence of pre-biotic soup.". This infers some of what I believe--

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

A pre-biotic soup fits right in with that, however I don't believe that there is evidence for that condition. However, God made the waters produce certain types of life. Is there any evidence that the waters did not produce life?

As a fence sitter, I would greatly appreciate it.

That implies an open mind, most of us apparently don't have such one way or another. The open mind also doesn't imply open mindedness to all topics. But if the question that you are open to is whether Darwinian evolution explains life please peruse the following and seek other verification of the opinions expressed in them---

B3: Extrapolating From Small Changes

Roland F. Hirsch

ID Friendly Evolution

TOWARDS A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION

A 21st Century View of evolution

Read those and draw your own conclusions. The Darwinians may provide other input, by all means read them, but be sure to check the primacy of the link and the date on the information. The same goes for the links I have provided. Good luck.

"Hows about: ‘Natural selection as tautology’ ; ‘Evolution is just a theory.’ ; ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’

I have not said any of the above. I have said that many of things you evolutionists do say are tautologies. A good example of which is your ridiculous statement about mammary glands and ears which are a tautology and prove nothing. Only facts are evidence, suppositions are not facts.

"You are so determined to remain in the dark. Pasteur did not test what you creationists call "abiogenesis."

As usual, when shown to be wrong, you resort to semantics. Pasteur proved that life omly comes from other life. That is the only scientific proof relating to the matter of abiogenesis.

You said in#517:
"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."

By your own terms therefore, abiogenesis is nonsense.

"Plants "eat" minerals all the time,

And that's what I said a sentence after the one which you willfully took out of context. I said (in#635):

The only exception to this is plants which either through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis can create their own nourishment from sunlight and chemicals. .

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And the above is the reason why abiogenesis is impossible and none of you evolutionists can show any alternative to it.

(as science has provided),

I asked in post #85 or so for proof of macro-evolution. Not one of you has yet done so almost 600 posts later. You have absolutely no right to call evolution science when you constantly avoid giving the scientific proof for it.

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.