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.

[Nebullis]

Since when is a major supposition not a supposition.

You lost me.

[PatrickHenry]

I got post 900. I think.

[PatrickHenry]

Crapola.

[Nebullis]

So you're saying I must claim God supernaturally interferes in every birth in order for each person to have a soul.

No, I'm saying you don't have any basis for arguing with evolutionists.

[Nebullis]

If I get to 1000, I'll save it for you.

[AndrewC]

No, I'm saying you don't have any basis for arguing with evolutionists

When I believe they are wrong, I most certainly do.

[VadeRetro]

Johnson put the classical theory of evolution through survival of the fittest to death in his classic, "Darwin on Trial."

He put it on trial because he's a lawyer. Evidently, he's a better lawyer than he is a judge. (There's no question about him being a scientist; he's not.)

An entire new theory is needed to explain the great leaps in development in the complexity of organisms in the very short time once life appeared.

You can't just explain what you want and ignore the rest. Your new theory has to do everything better, or at least more things better than what we have now. So many times you see someone try to explain a minor anomaly with a theory that trashes our accumulated knowledge on a subject. (The theory that the pyramids were built by aliens in about 11000 BC comes to mind.)

In total, counting then the flood, there are three destructions, leaving Noah and his sons and daughters as the seed of modern Man. Hence, the fossil record is in no conflict with the Bible, which even speaks of a time when giants roamed the land. Dumb Christians, dumb scientists, makes a dull boy.

Sometimes you just have to live with being dull.

[VadeRetro]

An entire new theory is needed to explain the great leaps in development in the complexity of organisms in the very short time once life appeared.

I should also ask if you knew that life has been around on earth for at least 3.5 billion years.

[PatrickHenry]

If I get to 1000, I'll save it for you.

Thanks, but to be true to my principles, we'll have to let it go to the fittest among us.

[VadeRetro]

Thanks, but to be true to my principles, we'll have to let it go to the fittest among us.

I ran a mile, day before yesterday. Only stopped to wheeze once.

[gore3000]

"While Darwin, dishonestly, never professed himself an atheist, -me-

I'm not sure that can be concluded. The record seems to indicate a loss of faith which resulted in agnosticism. "-andrew-

The record also says that Bill Clinton never admitted to committing perjury, however, tens of millions of people saw him do just that on television. That someone does not admit to something explicitly, does not mean that it is not true. Common sense, not confessions is the arbiter of truth.

That he knew his book was an attack on religion is quite evident from one of his letters:

"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.

Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.

[gore3000]

One cannot give "proof" for anything.

So then evolution must be charlatanism since as you say no proof may be given.

However, science has been giving proof for thousands of years and advancing man's knowledge and way of living. Seems that to evos an ear bone is proof of evolution, proof that God does not exist, but the entire world around them, its scientific achievements, and even the way in which they communicate their nonsense to others, does not prove anything at all.

[VadeRetro]

Post 820. You're working your way toward Post 825. Good!

[gore3000]

Considering how deaf you are, there is no point in even shouting the truth at you.

I shall consider the above a concession of my point that there is absolutely no proof of macro-evolution. It is not a humble concession, not a gentlemanly one, but it is a concession nevertheless.

You know quite well that in these pages you are not speaking just to me, but to the thousands, millions and perhaps even billions which visit FreeRepublic in search of wisdom and enlightenment.

[VadeRetro]

831, bypassing 825. You're a coward and a buffoon, gore!

What is the mystery force that makes all C-siders shun the simple acknowledgement of error?

[gore3000]

Creationists... will be remembered not only for the scientific folly they propound, but also for the evil they do under the aegis of that "science."

And what evil have Creationists who attack evolution ever done? What right do you have to include them in a list of mass murdering atheists? Your statement is the lowest, vilest form of smear imaginable and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself - if you have any shame.

[gore3000]

"mathematical studies that use "smart" genes show

Oh this is wonderful! Now genes have a brain! What is their IQ?

The utter desperation of the evolutionists, constantly brings more and more myrth to these discussions.

[Nebullis]

Thanks, but to be true to my principles, we'll have to let it go to the fittest among us.

Assuming fitness no longer applies to populations, but also individuals, I'll have to rely on my high-speed connection and my practice on E-Bay.

[longshadow]

I ran a mile, day before yesterday. Only stopped to wheeze once.

No fair; you're cheating. You don't have to lug your Gall Bladder along with you!

[gore3000]

"There is only one reality. Some choose to reject reality, along with the methods we've developed for learning about reality. They live in fantasy-land, but rational people don't regard their personal visions as science.

Seems to me that it is the evolutionists that reject reality. Seems to me they try to cloud reality with a bunch of lies. A good example of this is the great "discoveries" of paleontology. Here's one example, Eosimias, called by the evos, so called scientists and the press 'the missing link of human evolution'. Here's Eosimias:

Time Magazine's Eosimias illustration
The Evolutionary tree showing Eosimias's place in it

This must be quite a find indeed! The whole history of man, the missing link, finally found! A great new specimen found!

There are many links to the pictures above, however you will have to look for a long time for the pictures of the bones showing this fantastic find. I found a site which showed the bones and guess what, they were from those totally unscientific folk called creationists. Imagine the nerve, the total gall of these people of showing the evidence, the bones, upon which those gorgeous drawings were made! How unscientific can they get?:

Alas! Here's the picture! The proof of macro-evolution, the proof that Darwin was right! The proof that God does not exist!

From:Evolution in the News - September 2000
In case you missed it, the "evidence" is in the case being held by the man, the bones are two, just above the white ruler.

However, this is not the only evidence for Eosimias of course, Here's the story of the lower jaw of Eosimias from: Picture Gallery of Fossil Hominoids and Hominids from China

The lower jaw depicted here, from Lufeng, Yunnan, was initially attributed to Ramapithecus lufengensis. Ramapithecus was considered, until the late 1970s, to be an early human ancestor based primarily on its hominid-like dentition. At the time of its discovery this specimen was the most complete mandible of "Ramapithecus" known. With the demise of "Ramapithecus" in the 1980s, and its reassessment as the female morph of a highly sexually dimorphic great ape with affinities to the modern orang-utan, the Lufeng material was reevaluated. Since the mid-1980s hominoid specimens from Lufeng have been classified as Lufengpithecus lufengensis. Its phylogenetic affinities are still under debate with various authors suggesting affinities to the orang-utan, African apes or the last common ancestor of all living great apes, including humans.

In other words, they had a bone without a purpose. They had tried to fit it several times into something, anything. Finally they found two ankle bones, and since the bones were the right size, in spite of having been discovered some 30 years earlier, hundreds of miles away, with no other connection between the two, they were assigned to Eosimias to "prove" that the missing link had indeed been found.

The list of what I would call "the whores of evolution" which have hailed this as a great find consist of the Carnegie Museums, ABC News, Der Spiegel, UCLA, UC Davis, the BBC, The NY Times, Johns Hopkins as well as Time Magazine and Newsweek.

As Virginia-American said of medved's post showing that scientists do not believe the fossil record proves evolution - "res ipsas loquitur". And in plain English, as I have been saying all along, evolution is fairy tales for atheists.