Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution
Critical Evaluation of Evolution ^ | March 2004 | Ohio State Board of Education

Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138

Critical Analysis of Evolution – Grade 10 

 

Life Sciences

 

Benchmark H

Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

 

Indicator 23

Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

 

Scientific Ways of Knowing

 

Benchmark A

Explain that scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world.

 

Indicator 2

Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science.

 

Indicator 3

Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

 

Lesson Summary:

 

This lesson allows students to critically analyze five different aspects of evolutionary theory. As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together. Using library and Internet sources, groups of students will conduct background research for one of the aspects of evolution in preparation for a critical analysis discussion. Students also will listen to, and take notes on, their classmates' critical analyses of evolution theory.

 

Estimated Duration: Four to six hours

 

Commentary:

 

This lesson should be used midway or toward the end of a unit on evolution. This will allow students to “carry over” their knowledge of basic evolutionary concepts into this lesson. The strength of this lesson lies in having students research topics that interest them about evolutionary biology. Students are encouraged to consider the research and discuss their findings with fellow students.

 

Pre-Assessment:

 

·        The following items can be used to stimulate dialogue with the students.

·        Instruct students to copy the following items from the chalkboard in their science lab notebook.

1.      Describe anomalies and explain why they exist.

2.      Are there any benefits to exploring scientific anomalies?

3.      How do scientists make and test predictions?

4.      How do scientists critically analyze conflicting data?

5.      Define the following terms in your own words:

§         Theory

§         Critical analysis

§         Natural selection

§         Biological evolution

§         Macroevolution

§         Microevolution

·        Direct students to respond to the questions in their science notebook in as much detail as possible leaving space to record information from the ensuing dialogue to add to their notes.

 

Scoring Guidelines:

 

Collect pre-assessments and evaluate for indication of prior knowledge and/or misconception. Sample definitions for question five in the pre-assessment include, but are not limited to, the following:

·        Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

·        Critical analysis
The separation of an intellectual idea into its constituent parts for the purpose of a careful, exact evaluation and judgment about those parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole. (This definition combines the definition for critical and analysis.)

·        Natural selection
The principle that in a given environment, individuals having characteristics that aid survival will produce more offspring, and the proportion of individuals having such characteristics will increase with each succeeding generation.

·        Biological evolution
Changes in the genetic composition of a population through successive generations.

·        Macroevolution
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

·        Microevolution
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

 

Post-Assessment:

 

 

Instructional Procedures:

Instructional Tip:

Scientists make a distinction between two areas of evolutionary theory. First, scientists consider mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow (immigration and emigration) as the processes that generate evolutionary changes in organisms and populations. Second, the theory of universal common descent describes the historical pattern of biological change. This theory maintains that all living forms have descended from earlier living forms and ultimately from a single common ancestor. Darwin envisioned the theory of universal common descent as a necessary result of evolutionary changes in organisms and populations, and represented it in his branching tree of life. Students will investigate and analyze these two areas of evolutionary theory in this lesson.

 

In addition to the distinctions between different areas of evolutionary theory, scientists also find it helpful to distinguish amounts of biological change or evolution. Microevolution refers to evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. These terms are helpful distinctions in the course of analyzing evolutionary theory. These terms have appeared in OhioLink research databases, numerous Internet sites, and biology and evolution textbooks. Though “micro” and “macro” are prefixes, it is quite clear that the scientific community recognizes and acknowledges the distinction between the words. To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.

 

Student Engagement

 

  1. Write the following statement on the chalkboard or overhead:
    Anomalies are observations in science that depart from the general consensus of the time. Many anomalies occur in science. Scientists create hypotheses to explain these anomalies and then carry out experiments to try to disprove their hypotheses. Disproven hypotheses are rejected and those that are not disproven are subjected to further testing.
  2. Ask students to think through the following science topics and discuss where anomalies led to the collection of data that further explained the phenomena and contributed to changing scientific understandings.

·        Spontaneous generation versus biogenesis
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is Francesco Redi’s observation that flies must contact meat in order for maggots to appear on the meat.

·        Geocentric versus Heliocentric
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is the observed phases of Venus.

  1. Ask students to cite additional areas where critical analysis is needed by the scientific community.

 

Teacher Presentation

  1. Present supporting and challenging information for five aspects of evolution found in Attachment A. This will give students background information concerning both supporting and challenging evidence. Students can use this information to focus their research.

 

Instructional Tip:

Alternative strategies for beginning this lesson could be to engage students in a Socratic discussion or a mini-lecture. See the Web site for student research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for guidelines on the Socratic method. The Web address is listed in the Technology Connections section.

 

Student Research

  1. Form groups consisting of two to four students. Assign each group a number to help monitor their activities and assignments during the lesson.
  2. Allow the groups to pick (or assign) one of the five aspects of evolutionary theory. Assign two groups to research each aspect. The aspects are:

Aspect 1: Homology (anatomical and molecular)

Aspect 2: Fossil Record

Aspect 3: Anti-Biotic Resistance

Aspect 4: Peppered Moths

Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis

 

  1. Distribute Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet, to help guide research. Allow time for the two groups assigned the same aspect to research their topic by answering questions on the Investigative Worksheet. Have groups use the worksheet as a guide to help them research supporting and challenging data on their particular aspect of evolution. The worksheet will help students organize their ideas and facilitate their critical analysis.

 

Instructional Tip:

Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet, has questions that can be applied to all five aspects. This will help students become familiar with the data, and therefore be able to critically analyze the evidence for either the supporting side or the challenging side. As they complete the worksheet, the group members may all work together on each question, or divide the questions among themselves and then share their findings as a group.

 

  1. After the groups have completed their research, collect the Investigative Worksheets and review them. Return the worksheet to them prior to the next step of the instructional procedures; the critical analysis activity. The Investigative Worksheet is a formative assessment which will enable the teacher to check the student work and if necessary, assist in any way to help ensure student success on his or her critical analysis activity.

Critical Analysis Activity

  1. Allow the students to spend time researching and preparing for the critical analysis activity on both the supporting and challenging information. Prior to the activity, randomly determine which of the two groups will present supporting information and which will present challenging information. You may have groups draw cards to help objectively determine if they will research the supporting or challenging information.

 

Instructional Tip:

Encourage all students to participate in the critical analysis activity because the experience will be a learning opportunity. Be prepared, however, to distribute alternate assignments to students who do not want to participate.

 

  1. Hand out Attachment C, Critical Analysis Rubric, to help students understand the materials they need to prepare and how they should conduct their presentations.
  2. Ask each group to write out their introduction, outline their presentations and write their conclusions. Have students practice their presentations to be sure that they are concise.
  3. Have two pairs of students address each aspect. Have one group present the data that support an aspect and the other group present the data that challenge the aspect. Flip a coin to decide which group begins the critical analysis activity. Instruct each side to present its research. The teacher will serve as facilitator to assure that the groups remain on task and on time. There are no winners or losers in this critical analysis activity. This is a sharing of the results of their research concerning evolution.
  4. Encourage students to actively participate as they critically analyze their assigned aspect. To ensure that they remain engaged as they watch and listen to the other groups, distribute copies of Attachment D, Critical Analysis Worksheet, and have them take notes. At the conclusion of the lesson, this worksheet will be turned in for a grade.  
  5. Use Attachment C, Critical Analysis Rubric, to evaluate each group's presentation.
  6. Proceed to the post-assessment to evaluate students' understanding.

 

Differentiated Instructional Support:

Instruction is differentiated according to learner needs, to help all learners either meet the intent of the specified indicator(s) or, if the indicator is already met, to advance beyond the specified indicator(s).

 

 

Extension:

Have students consider other aspects of evolutionary biology that are critically analyzed by scientists. Possible topics include:

 

 

 

Interdisciplinary Connections:

Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard

 

 

Benchmark A

Evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources.

Indicator 1

Determine the credibility of sources by considering the following:

a.       The qualifications and reputation of the writer;

b.      Agreement with other credible sources;

c.       Recognition of stereotypes;

d.      Accuracy and consistency of sources;

e.       The circumstances in which the author prepared the source.

 

 

 

English Language Arts Research Standard

 

 

Benchmark B

Evaluate the usefulness and credibility of data and sources.

Indicator 3

Determine the accuracy of sources and the credibility of the author by analyzing the sources’ validity (e.g., authority, accuracy, objectivity, publication date and coverage, etc.).

Benchmark C

Organize information from various resources and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes.

Indicator 2

Identify appropriate sources and gather relevant information from multiple sources (e.g., school library catalogs, online databases, electronic resources and Internet-based resources).

Indicator 4

Evaluate and systematically organize important information, and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes.

 

 

Materials and Resources:

The inclusion of a specific resource in any lesson formulated by the Ohio Department of Education should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that particular resource, or any of its contents, by the Ohio Department of Education. The Ohio Department of Education does not endorse any particular resource. The Web addresses listed are for a given site’s main page, therefore, it may be necessary to search within that site to find the specific information required for a given lesson. Please note that information published on the Internet changes over time, therefore the links provided may no longer contain the specific information related to a given lesson. Teachers are advised to preview all sites before using them with students.

 

For the teacher: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources

For the student: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources

 

Vocabulary:

 

 

Technology Connections:

 

Research Connections:

Marzano, R. et al. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria: Associat ion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2001.

 

 

General Tips:

 

 

1.      Ayala, Francisco, "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, 239:3 (1978): 56-69.

  1. Brickhouse, Nancy. "Diversity of Students’ Views about Evidence, Theory." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37:4 (2000).
  2. Carroll, Robert L. (1997/98). “Limits to Knowledge of the Fossil Record”. Zoology. 100 (1997/98): 221-231.
  3. Carroll, Robert L. “Towards a New Evolutionary Synthesis.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2000): 27-32.
  4. Cherfas, J. "Exploring the Myth of the Melanic Moth." New Scientist. (1986): 25.
  5. Chinn, Clark. "An Empirical Test of a Taxonomy of Responses to Anomalous Data in Science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35:6 (1998).
  6. Chinn, Clark. "The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction." Review of Educational Research. 63:1 (1993): 1-49.
  7. Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1975.
  8. Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler and Adler, 1986.
  9. Doolittle, W. Ford “Uprooting the Tree of Life,” Scientific American, 282 (2000): 90-95.
  10. Erwin, Douglas. “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,” Evolution & Development 2 (2000): 78-84.
  11. Erwin, Douglas. “Early Introduction of Major Morphological Innovations,” Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 38 (1994): 281-294.
  12. Evans, Margaret E. "The Emergence of Beliefs About the Origins of Species in School-Age Children." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 46:2 (2000): 221-253.
  13. Faust, David. The Limits of Scientific Reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
  14. Fitch, W., and E. Margoliash, "Construction of Phylogenetic Trees." Science 155 (1967): 281.
  15. Gilbert, Scott F., et al. “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Journal of Developmental Biology 173 (1996): 357-372.
  16. Jeffares, D. “Relics from the RNA World.” Journal of Molecular Evolution 46 (1998): 18-36.
  17. Lee, Michael. “Molecular Phylogenies become Functional” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 14 (1999): 177-178.
  18. Levinton, Jeffrey S. “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution.” Scientific American 267 (1992): 84-91.
  19. Lewin, Roger. "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire." Science. 210 (1980): 883.
  20. Mahoney, Michael. "Publication Prejudices: an Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System." Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1:2 (1977): 161-175.
  21. Margoulis, L., and D. Sagan. "Bacterial Bedfellows." Natural History 96 (1987): 26-33.
  22. Martin W., and M. Muller. "The Hydrogen Hypothesis for the First Eukaryote." Nature 392 (1998): 37-41.
  23. Mikkola, K. "On the Selective Forces Acting in the Industrial Melanism of Biston oligia Moths." Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 (1984): 409-421.
  24. Mynatt, Clifford. "Confirmation Bias in a Simulated Research Environment: An Experimental Study of Scientific Inference." Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology. 29 (1977): 85-95.
  25. National Academy of Science. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington: National Academy Press, 1998.
  26. National Academy of Science. National Science Education Standards. Washington, National Academy Press, 1996.
  27. Pennisi, E. “Direct descendants from an RNA world.” Science 280 (1998): 673.
  28. Philippe, Herve, and Patrick Forterre. “The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable.” Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999): 509-523.
  29. Plous, Scott. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw Hill, 1993.
  30. Samarapungavan, Ala. "Children’s judgment in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition. 45 (1992): 1-32.
  31. Shubin, Neil H. and Charles R. Marshall. “Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Novelty.” Deep Time (2000): 324-340.
  32. Smith, John M., and Eörs Szathmáry. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
  33. Smith, Mike U. "Counterpoint: Belief, Understanding, and Teaching of Evolution." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 3:5 (1994): 591-597.
  34. Thagard, Paul. Mind, Society, and the Growth of Knowledge. Philosophy of Science. (1994): 61.
  35. Thomson , Keith S. “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992): 106-112.
  36. Thomson, Keith S. "Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution.” American Scientist. 70. (1982): 529-531.

 

Attachments:

Attachment A, Five Aspects of Evolution

Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet

 

Attachment A

Five Aspects of Evolution

 

Aspect 1: Homology

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Different animals have very similar anatomical and genetic structures. This suggests that these animals share a common ancestor from which they inherited the genes to build these anatomical structures. Evolutionary biologists call similarities that are due to common ancestry “homologies.” For example, the genes that produce hemoglobin molecules (an oxygen carrying protein) in chimps and humans are at least 98% identical in sequence. As another example, bats, humans, horses, porpoises and moles all share a forelimb that has the same pattern of bone structure and organization. The hemoglobin molecule and the “pentadactyl limb” provide evidence for common ancestors. Also, the genetic code is universal, suggesting that a common ancestor is the source.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Some scientists think similarities in anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry. The nucleotide sequence of hemoglobin DNA is very similar between chimps and humans, but this may be because they provide the same function for both animals. Also, if similar anatomical structures really are the result of a shared evolutionary ancestry, then similar anatomical structures should be produced by related genes and patterns of embryological development. However, sometimes, similar anatomical structures in different animals are built from different genes and by different pathways of embryological development. Scientists can use these different anatomical structures and genes to build versions of Darwin family trees that will not match each other. This shows that diverse forms of life may have different ancestry.

 

Aspect 2: Fossil Record

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research. 

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The fossil record shows an increase in the complexity of living forms from simple one-celled organisms, to the first simple plants and animals, to the diverse and complex organisms that live on Earth today. This pattern suggests that later forms evolved from earlier simple forms over long periods of geological time. Macroevolution is the large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The slow transformations are reflected in transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx (a reptile-like bird) and mammal-like reptiles. These transitional fossils bridge the gap from one species to another species and from one branch on the tree of life to another.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. A growing number of scientists now question that Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils really are transitional forms. The fossil record as a whole shows that major evolutionary changes took place suddenly over brief periods of time followed by longer periods of “stasis” during which no significant change in form or transitional organisms appeared (Punctuated Equilibria). The “Cambrian explosion” of animal phyla is the best known, but not the only example, of the sudden appearance of new biological forms in the fossil record.

 

Aspect 3: Antibiotic Resistance

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The number of strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as of Staphylococcus aureus, have significantly increased in number over time. Antibiotics used by patients to eliminate disease-causing bacterial organisms have facilitated this change. When some bacteria acquire a mutation that allows them to survive in the presence of antibiotics, they begin to survive in greater numbers than those that do not have this mutation-induced resistance. This shows how environmental changes and natural selection can produce significant changes in populations and species over time.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.

 

Aspect 4: Peppered Moths (Biston betularia)

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: During the industrial revolution in England, more soot was released into the air. As a result, the tree trunks in the woodlands grew darker in color. This environmental change also produced a change in the population of English peppered moths (scientifically known as Biston betularia). Studies during the 1950s have suggested a reason for this change. It was observed that light-colored moths resting on dark-colored tree trunks were readily eaten by birds. They had become more visible by their predators compared to their dark-colored counterparts. This different exposure to predation explained why the light-colored moths died with greater frequency when pollution darkened the forest. It also explained why light-colored moths later made a “comeback” when air quality improved in England. This whole situation demonstrates how the process of natural selection can change the features of a population over time.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population. They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of life, or a new species for that matter—i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.

 

Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis (formation of cellular organelles)

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

 

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Complex eukaryotic cells contain organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. These organelles have their own DNA. This suggests that bacterial cells may have become established in cells that were ancestral to eukaryotes. These smaller cells existed for a time in a symbiotic relationship within the larger cell. Later, the smaller cell evolved into separate organelles within the eukaryotic ancestors. The separate organelles, chloroplast and mitochondria, within modern eukaryotes stand as evidence of this evolutionary change.

 

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.

 

 

Attachment B

Investigative Worksheet

 

This activity will help you to prepare for the critical analysis activity. Complete the following table by addressing the following points when you record supporting and challenging data for one aspect of evolution. Record your responses on the appropriate space on the chart.

 

 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign; ohio; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 801-803 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
I go about asking questions the wrong way?!

The rest of your post confirms the truth of this statement. The puzzle that needs to be assembled is not the world itself, but a useful explanation or description of how it works. It is the description that is the puzzle, not the object of the description.

So yes, you do ask the wrong questions.

121 posted on 03/13/2004 7:38:25 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
we come . . . very close

to the fact itself.

But this ought to be a question of scope, as I indicated in reply #10 to the idea that scientific knowledge must limited to the natural world: scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world. The question of scope suggests these problems: does the concept of universe exceed the limit of the natural world? Is the assumption of universe not warranted by the concept the natural world? Or, moving from space to time, is the dilineation of fields of inquiry justified over time? Are no limits to time?

The dilineation of scope is the most problematic issue here, so problematic that it will result in politics, IDist or no IDist.

122 posted on 03/13/2004 7:40:42 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment. There is simply nothing about ID that makes it different from science except its assertion that traditional science can't explain certain things. This is an assertion which, when made sufficiently specific, is constantly in retreat. What makes it maddening to scientists is that there is an implied moral imperative not to attempt to explain certain things.

And I say that an ID experiment IS credible!


I'll even let you use your own dirt, or lifeforms or anything else that an Evolutionist thinks can be changed into something else.

Zap it, heat it, cool it, irradiate it, get it wetter, drier, hungrier or leaner: your choice.


Use YOUR intelligence to create YOUR design- using existing stuff.
If what you CLAIM is true is REALLY true, then a tremendous time compression of "E" will occur and mutations (helpful more than not) will also occur and your results can be published.
123 posted on 03/13/2004 7:40:57 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I don't think I ever was a YEC. At least I hope not, but it has been awhile.

I could be remembering wrong by now. You were on these threads a lot for a while 3(?) or so years ago but details get hazy.

124 posted on 03/13/2004 7:41:39 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"The point I'm making is that the Olympian gods had nothing to do with the discoveries of the Greek scientists. "

No. The only point that you've made is that belief in Greek gods didn't hinder scientific inquiry either. The point was made in this thread that ID hinders scientific inquiry. Between my list of Christian scientists and your list of Greek discoveries, I'd say we've proven that religion in general doesn't limit scientific inquiry. However there are particular religions such where scientific inquiry is shunned or considered irrelevant. Christianity and the proponents of ID are not one of those.

Jehovah doesn't get credit for Newton's work, Newton does. That Newton was both Jehovah's work and was studying Jehovah's work, does not matter. Anymore than Aristotle, thinking he was Zeus's work when he was actually Jehovah's.

125 posted on 03/13/2004 7:41:46 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
And I say that an ID experiment IS credible!

What experiment would that be?

126 posted on 03/13/2004 7:43:01 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The point of listing scientists who believe in a Creator is no more than, and no less than, a way to substantiate the fact that one can hold creationism to be a fact and still be an instrument for scientific progress. That seems to offend a handful of folks who assume the Theory of Evolution to be above challenge.

How much theological baggage did these guys bring to the table? Very little, if any, I suppose. What purpose would it serve?

127 posted on 03/13/2004 7:44:06 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Yeah, I did used to be on these threads a lot in their hayday (spelling???), but it has been awhile and rarely does new ground get covered so there isn't much point in showing up to the threads anymore. More mud gets thrown and nobody changes their mind.
128 posted on 03/13/2004 7:44:50 PM PST by rwfromkansas ("Men stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up as if nothing had happened." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Between my list of Christian scientists and your list of Greek discoveries, I'd say we've proven that religion in general doesn't limit scientific inquiry.

Wrong in both cases. Socrates was sentenced to death for "impiety." And Galileo was convicted of heresy and locked up for the last seven years of his life. These are only the most famous cases. There were others.

Scientists are quite sensitive to such things. Which is why they are quick to resist anti-rational movements like creationism and ID. They know what it's all about, even if most of the followers of creationism and ID haven't a clue.

129 posted on 03/13/2004 7:47:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: js1138
It is the description that is the puzzle, not the object of the description.

Bosh. Both go together, and both are characterized by intelligent design. You speak as if you've made a bold distinction, but you haven't. Besides, the world as it exists has far more evidence of intelligent design that a scientist's meager efforts to understand and sketch it out.

No, I don't ask the wrong questions. You make the wrong assumptions.

130 posted on 03/13/2004 7:50:25 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Interestingly, the shape of the earth and the solar system are contradicted by a literal reading of some scriptural passages.

And so does the appearance of God...


God: the Cosmic Chicken
 
Ruth 2:12
  May the LORD repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge."
 
Psalms 17:8-9
 8.  Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings
 9.  from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me.
 
Psalms 36:7
  How priceless is your unfailing love! Both high and low among men find  refuge in the shadow of your wings.
 
Psalms 57:1
Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for in you my soul takes refuge. I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed.
 
Psalms 61:4
  I long to dwell in your tent forever and take refuge in the shelter of your wings. Selah
 
Psalms 63:7
 Because you are my help, I sing in the shadow of your wings.
 
Psalms 91:4
   He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
 
Matthew 23:37
   "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
 

131 posted on 03/13/2004 7:51:11 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Your list of biologist kind of peters out somewhere in the nineteenth century. "

As does the other fields too. No doubt that's because history needs a few years to determine which scientists stand the test of time and were truly great. I have every confidence that in 2200 we will be looking back at scientists from this era and there will be people who were considered heretics in their field who will be in the list of truly greats.

After Darwin, the list of working biologists who question commmon descent shrinks to virtually none, even among ID proponents.

Well here is some. I don't know that most biologists are on record as to what they believe. I do know that there are many in the Medical field who believe in God and the power of prayer.

Biological Scientists

132 posted on 03/13/2004 7:52:35 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The point I'm making is that the Olympian gods had nothing to do with the discoveries of the Greek scientists.

Not the Olympians per se, but certainly gods, resulting in architectonic and systematic thought. Greek thinking is permeated with the ideas of cosmos or universe. The divine name changes from Zeus to Logos for the Stoics. And the Stoicism was a favorite of Enlightenment thought.

133 posted on 03/13/2004 7:57:08 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Precisely!
A scientist, confronted with the enormous task you have presented, would ask, "Is there some piece of this puzzle that I can place? {to fit in with these OTHER pieces?}
Without a 'big picture' on the box, the FIT of one piece to another an be almost perfect: but the result is a funny looking mess.


IDer's stand back and see a big picture, and say, "That piece doesn't look right there."

The "E" person will say, "Why not? It fits, so it MUST be right!"

134 posted on 03/13/2004 7:57:56 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It's considered proper etiquette to cite your sources.

(And.... you can up your page count...)

135 posted on 03/13/2004 8:00:36 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Including Socrates as a scientific inquirer is a bit of stretch if we consider that the term science had a larger designation than it does now. Plus, Socrates renounced the the scientistific inquiry of his day.
136 posted on 03/13/2004 8:03:52 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The first two sentences are false.

Oh?

It's considered proper etiquette to cite your sources. (So says PatrickHenry )


The next two sentences are perhaps literally true but are hollow as "challenges."

HMmmm.. perhaps.... Can something bee TRUE and NOT be 'literally' true?

137 posted on 03/13/2004 8:07:23 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Well I'd like to examine your list of "non-controversy's.

There is no controversy in science over the shape of the earth.

No and there hasn't been much controversy historically either. As a link I believe I sent you earlier pointed out that the church has been wrongly accused and never supported a flat earth view. But this was a view promoted by evolutionists in the late 1800's and early 1900's as a way of discrediting the church.

There is no controversy in science over the age of the earth or the age of the universe; at least nothing that would change accepted numbers by more than 10 percent.

I beg to differ. There are scientists who question the assumptions underlying dating methods. That you refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that there is not a controversy, it simply means that you wish to ignore the controversy and have the world adopt a groupthink mentality that agrees with your world view.

There is no controversy in science over the geologic column

Again, I disagree. There are scientists who disagree with the geologic column. This whole thread touches on this. How can you say there is no controversy. Wishful thinking.

There is no controversy in science over common descent.

Absolutely there is controversy over common descent. Again this thread is proof. Only in your super narrowly defined world of science is there no controversy.

There is no controversy over the age of fossils, give or take about five percent.

Yes there is controversy. There is controversy over the assumptions underlying dating methods. There is no way to know how often different dating methods do not correlate. And there is bias built into the dating game used by scientists.

There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light.

Actually there is still some very small controversy over this. I saw an article published this year that was again questioning this, from yet another angle.

There is nothing in science that points to a coding function for 95 percent of human DNA.

This is the one that you have already mentioned has been questioned by someone you trust and I appreciate your honesty in mentioning that. But I will go ahead and add, that in addition to finding function for some of the code previously thought about as junk. That all of the "junk" code seems to play a part in cell size and definition. Without that "junk" DNA, we might be very different creatures if we were viable at all.

138 posted on 03/13/2004 8:08:12 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Anything you wish to try to get from Point A to Point B.
139 posted on 03/13/2004 8:08:56 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; All
Nighty night guys.........
140 posted on 03/13/2004 8:12:17 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 801-803 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson