Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

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

[VadeRetro]

More creo amnesia, Elsie? What if I made you recap every point you wanted remembered, on every thread?

Toward sentence one, here! A sampling of transitionals. Not rare. Predicted by evolution, scoffed at by creationism. Found.

Toward sentence two, here! Reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. As to more and more scientists deciding that Archy is not a transitional, who the hell are they? I think it's the same five guys each year. (Wells, Meyer, Dembski, Berlinski, and Johnson.)

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

The question is whether something can be true and not what some ingenious idiot cracks it up to be.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . anti-rational movements like creationism and ID.

I'm not sure how much of a "movement" is taking place, but I am dead sure it should not be described as "anti-rational."

With all of the structures and technology humans have been able to build, not a single one throughout history, let alone all of them combined, have been able to design and construct a living, human being, let alone a living organism. Imagine them trying to do so using neither design nor intelligence.

If anything is "anti-rational," it is the notion that a living organism could come about without the presence of either intelligence or design. That is "anti-rational" to the point of absurdity.

I am surprised at the number of people who think a serious diaglogue is warranted to defend the mere probability of intelligent design, but I will take it as further confirmation of the biblical teaching that man would rather be purely "anti-rational" than face the prospect of accountability to someone other than himself.

[Mr. Silverback]

Oh my God...It reads just like a Southern Baptist sermon! Theocracy has arrived in the United States! Run in circles, throw up your hands like Nathan Lane! Mass hysteria!

[DannyTN]

Here is the continuing controversy on Variable Speed of Light from April 2003. But I have seen something this year on a major news site.

Variable Speed of Light

Now admittedly those challenging the constant are few and far between. But I tend to the think the hallmark of good science is to keep an open mind. Especially when we have such a limited knowledge of creation and what knowledge we do have is so recently gained.

[TopQuark]

What specifically do you object to?

What am I expected to enjoy?

[DannyTN]

"Socrates was sentenced to death for "impiety." And Galileo was convicted of heresy and locked up for the last seven years of his life. "

Yet Galileo was very religious. In his works he wrote to the effect that the scriptures are true, only the interpretation made by some (Roman Catholic hierarchy) was faulty. And this was in the 1600's, a time when much of the Roman Catholic heirarchy was corrupt.

Galileo contended that proper interpretation of Scripture would agree with observed fact. The "Book of Nature," written in the language of mathematics would agree with the "Book of Scripture," written in the everyday language of the people. Besides, the "Bible teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," and it would be "a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made then a sin to believe."

Galileo and Christianity

Galileo even better quotes

[js1138]

I followed your link to your ICR scientists, and indeed some of them appear to to be credentialed, working scientists. I think you might be surprised, however, by some of the things they've written.

If you wish to make the point that believers can be competent scientists, I can accept that. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any of these people to demonstrate that the traditional working assumptions of science are inadequate. These people are scientists to the extent that they apply scientific methods and assumptions.

The fundamental error of ID is not the assumption that God designed the universe. That is irrelevant to the current debate. The fundamental error of ID is the more mundane error of incorrectly describing the behavior of the universe, once brought into existence.

ID asserts that certain processes and phenomena are impossible, specifically, that certain biological objects cannot have come into existence through the regular processes of chemistry. Please note that we are not discussing who made the dirt, or who created the laws of nature. We are discussing how the world works now that it exists.

The problem here is one of basic procedure. When science is confronted with a mystery of how something came to be, it attacks the problem in manageable pieces, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Some problems require decades or even centuries. But there is an underlying assumption that eventually the pieces can be reassembled into a congruent whole.

ID, as a matter of principle, asserts that certain processes cannot be disassembled. Like the old maps with the warning, "Here be dragons," ID says that some physical processes simply can't happen. It is not a matter of whether ID is right or wrong about these assertions. It is a matter of implying that one should give up without a fight. It is like saying that human flight cannot happen because there is no source of energy is compact enough and light enough to overcome gravity. True in 1900, but not the kind of attitude that leads to discovery and invention.

[js1138]

If you read the article on the speed of light you will find there is no controversy. First, there is no evidence supporting any variation, and second, there is no reluctance to keep testing hypotheses.

[BMCDA]

The problem here is one of basic procedure. When science is confronted with a mystery of how something came to be, it attacks the problem in manageable pieces, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Some problems require decades or even centuries. But there is an underlying assumption that eventually the pieces can be reassembled into a congruent whole.

Indeed, that's the problem of ID. Instead of reducing a complex problem to simpler principles as it is common in science, they go the other way: they try to explain a complex problem by postulating an even more complex one (omnipotent designer, who is as complex as it gets).
In other words they increase the degrees of freedom instead of decreasing them.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What a beautiful thought I am thinking concerning the great speckled bird
Remember her name is recorded on the pages of God's holy word
Desiring to lower her standards they watch every move that she makes
But they long to find fault with her teaching but really they find no mistakes

I am glad I have learned of her meekness I am proud that my name is on her book
For I want to be one never fearing the face of my Saviour's true look
When he comes descending from heaven on the cloud as he write in his word
I'll be joyfully carried to meet him on the wings of the great speckled bird

Words and music by (Reverend) Guy Smith

Tune used by Bill Anderson with the words: "I didn't know God made Honkey Tonkey women..."

However, the Monastery at Jémez Springs isn't the "Servants of the Parakeet."

[Virginia-American]

PH: . . . I don't like the emphasis on the micro-macro issue, which is a non-issue.

FC: How so? It seems to me a good many folks jump from one to the other while interpreting and exlaining the evidence.

It sure looks like a continuum. You've got dogs and cats (can't breed), horses and donkeys (can, but infertile offspring), lions and tigers (zoo keepers can force them to, don't know if the offspring are fertile), ring species (A breeds w/ B, B w/ C, C w/ D, but A and D can't), domestic dogs (chihuahuas and Great Danes physically can't, imagine the pups would be fertile if we did it artificially)

Where's micro? where's macro?

I'm reminded of Archimedes' Axiom: given any quantity e, no matter how small (but bigger than zero), and given another quantity M, no matter how large (but finite), there is a whole number K such that K times e is bigger than M. (Seems obvious, but there are number systems in which it is false, the so-called non-Archimedean fields)

[Virginia-American]

But I would think critical analysis is part and parcel of what happens among those who are being educated. Is that not what schools want to encourage at this grade level?

There are a h*ll of a lot of totally undisputed *facts* that have to be learned. Biochemistry and evolution provide the most important means of organizing the immense body of biological data.

Once one has the knowledge, then one is in a position to understand and appreciate the real and pseudo challenges to standard theory.

It really helps if you know a lot about the Solar System and astronomy in general before you're exposed to astrology or Ted Holden. Ditto biology and the the "Icons" foolishness or Hovind or whatever.

[Virginia-American]

Science is looking for intelligent life in outer space. Shall we accord them the same courtesy of mocking their pursuit? Shall we disallow any and all discussion of their observations and expression from the classroom?

Until they find something (someone?), yes. HS isn't really the place for cutting-edge research (maybe a science fair project, but not routine instruction)

Any thoughts, RA?

[Virginia-American]

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.

Are you sure? I thought it was Protestants casting disrepute on Rome.

[Virginia-American]

Absolutely there is controversy over common descent. Again this thread is proof.

Who's challenged it? How do they explain what Dr. S. called "Kilroy DNA"? Is there a reason cows and whales share some of the same genetics, but horses don't? Wouldn't an ID-ist predict that whales would share fish DNA, and cows horse DNA? If not, why not?

[Virginia-American]

Without that "junk" DNA, we might be very different creatures if we were viable at all.

Maybe, maybe not. Some of it is definitely the remains of viruses, and some is definitely no-longer-in-use genes (human vitamin C and ofactory detectors, among others like hens' teeth and horses' toes).

Perhaps the ID-ists could start earning their keep and do some experiments.

[PatrickHenry]

It really helps if you know a lot about the Solar System and astronomy in general before you're exposed to astrology or Ted Holden. Ditto biology and the the "Icons" foolishness or Hovind or whatever.

That's good. Very good.

[Junior]

If anything is "anti-rational," it is the notion that a living organism could come about without the presence of either intelligence or design. That is "anti-rational" to the point of absurdity.

Well, no, since then you've got to ponder who designed the designer and so on, ad nauseum. That's about as "anti-rational" as one can get.

[Junior]

There are scientists who question the assumptions underlying dating methods.

And that, my friend, is why more than one method is used to test a sample. They can't all be wrong and still give concurrent ages for a sample, can they? I mean, one can be a little leary when one uses only one method, but when a second method using a different radioisotope with a different halflife backs up the date given by the first, then one is more likely to be accurate in his estimate for the age of the sample, is one not? And, if a third method using an entirely different radioisotope with a different halflife than the first two also confirms the age of the sample given by those first two, one is approaching certainty in one's estimate, n'est-ce pas?

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

[Fester Chugabrew]

Biochemistry and evolution provide the most important means of organizing the immense body of biological data.

Evolution does not assist in organizing facts and data. It makes unnecessary assumptions once the data has already been organized. I could learn the ins and outs of molecular biology very easily without making the assumption there is no god involved, but I could n't even participate in the gathering and observation of facts were it not for intelligence and design.