Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

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

[Right Wing Professor]

Researchers in Japan and UCSD Discover Novel Role For Pseudogenes

Misleading. They found a role for 1 pseudogene, out of an estimated 20,000.

The other thing is a creationist tract. No thanks.

[Right Wing Professor]

"Science is a way of seeking principles of order in the universe."

I agree with this statement. Do you?

Many of my colleagues are synthetic chemists. They're trying to build new molecules, or find new ways to synthesize old ones. So, no, I don't agree.

"Scientists, when speaking about scientific finding, do not speak in absolutes as is done in the name of religion."

I agree with this statement. Do you?

No. The second law of thermodynamics is as absolute a statement as exists.

[balrog666]

Perhaps, but why should evolutionism fall outside the same indefensible proposition?

The former (YEC-idm, Last Thursday-ism) is a statement of belief in something intrinsically untestable, insupportable, and outright ridiculous. The latter (evolution) is supported the natural history of our planet as well as every science known to man.

In other words, what makes "one-billion-yearism" any less susceptible to the fact that our observation of time is limited?

Another non-sequitur. If some god(s) created the universe Last Thursday in a manner so that it looks just like it was created 14 billion years ago by the Big Bang or the Big Bang happened 14 billion years, how would you expect to tell the difference? And, so why would it make any difference?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Any police training group can happily demonstrate that witnesses frequently fail to recall key elements of an event correctly.

I like that. And evolutionists can posit with an air of certainty that the earth is billions of years old. If current obserservations of time are as sloppy as you imply, what makes the interpretation of artifacts any more reliable?

[Fester Chugabrew]

They're trying to build new molecules . . .

Sans principles of order? Sounds like the ultimate excercise in futility to me. I hope they are paid well.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Another non-sequitur. If some god(s) created the universe Last Thursday in a manner so that it looks just like it was created 14 billion years ago by the Big Bang or the Big Bang happened 14 billion years, how would you expect to tell the difference? And, so why would it make any difference?

It doesn't make any difference. That's why I said, the theory of evolution does not fall outside of such a preposterous proposition. There is no need, nor to my thinking is it plausible, to assume "apparent age" as a way to explain the age of the universe. The universe is as old as it is, but no one is quite sure how old.

But you know what? If some joker comes to me and says he has a way to test for apparent age, I will let him lay down his hypotheses, develop tests, report on it, and judge for myself whether his hypothesis and procedures merit the status of "theory." Dogmatic evolutionists, on the other hand, are "above" all that, or so it seems.

[Amelia]

They are only different in a minor way. Without language we coud not do math.

Oh, not true! Asian students who speak very little English often still excel in math-based courses! I've seen it.

[js1138]

Sans principles of order?

What makes you so hung up on principles of order. Pricniples of order and regularity are precisely what science seeks. They are collectively what makes geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology science. It is the order discovered in biochemistry that makes evolution possible.

[Amelia]

If the validity of every hypothesis were dependent solely upon proven (or even provable!) facts, there would be no such thing as a hypothesis.

Fester, here's your science assignment for the day: Write down, think about, or tell me what you think a hypothesis is.

Then go find the scientific definition of a hypothesis, and what it's used for.

Then, tell me how the 2 definitions differ.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Principles of order and regularity are precisely what science seeks.

Please inform your friend at #602 of this.

[longshadow]

redundant placemarker placemarker

[Fester Chugabrew]

Then go find the scientific definition of a hypothesis . . .

This is a fine idea, but I honestly would like your help, and please do not think I am asking this just to be lazy. Please tell me THE scientific definition of a hypothesis and how you arrived at the conclusion that this definition alone is the standard to be applied to all intelligent observers of the universe. If I try to find it "out there," I will find more than one definition.

Tell you what. I will make up a hypothesis of my own, and then you can tell me if it fits within the scientific definition of a hypothesis. Here goes:

The scientific definition of a hypothesis is subject to variable expression because humans differ in their comprehension of reality and how it applies to criticial thinking.

Doubtless you will insist that the CONCEPT or DEFINITION of hypothesis does not exist in such a manner as to be verifiable by science. Well, doesn't that leave us in a fine mess. If it cannot be quantified, and thus not verified, by science, what business do we have in believing a hypothesis has any basis whatsoever in reality?

[balrog666]

It doesn't make any difference.

True, because in either case the universe is some 14 billion years old.

That's why I said, the theory of evolution does not fall outside of such a preposterous proposition.

What "preposterous proposition" are you talking about? You are not being very clear here on what you mean.

There is no need, nor to my thinking is it plausible, to assume "apparent age" as a way to explain the age of the universe.

On the contrary, there is no reason to assume the age of the universe is any different than it looks.

The universe is as old as it is, but no one is quite sure how old.

Think again. If a god created you yesterday as a 70-year-old man complete with appropriate memories and an objectively verifiable history, then to suggest that you are anything but 70 years old is an act of apparent insanity.

[Amelia]

If it cannot be quantified, and thus not verified, by science, what business do we have in believing a hypothesis has any basis whatsoever in reality?

You are on the right track with this idea. You must be able to test a hypothesis, or it is worthless.

Here's the first definition I found at www.dictionary.com. There are others, but this looked like a good one:

hy·poth·e·sis    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Definition #1 is the one I'd consider closest to the "scientific" definition. Note that you must be able to test the hypothesis.

[jennyp]

Hyperthetical PLACEMARKER.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Let us then tentatively adopt the above dictionary definition as THE scientific definition of "hypothesis" and consider first of all which, if any, of its components can be accomplished or even recognized without intelligence, or design. Can you name one? I can, but only one. Here are the components I can reasonably distinguish:

1.) Explanation
2.) Observation
3.) Phenomenon
4.) Scientific Problem
5.) Testing
6.) Investigation

As far as "testing" is concerned, what should one look for to detect the presence of intelligence or design? Here are a few things I would look for:

1.) Order
2.) Symmetry
3.) Functionality
4.) Consistency
5.) Quantifiability
6.) Observability
7.) Interaction
8.) Communication

Is it really necessary to establish a scientifc test to determine whether these things are truly present in the universe? How about just opening those eyeballs a little bit? How about being born?!!!!

Now, as for how intelligence and design are related to each other, one should at least ask which of the two can exist without the other. Can there be intelligence without design, or vice versa, can there be design without intelligence?

[Fester Chugabrew]

What "preposterous proposition" are you talking about?

That the universe came into being last Thursday. Don't you know it was the Thursday before last? Otherwise, I see where you're coming from.

Some say that if one were to traverse a straight line away from earth for an infinite time and/or distance one would once again return to the point of origin. If that is true of space it may also be true of time, in which case last Thursday is as much the present moment as 14 billion years from now or 14 billion years in the past.

[js1138]

You are just spewing words. "Intelligence" and "Design" are empty air unless you can define them in a non-circular way. Try defining either in a way that everyone can agree on.