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 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 801-803 next last
To: Amelia; js1138
A working definition of faith may also be helpful in assessing the nature of a hypothesis:

faith   Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fth)
n.
  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
  4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.

It is the first, main definition above that applies to a hypothesis, and science as a whole.

Every hypothesis makes a proposition of faith, otherwise there would be no object or purpose in creating the hypothesis. Hypotheses are created/designed with a purpose in mind, namely to lay a foundation for seeking the truth. If one has no belief or confidence in either the hypothesis or its testing then what would be the purpose of creating a hypothesis in the first place?

681 posted on 03/19/2004 6:14:05 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob said through the prophets that He created the world and all that is in it in six days.

No matter your opinion on the subject, in the end it comes down to faith. I am not saying that God could not have created the world through an evolutionary process, but rather that He clearly states in His Word how the universe was formed. He spoke, and the universe leapt into existence. At this point in the debate it comes down to whether one expresses faith in God or faith in Man. I choose God, hands down.

682 posted on 03/19/2004 6:16:48 AM PST by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: js1138
#590 Faith is believing without evidence, and regardless of comments to the contrary, the standard interpretation of "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test," is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and it is sinful to try.
 
#599 If you look at the original incident that led to this prohibition you will see that there was a scientific experiment performed to test for the presence of God. It worked, too. This incident must have caused a bit of trouble for later leaders, because later scripture specifically prohibits trying to repeat this experiment.
 

 
Let's START with what Jesus said to Satan:
 
Matthew 4
 5.  Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.
 6.  "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' "
 7.  Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
 
Jesus said, "It is written..."   so let's just see WHERE  'it is written'.
 
The footnote at the bottom of my Bible refers to Deut 6:16.....  Let's see what IT says......
 
Deuteronomy 6:16  Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.
 
HMmm.. not too much here; what is this MASSAH thing??
 
Doing a search I find:
 
Exodus 17
 1.  The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the LORD commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink.
 2.  So they quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water to drink."   Moses replied, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the LORD to the test?"
 3.  But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?"
 4.  Then Moses cried out to the LORD, "What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me."
 5.  The LORD answered Moses, "Walk on ahead of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go.
 6.  I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink." So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel.
 7.  And he called the place Massah and Meribah  because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"
 
 Deuteronomy 9:20-24
 20.  And the LORD was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him, but at that time I prayed for Aaron too.
 21.  Also I took that sinful thing of yours, the calf you had made, and burned it in the fire. Then I crushed it and ground it to powder as fine as dust and threw the dust into a stream that flowed down the mountain.
 22.  You also made the LORD angry at Taberah, at Massah and at Kibroth Hattaavah.
 23.  And when the LORD sent you out from Kadesh Barnea, he said, "Go up and take possession of the land I have given you." But you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. You did not trust him or obey him.
 24.  You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you.
 
 
Deuteronomy 33:8-9
 8.  About Levi he said: "Your Thummim and Urim belong to the man you favored. You tested him at Massah; you contended with him at the waters of Meribah.
 9.  He said of his father and mother, `I have no regard for them.' He did not recognize his brothers or acknowledge his own children, but he watched over your word and guarded your covenant.
 
 
Psalms 95:6-11
 6.  Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;
 7.  for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care. Today, if you hear his voice,
 8.  do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the desert,
 9.  where your fathers tested and tried me, though they had seen what I did.
 10.  For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways."
 11.  So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."
 
 
Different translations use 'tempt' instead of 'test'
 
KJV Psalms 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
ASV Psalms 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, Proved me, and saw my work.
 
ASV Exodus 17:7  And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tempted Jehovah, saying, Is Jehovah among us, or not?
KJV Exodus 17:7  And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?
 
KJV Deuteronomy 6:16  Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
ASV Deuteronomy 6:16  Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
 
 In their 'testing', the root of it all was an unbelief of God's promise and presense:
Deuteronomy 9:23b  ...... But you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. You did not trust him or obey him 24   You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you.
 
Psalms 95:9  ..... where your fathers tested and tried me, though they had seen what I did.
 
Exodus 17:7  .... because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"
Here is another 'test' of GOD....
 Judges 6
 1.  Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and for seven years he gave them into the hands of the Midianites.
 2.  Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds.
 3.  Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country.
 4.  They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys.
 5.  They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it.
 6.  Midian so impoverished the Israelites that they cried out to the LORD for help.
 7.  When the Israelites cried to the LORD because of Midian,
 8.  he sent them a prophet, who said, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I brought you up out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
 9.  I snatched you from the power of Egypt and from the hand of all your oppressors. I drove them from before you and gave you their land.
 10.  I said to you, `I am the LORD your God; do not worship the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you live.' But you have not listened to me."
 11.  The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites.
 12.  When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, "The LORD is with you, mighty warrior."
 13.  "But sir," Gideon replied, "if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, `Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian."
 14.  The LORD turned to him and said, "Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian's hand. Am I not sending you?"
 15.  "But Lord, " Gideon asked, "how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family."
 16.  The LORD answered, "I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites together."
 17.  Gideon replied, "If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me.
 18.  Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you."   And the LORD said, "I will wait until you return."
 19.  Gideon went in, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.
 20.  The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth." And Gideon did so.
 21.  With the tip of the staff that was in his hand, the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared.
 22.  When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!"
 23.  But the LORD said to him, "Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die."
 24.  So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
 25.  That same night the LORD said to him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old.  Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.
 26.  Then build a proper kind of  altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second  bull as a burnt offering."
 27.  So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime.
 28.  In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal's altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar!
 29.  They asked each other, "Who did this?"   When they carefully investigated, they were told, "Gideon son of Joash did it."
 30.  The men of the town demanded of Joash, "Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal's altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it."
 31.  But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, "Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."
 32.  So that day they called Gideon "Jerub-Baal, " saying, "Let Baal contend with him," because he broke down Baal's altar.
 33.  Now all the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples joined forces and crossed over the Jordan and camped in the Valley of Jezreel.
 34.  Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him.
 35.  He sent messengers throughout Manasseh, calling them to arms, and also into Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali, so that they too went up to meet them.
 36.  Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised--
 37.  look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said."
 38.  And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew--a bowlful of water.
 39.  Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew."
 40.  That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.
 
Gideon's question was very similar to the Children of Israel's, but HIS request was just to learn WHY these 'things' were happening: he did NOT question GOD's very presense with them.
 
Gideon 'tested' God; not once but THREE times.  God was NOT angry, provoked or incensed at the request(s).
 
 
In the New Testement, Thomas (you remember, the DOUBTING one?) 'tested' GOD:
John 20:24-29
 24.  Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
 25.  So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"   But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
 26.  A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
 27.  Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
 28.  Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
 29.  Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Thomas was not rebuked or scolded.
 


 
In 1 John chapter four, we find ....
 
 1.  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 2.  This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
 3.  but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
 4.  You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
 5.  They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.
 6.  We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit  of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 
Thoughout the NT we (believers) are ENCOURAGED to trust in GOD; to be CONFIDENT in HIS Presense, to come BOLDLY before HIM.
 
Matthew 7
 7.  "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
 8.  For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
 
Hebrews 3:14-15
 14.  We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.
 15.  As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion."
 
Hebrews 4:16
   Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
 
Hebrews 10:19-22
 19.  Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,
 20.  by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
 21.  and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
 22.  let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
 
Hebrews 10:35
   So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.
 
Hebrews 13:6
   So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"
 
1 John 2:28
   And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.
 
1 John 3:21-23
 21.  Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God
 22.  and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.
 23.  And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
 
1 John 4:17-19
 17.  In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.
 18.  There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
 19.  We love because he first loved us.
 
1 John 5:14-15
 14.  This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
 15.  And if we know that he hears us--whatever we ask--we know that we have what we asked of him.

 
No one HAS to tempt or test God, that is a choice, but do NOT be afraid to do so:
 
Judges 6: 23  But the LORD said to him, "Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die."


683 posted on 03/19/2004 6:24:19 AM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
More please!

In season and out......

684 posted on 03/19/2004 6:29:02 AM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If it leaves a bad taste in the mouth; don't bite.......
685 posted on 03/19/2004 6:30:01 AM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

You are marvelously prolix, but completely unconvincing. If you had a case, you would at least be able to find Christian writers who agree with you.

But dealing with your argument as it stands, without appealing to authority, you are saying that because Thomas, who knew Jesus personally, was allowed to test God, we all are. Nice thought, but anyone in the religion biz knows this is fatal to belief.

You can argue until your text turns blue, but the fact remains that you cannot deny God as the result of an experiment, and you cannot perform an experiment that proves God. You cannot bring the existence of God into the science classroom.
686 posted on 03/19/2004 6:53:18 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Thye're not seeking principles of order. They may be using principles of order, but on the other hand physial chemists like myself tend to joke about organic chemists' 'rules'. For example, Woodward and Hoffman came up with some useful quantum mechanical rules that govern how certain reactions go. So, reactions which follow these rules are called "Woodward-Hoffmann' Triuble is, there are some reactions that don't follow the rules, and they're called anti-Woodward-Hoffmnn. One thing is sure, though; all reactions in this class are one or the other.
687 posted on 03/19/2004 7:32:13 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Hold the rainbow in your mind until the voices stop.


688 posted on 03/19/2004 9:05:12 AM PST by balrog666 (A public service post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: O.C. - Old Cracker
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob said through the prophets that He created the world and all that is in it in six days.

Nope. A book (the Bible) says the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the world in six days.

689 posted on 03/19/2004 9:25:03 AM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
They're not seeking principles of order. They may be using principles of order . . .

In order for an observer to recognize the difference between two phoenomena, the phenomena themselves must each exhibit distinct characteristics. Otherwise the observer would not be able to tell them apart.

What is the cause for two distinct objects appearing differently to an observer? Randomness does not facilitate distinguishability between objects.

690 posted on 03/19/2004 10:24:03 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Eat a spoonful of this for what ails you.


691 posted on 03/19/2004 10:32:08 AM PST by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Nope. A book (the Bible) says the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the world in six days.

I understand.

692 posted on 03/19/2004 10:33:01 AM PST by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
miserable placemarker
693 posted on 03/19/2004 11:31:23 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Randomness does not facilitate distinguishability between objects

This statement is false as it stands. For example, randomly taken measurements on two sets of trees gives us an idea of how tall one set is, whereas a non-random could be chosen to take the tallest of the smaller set and vice versa. Clearly, randomizing allows these sets to be distinguished.

Could you explain what you are trying to get at. (Also give us some idea of what you think is meant by randomness.)

694 posted on 03/19/2004 12:09:03 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
For example, randomly taken measurements on two sets of trees gives us an idea of how tall one set is . . .

Your point is focused on the subject of observation. Mine point is focused on the object, just as the universe is the object of human observation. Unless the object is distinguishable from others of its kind, random tests will produce no results. A non-random process must in some manner or to some degree, comprise one or both objects.

When I use the word "randomness" I mean "having no specific pattern or purpose."

695 posted on 03/19/2004 12:29:10 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Unless the object is distinguishable from others of its kind, random tests will produce no results.

If an object isn't distinguishable from others, no test will tell them apart, with or without a random component. This has nothing to do with your original statement.

"having no specific pattern or purpose."

Again partly false. I often generate "random" objects with various purposes in mind: cryptography, un-biased selection, etc. The phrase "specific pattern" isn't well defined; any given pattern will occur with probability one in a random environment.

696 posted on 03/19/2004 12:48:38 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
If an object isn't distinguishable from others, no test will tell them apart, with or without a random component.

That is why we need a universe the is suffused with design. Without it we could not make meaningful observations.

This has nothing to do with your original statement.

Not try to be obtuse here (it comes naturally), but which original statement?

I often generate "random" objects with various purposes in mind . . .

It does not surprise me in the least that human intelligence can make use of randomness as a tool, but your focus once again is on the subject of observation (namely yourself), and not the object. Without form or design in the object you are observing, namely the universe, you would have nothing to comprehend.

697 posted on 03/19/2004 1:12:43 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew; js1138; Junior
With these definitions in mind it is clear that a hypothesis cannot even exist without both intelligence and design.

Well, DOH!

Now, why don't you use your intelligence to design a testable hypothesis for whatever it is you're trying to convince us of?

698 posted on 03/19/2004 1:49:35 PM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: js1138

699 posted on 03/19/2004 2:25:49 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amelia; js1138
Now, why don't you use your intelligence to design a testable hypothesis for whatever it is you're trying to convince us of?

Because it seems to me to be rather redundant to propose a testable hypothesis to demonstrate intelligent design is present and operative in the universe when the hypothesis is an instrument of intelligent design in and of itself.

But maybe the request is for a testable hypothesis to demonstrate how intelligent design comes about, or what is the extent of its manifestation in the known universe, or whether intelligent design can exist without a mechanism to drive it, or whether intelligent design is a necessary attribute of both the subject and object of science before science can even begin its work.

Take your pick from any of the above, and I will try to create a hypothesis to suit it. At the same time, I would ask that those who support the Theory of Evolution design a testable hypothesis to demonstrate the mechanism whereby a living species can emerge without the agents of either intelligence or design.

700 posted on 03/19/2004 3:10:31 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 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