Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

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

[PatrickHenry]

Imagine a mural painted from a god's perspective -- a very large mural -- starting at the left end with the earliest life on earth, and progressing through all the various intermediate forms to all the life we see at the present time at the far right end of the mural. Now cut it up into millions of pieces and bury it, all over the earth, with the pieces from the earliest end of the mural buried deepest, at levels corresponding to the time such creatures lived. That's the fossil record.

Now, gradually over the generations, dig up the pieces and assemble them by how they appear to fit. You get a comprehensible picture, but even though it seems to be the only way to put the pieces together, you can't be certain that you've got it right. Then, wonder of wonders, various techniques of radiometric dating are developed, and when applied to the pieces of the puzzle, the tests confirm that the pieces you've assigned to the early end of the mural do indeed belong there, and so on moving along to the present end. Very nice coincidence. It shows that you're doing it right.

Then, DNA gets discovered, and again you can test your assemply of the puzzle. The individual pieces you've placed next to each other do indeed turn out to be more closely related to one another than they would be to other pieces, thus confirming again, through another independent line of evidence, the manner in which you've assembled the pieces to construct the mural.

The result is the story of life on earth according to the theory of evolution. There is no other way to assemble the picture consistent with the age of the pieces and their genetic relationship with adjacent pieces. But there are gaps in the picture, because not all pieces have been found. Maybe some will never be found.

Notwithstanding the gaps, the picture is visible, and the theory predicts what pieces may exist, and it predicts that if they're found, they'll fit right into the gaps where they belong. Nothing "new" will be found that fits into the "old" end of the mural. Nothing will be found that doesn't genetically relate to the pieces before and after it. Every new piece that gets found is a test of the theory, because it may not fit. Yet each new piece actually does find its proper place in the mural, and the theory survives each new test. Nothing is ever found that contradicts the picture.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hehe. Abiogenesis is a real b*tch when it comes to science, isn't it? But I will wait patiently for a suitable hypothesis.

I keep hearing you say I am "ignorant of science," "playing word games", indulging in "non-sequiteurs," attempting to do a big "gotcha," "too lazy to think for myself," too "stupid," etc. But I don't hear any serious attempts to answer my questions. I certainly haven't seen evidence that science can lay down a hypothesis to test how life came about without the agents of intelligence or design.

What gives? Surely the subject is caple of being discussed rationally rather than emotionally. Please give it a try.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Fester, please, please, please stop showing your ignorance.

I cannot apologize for not being as enlightened as you. My ignorance will always show. So instead I will ask at least that you make a half-hearted attempt to apply yourself to my response to your question, "What exactly is your point?"

I answered your question in good faith that you wanted to know. Please give consideration to my response instead of declaring me to be outright ignorant of science. That is no help at all.

Is that how you teach? Do you consider your students "ignorant" and then tell them how to think? Are you asking these questions to bait me? What exactly is YOUR point?

[Fester Chugabrew]

In my opinion your mural analogy makes a great deal of sense and shows the proper application of science. In no way does it go beyond what natural reason can apprehend through sensory perception and intuition. Thank you for sharing it.

[Amelia]

I certainly haven't seen evidence that science can lay down a hypothesis to test how life came about without the agents of intelligence or design.

I asked you to propose such a hypothesis, but I still haven't seen one.

By "agents of intelligence or design" I suppose you mean God or gods of some sort?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I asked you to propose such a hypothesis, but I still haven't seen one.

No. You asked me to propose a hypothesis that might substantiate just the opposite. I am happy to report that I am incapable of creating a hypothesis that would result in proving the existence of God.

By "agents of intelligence or design" I suppose you mean God or gods of some sort?

Absolutely not. Why would you suppose such a thing, other than the fact that I do not accept every aspect of evolutionary theory on its face?

[Amelia]

Absolutely not. Why would you suppose such a thing, other than the fact that I do not accept every aspect of evolutionary theory on its face?

Please explain what you DO mean, then.

I'm not sure I understand what sort of "agent of intelligence or design", other than a god, could enable life.

[Fester Chugabrew]

In view of modern scientific progress there are certain words that perhaps ought be struck from the dictionary. Here is one of them:

-------

crea·ture    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (krchr)
n.

1. Something created.
2. 1. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water.
   2. A human.
   3. An imaginary or fantastical being: mythological creatures; a creature from outer space.
3. One dependent on or subservient to another.

---

creatur·al adj.
creature·li·ness n.
creature·ly adj.

[Download or Buy Now]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

creature

\Crea"ture\ (kr?"t?r; 135), n. [F. cr?ature, L. creatura. See Create.] 1. Anything created; anything not self-existent; especially, any being created with life; an animal; a man.

He asked water, a creature so common and needful that it was against the law of nature to deny him. --Fuller.

God's first creature was light. --Bacon.

On earth, join, all ye creatures, to extol Him first, him last, him midst, and without end. --Milton.

And most attractive is the fair result Of thought, the creature of a polished mind. --Cowper.

2. A human being, in pity, contempt, or endearment; as, a poor creature; a pretty creature.

The world hath not a sweeter creature. --Shak.

3. A person who owes his rise and fortune to another; a servile dependent; an instrument; a tool.

A creature of the queen's, Lady Anne Bullen. --Shak.

Both Charles himself and his creature, Laud. --Macaulay.

4. A general term among farmers for horses, oxen, etc.

Creature comforts, those which minister to the comfort of the body.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

creature

n 1: a living organism characterized by voluntary movement [syn: animal, animate being, beast, brute, fauna] 2: a human being; `wight' is an archaic term [syn: wight] 3: a person who is used to perform unpleasant or dishonest tasks for someone else [syn: tool, puppet]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

creature

denotes the whole creation in Rom. 8:39; Col. 1:15; Rev. 5:13; the whole human
race in Mark 16:15; Rom. 8:19-22. The living creatures in Ezek. 10:15, 17, are
imaginary beings, symbols of the Divine attributes and operations.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

-------

Or maybe we could just modify the word and call it "evoluture." Anything to rid ourselves of this superstitious, unscientific notion that the universe came about by anything other than magic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm not sure I understand what sort of "agent of intelligence or design", other than a god, could enable life.

I'm not sure either. I think I'll chug another brew and wait for science to explain it to me. I do know a couple good magicians, however. Maybe they did it.

[js1138]

Critical analysis is terribly important. You are aware, aren't you, that Lesson plans are being prepared for ninth grade history classes on Critical Analysis of Religion. Emphasis will be placed on the commonalities of world religions, the inspired prophet, the creation myths, the common core of moral teaching. This course is being declared as a unit on multiculturalism.

[js1138]

The high school material isn't online yet, but it's inspired by these folks:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping!

Amelia: I'm not sure I understand what sort of "agent of intelligence or design", other than a god, could enable life.

Fester: I'm not sure either. I think I'll chug another brew and wait for science to explain it to me. I do know a couple good magicians, however. Maybe they did it.

Actually, there is a prize being offered for the first credible answer to the underlying question:

Origin of Life Prize

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") consists of $1.35 Million (USD) paid directly to the winner(s). The Prize will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).

I find it quite interesting that, like national missile defense, many if not most people presume that science has an answer to the question, What is life? It doesn't. It isn’t obvious what the difference might be between a lifeless thing and a living thing. Biologists don't care but physicists and mathematicians do, and they are looking (Pattee, Rocha, Yockey, etc.):

The Physics of Symbols

Syntactic Autonomy

At present, it appears physicists and mathematicians are focusing on information, which is defined by Shannon as a successful communication, as that which separates the living from the non-living. The first highly plausible origin for such information will win the above prize.

Although there are many interesting possibilites involving geometric physics and dimensionality - and especially Tegmark's Level IV universe model, we are nevertheless bound by the fact that the universe or multi-verse or cyclic or ekpyrotic cosmology all must have a beginning. And as Rocha points out, information must arise from a change of states (like a computer would perform an algorithm) in order to give rise to autonomous biological self-organizing complexity. Therefore, I strongly believe the actual origin for information will ultimately be determined as non-temporal, non-spatial and non-corporeal. IOW, the Word. But of course I'll keep watching to see how far science progresses in my lifetime.

For more information on my musings: Evolution through the backdoor

[js1138]

You do believe, don't you that ninth graders are mature enough to be exposed to all major religions on an equal basis, and decide for themselves, on the basis of objective evidence, which are true and which are false?

[js1138]

Here's an example from their site:

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" Albert Einstein

I know several of the ID proponents on this thread have mentioned Einstein as an example of a scientist with faith. I think he would be a perfect role model for ninth graders, don't you?

[Elsie]

Hold the rainbow in your mind until the voices stop.

I consider myself in good company...

 

Acts 26:22-26
 22.  But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--
 23.  that the Christ  would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
 24.  At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."
 25.  "I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable.
 26.  The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.

[Elsie]

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" Albert Einstein, and ELSIE

Stick MY screen name on there as well, for I agree wholeheartedly!

This DOES describe Buddhism quite well: No mention of sin; no mention of Heaven, allows anyone who wishes claim to be one.....

---

What's not to like? from a human standpoint?

[Amelia]

Very interesting post, thank you! It's going to take me several days (at the least) to digest the information on your website.

Your quote "Or to put it more succinctly, the evolutionary biologist describes but the mathematician/physicist explains" seems to me to encapsulate the problem with the discussion on this thread....

With evolution, biologists describe what the evidence seems to show has happened, but they don't even (so far as I've seen) address a cause. However, 'conventional wisdom' seems to be that they either have, or should.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You do believe, don't you that ninth graders are mature enough . . .

Certainly. But they must show proof of age first.

I am not qualified to place stipulations on when and where an observer of the universe should be allowed to be exposed to this or that information and at the same time be capable of comprehending, assimilating, and responding to the same. I've entrusted that responsibility to public school boards and universities since these are apparently the only places where such qualifications could possibly reside.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Critical analysis is terribly important.

So are homelessness, poverty, education, civilization, history, matter, and the like. "Critical analysis" has the dubious distinction of being subjective, because ultimately it takes place inside each individual's head. Is that why it is so "terribly important?" Where does critical analysis come from, anyway? Is it so terribly important that we cannot live without it?

You are aware, aren't you, that Lesson plans are being prepared for ninth grade history classes on Critical Analysis of Religion.

This does not surprise me in the least, but it sure seems like a strange thing to spring on kids whom one believes to be little more than glorified monkeys.

[balrog666]

Here's a quote for you too:

Everywhere the professed followers of Jesus assume the power to torment their opponents, whenever they can do so without breaking the civil law, and there are few pulpits from which the voice of revilement, contumely, and denunciation is not repeatedly heard.

Gosh, isn't this productive!