You got it. Provided you could do this repeatedly.
You are not guilty, Mr. Simpson, because we, the jury, saw no repetition of your crime in the lab.
Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Almost 150 years ago, Charles Darwin knew something that the scientific establishment seems to have forgotten -- something that is being endangered today in the state of Ohio.
In Ohio, high school science students are at risk of being told that they are not allowed to discuss questions and problems that scientists themselves openly debate. While most people understand that science is supposed to consider all of the evidence, these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications.
In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design. They mandate something much milder. According to the standards, students should know that "scientists may disagree about explanations . . . and interpretations of data" -- including the biological evidence used to support evolutionary theory. If that sounds like basic intellectual freedom, that's because it is.
The Ohio Department of Education has responded by implementing this policy through the development of an innovative curriculum that allows students to evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.
And that has the American scientific establishment up in arms. Some groups are pressuring the Ohio Board to reverse its decision. The president of the National Academy of Sciences has denounced the "Critical Analysis" lesson -- even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.
Hard as it may be to believe, prominent scientists want to censor what high school students can read and discuss. It's a story that is upside-down, and it's outrageous. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion.
Debates about whether natural selection can generate fundamentally new forms of life, or whether the fossil record supports Darwin's picture of the history of life, would be off-limits. It's a bizarre case of scientists against "critical analysis."
And the irony of all of this is that this was not Charles Darwin's approach. He stated his belief in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin knew that objective science demands free and open inquiry, and while I disagree with Darwin on many things, on this he was absolutely right. And I say what's good enough for scientists themselves, as they debate how we got here, is good enough for high school students.
Contact us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) to learn more about this issue and about an intelligent design conference we're co-hosting this June.
The Ohio decision is the leading edge of a wedge breaking open the Darwinist stranglehold on science education in this country. The students in Ohio -- and every other state -- deserve intellectual freedom, and they deserve it now.
What the HECK are you rambling about? It makes no sense.
Observing data is not the same thing as creating a repeatable experiment. I made no comments about the "only way to test a theory".
No, but it's obvious you don't know the difference.
This is interpreting the data to see if it meets the prediction...
That's right, but it's not the whole story. You formulate a theory, and you make predictions based on that theory, as the theory of evolution does with respect to fossils. Then, you go out, you gather data, and you interpret it to see if it fits the prediction. This is called an "experiment" in scientific circles, and it is how theories and hypotheses are tested.
...this is not an example of a repeatable experiment (BTW: where is the repeatable aspect).
You test the hypothesis again by going out and digging again. Really, now - philosophy? I think not.
So if I put forth a theory that claims you are ugly - then by looking at you I say the data supports my thesis that you are ugly therefore I have created a repeatable experiment that supports the thesis: you are ugly.
Pretty much. If I put forth a theory that claims that you are an idiot, then by looking at your posts to see if they are consistent with those we would expect from an idiot, we have created a repeatable experiment. To repeat it, we must simply repeat our observation of your posts at some future date, in order to reinforce our hypothesis once more.
You got it. Provided you could do this repeatedly.
You are not guilty, Mr. Simpson, because we, the jury, saw no repetition of your crime in the lab.
Ahem. From ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ by John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American:
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
So, we once again have the evolutionist "Heads you win, tails I lose" argument: Evolution theory includes the origins of life arising from non-life, but it doesn't include the origins of life arising from non-life.
Now, I'm sure you could point back to your earlier statement and say, "Just because Rennie says it, doesn't make it so." I would say that it's at least as valid to say, "Just because someone says evolution is science and ID is not science, doesn't make it so."
Where does Rennie say anything remotely like that?
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
So in your mind gathering data is what is called an "experiment" in scientific circles. Really. So do you think observing the sun rising each morning is a repeatable experiment that proves the sun revolves around the earth?
So you actually believe observing the fossil record is a repeatable experiment?
I hate to embarrass you this way but you are completely wrong
experiment - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.
Observing naturally occurring data is not an experiment. Observing the fossil record is not a "test under controlled conditions"
(No, deducing them from what you see in an instrument doesn't count, unless you accept that equivalent deductions from measuring the age of fossils also counts.)
To many people, change is scary.
I can see how many people would consider change to be scary, and cling to certainty instead.
Sand does not scare me, but I refuse to build a house on it. It makes a rotten foundation.
If you read just the first two pages of this thread, you'll find people claiming that evolution is not about how the origin of life came about, yet this was pretty much the central theme of evolutionary science education for decades. Some evolutionists may have claimed that God had a hand in the primordial soup or in shaping the creatures that resulted from it, but nobody was denying the primordial soup, least of all public school biology teachers. The more difficult the origins question becomes, the more evolutionists try to say it's not part of their gig. Sand shifts...
(Oh, and stand back. FAR back. Fusing a few hydrogen atoms won't prove these newfangled atheistic notions about the sun, any more than resistant insects and bacteria prove evolution by natural selection. It has to be a second sun every bit as big and bright as the first one, by gum!)
What on earth - he asked, incredulously - would you consider an "experiment"?
So do you think observing the sun rising each morning is a repeatable experiment that proves the sun revolves around the earth?
The experimental observation of the rising of the sun is consistent with that particular hypothesis. Unfortunately, that hypothesis fails when additional observations are made about the nature of the relationship between the sun and the earth. What, did you think you can make one single observation, and then sit back forever, comfortable in the knowledge that you know everything there is to know?
I hate to embarrass you this way but you are completely wrong
Don't worry - if, by some unusual convergence you manage to score a single point someday, I'll just steal a page from your book and pretend it never really happened, that I didn't mean what I said, that I was really talking about something else, that "is" really means "was", and so forth and so on. Really, you've provided more than enough instruction for anyone who needs to know how to brazen through being wrong about nearly everything that flows from one's keyboard.
Observing naturally occurring data is not an experiment. Observing the fossil record is not a "test under controlled conditions"
So you assert, but as per usual, you are obviously in no hurry to do anything to actually support such an assertion - heaven forfend that we might have you living up to the standard you demand of everyone else. LVD declares that it's "not a 'test under controlled conditions'," and by gum, that's it - case closed.
I don't think so. Whenever you're ready to put a little meat on those bones by actually supporting such an assertion, I'll be around.
I'll admit that was one of the better shots. But consider...
...how few people agreed with Pasteur
...how few people in Boston in 1760 thought King George should be ejected from the Americas, something not even Sam Adams was ready to sign onto right away
...how few people were abolitionists in 1789.
...how few people believed in powered flight in 1900
...how few people (one, with a cheering section composed of his wife) were willing to stand up at a Communist religious conference in Romania and proclaim that the Church's first duty was to Jesus, not the Communist Party of Romania.
Sometimes the few are also the right. Of course, it will be hard to find that out when folks like y'all maintain that their arguments are best excluded from the conversation.
You are a loon.
Some theories can be supported by data. Some theories can be supported by repeatable experiments. Not all theories can be support by data and/or experiment. That's it.
Much of the data supports evolution but there is no way one can create a repeatable experiment to support evolution between species. That is what I was saying...but don't let that stop your lunatic ramblings...
Nice graphic, good work!
I posted it once - I can post it again.
experiment - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.
What the heck is a "experimental observation" supposed to be?
Argument by repetition. Nice, but doesn't advance your cause, whatever that may be.
Let me speak slowly, and fill in the blanks for those having trouble following. You have defined "experiment". Which part of that definition does my example not meet, and why?
What the heck is a "experimental observation" supposed to be?
You're obviously familiar with the dictionary - I imagine that if either word proves difficult, you can go and look it up.
I see you do like to make a fool out of yourself. It was not my declaration.
Sorry to embarrass you yet again:
Experiment - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
I am sure your next statement will be "you not can find scientific definitions in the dictionary" or some such nonsense. Fine, please show us the supporting evidence for your "definition". OK, let's recap: general_re says "experiment" means observing data. General_re then becomes a world class hypocrite by claiming I have not provided supporting evidence when the fact is I have provided supporting evidence for my definition of the word and general_re wants us to take his word on it (general_re declares...case closed).
Please provide supporting evidence for your personal definition of the word "experiment"
I can find no dictionary that has an entry for "experimental observation". Can you link us to a dictionary that defines this term?
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.