Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

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

[DannyTN]

"The author is obviously pure evil. "

Thanks for posting the whole article, but why is he evil? Is it...

1. He sides with the scientific establishment?
2. He teaches the scientific establishment line?
3. He exposes the propaganda techniques?
4. He admits that there is contradicting evidence?
5. He has reservations about using the propaganda techniques?
6. He wants his students to think critically?
7. He isn't displeased when his students reject his teachings?

   I suspect the only thing in that list that truly makes him evil is #1 and #2, but that evols will see him as evil for #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7

[js1138]

Thus, the "surrender to authority" most students have to make in science classes as a way to get started isn't that unreasonable

Which he clearly states.

I find myself having mixed reactions on these threads. I certainly believe the opposition has no intellectual merit in the field of science, but I personally rebel at authority. I was not a good student. I simply can't conform in a classroom. I want to be devil's advocate.

[js1138]

It's a joke, son. He is evil because he is truthful. You might notice, if you read the article, that he is teaching physics, not evolution, and he is not teaching he doesn't believe in. He is merely sad because there aren't enough hours in the day to deal with every possible objection. Like everything else in life, you have to make choices amomg possibilities. If you pause to smell every rose, you never ger anywhere.

[longshadow]

free-thinking placemarker

[VadeRetro]

Darwin Central has noted your backslider tendencies. Perhaps some reeducation will be in order.

[longshadow]

Perhaps some reeducation will be in order.

Harsher methods are required: a two-week incarceration on a deserted island with the Tedster, F'dot, and "the one who spewed in blue" on a diet of Granola and prune juice should suffice.

[PatrickHenry]

I find myself having mixed reactions on these threads. I certainly believe the opposition has no intellectual merit in the field of science, but I personally rebel at authority. I was not a good student. I simply can't conform in a classroom. I want to be devil's advocate.

Your file is under review. Our long-standing policy is that we don't mind (too much) if our operatives rebel at authority; but we find it a grevious fault if they rebel at reality. If you want to resign for a better-paying position on the devil's staff (presumably writing articles for a creationist website) we will release you. But first you'll have to pay what you owe to the company store.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'll tell my advisor first thing tommorrow that we've been doing it all wrong.

No need to do that. Not everything is wrong. Collecting, identifying, and sorting data is important for us all, and evolutionists are very good at it.

So when you go about collecting your facts, tell me what happens when you start regularly noticing things like dead retroviral DNA and fused chimp chromosomes? Conclude the all powerful, all knowing designer is trying to mess with us humans? Real intelligent.

I'd cross that bridge when I came to it, but, as with life in general, when I observe things that are corrupt, or that die, it reminds me that this condition came about at a certain point in history when the first man answered the following question in the negative: "Did God say . . . .?"

But even without consideration for that part of the picture, one thing I would not do, and cannot do, even without a miscroscope, is discard the obvious notion that there is a heckuva lot of intelligent design around here, and that SOMEONE is behind it all.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There's no reason to be surprised by the constancy of constants.

Of course not. Neither is there any reason to be surprised at the notion that the presence of the same can be attributed to intelligence or design. I mean, if you were going to build something, is it unreasonable for me to assume that you would want it to act with consistency and design?

I say that the assumption that there's a someONE behind it all isn't reasonable at all.

I can see why it would require a certain leap of faith at this point, but it is no more a leap of faith than noONE.

By analogy, let's suppose you build something a turn it loose. If I were a component built into your object, and had conscieousness, should I really expect your personal involvement to manisfest itself in such a way that you would occasionally appear to me personally and speak to me? I don't think so.

If there is a WHO behind all the intelligent design we observe in the course of nature and history, would it be accurate of us to assume that that WHO must poke its head through the clouds every one in a while to remind us who's boss? I don't think so.

And if that WHO thought it was a good idea to build consciousness and free will into the object, do you think it would be proper to coerce the object thereafter?

The Bible says Jacob wrestled with God. Can you imagine that? I bet that will throw every evolutionist for a loop around the universe. Ha! Hehehe. We're all wrestling in our own way, aren't we?

[VadeRetro]

Harsher methods are required: a two-week incarceration on a deserted island with the Tedster, F'dot, and "the one who spewed in blue" on a diet of Granola and prune juice should suffice.

I meant "reeducation" in the Maoist Proletarian Cultural Revolutionary sense, of course. Your suggestion would be as good as any camp.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Evolutionists assume "random chance" was the causative event not because of the evidence, but because they assume a lack of a creator. Thus their belief system is influencing their science.

That is precisely what the controversy is all about.

Creationists assume "intelligent design" was the causative event because the evidence is visible even to the naked eye of a two-year-old. What is more, they do not necessarily import their belief system into science, but they operate with this knowledge in the background. They work within a GIVEN; they operate with intelligence and design in a universe chock full of intelligent design, for without a maker there can be no discoverer nor anything TO discover.

Without design and intelligence there would not even be consciousness, let alone materials to observe.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Except that neither creationism nor current cosmology deals with infinity, and both postulate definite beginnings.

Is infinity a reality in your universe? Once one accepts infinity as a reality, he can introduce both definite beginnings, or no beginnings at all, into reasonable discussion. Even a simpleton like me knows that.

If you wish to reject infinity as a reality, then please bear in mind that it is YOU who will wear the label of "anti-rational" in that regard and not creationists.

But you are not altogether anti-rational, or I could not even communicate with you. By and large I consider you and all evolutionists to be more than decent examples of intelligent design, but I don't think my opinion of you has much to do with your concerns.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Obviously the first time isolated tribes saw an airplane they had no frame of reference from which to answer.

It is my prediction that they would NOT assume the airplane built itself without any guidance whatsoever from an intelligent agent. Is that too "anti-rational"? They would not have to be educated in the slightest about what makes them fly, etc.

If it we're me out in the sticks I'd ask, "What the hell is THAT?" And if I ever got the chnace to see it up close I'd be asking questions (and picking it apart if the bulder allowed my curiosity to go that far) only to find out, by golly, that it was intelligently designed.

[Virginia-American]

Evolution does not assist in organizing facts and data. It makes unnecessary assumptions once the data has already been organized

In the case of Linnaeus, the *fact* of evolution jumped out at him because he organized the data- after he had organized all known life, he began to doubt that species are immutable.

Remember that Darwin came up withnatural selection - it was already known that some sort of evolution had taken place, and other scientists and scholars like Lamarck had come up with theories. Only Darwin's has survived all tests.

[Stultis]

Also, it is off in one regard. There should be an analysis of prior critical examination wrt outcomes. Every one on the "five aspects" have been considered extensively but there is no consideration of the resulting scientific consensus and the reasoning behind it.

But you can't do that and teach ID/creationism (persuasively). This is exactly what the choice comes down to.

[Virginia-American]

Give me 100 years, a good microscope, and some ordinary facts about chemistry and I'll show you how much in the way of facts and data can be gathered without the slightest deference or reference to evolution.

The facts would force you to invent evolution. There's just no way around it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[js1138]

The dog ate it. I wasn't there and you can't prove it. somebody must have stolen my password.

[PatrickHenry]

The dog ate it. I wasn't there and you can't prove it. somebody must have stolen my password.

Yes. And you had a flat tire, you were suffering from a hangover, you must have been distracted by noise, you have bladder trouble, your computer crashed, the bathroom plumbing isn't working, and your lawyers have advised you not to discuss the matter.

[Junior]

If you wish to reject infinity as a reality, then please bear in mind that it is YOU who will wear the label of "anti-rational" in that regard and not creationists.

As long as "infinity" remains an abstract rather than concrete (i.e., with evidence) concept, it is not rational to invoke it scientific research.