Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

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

[cornelis]

However, there is controversy in science on the issue of objectivity and subjectivity, and exactly at that point where theoretical autonomy finds its limit.

[VadeRetro]

If anything, the ID hypothesis in on any given question in biology is that we actually know less than we think, that much of our knowledge needs to be torn down because it didn't make the "It must have been designed" surrender. ID's potential gains seem to be negative, judging from how ID-ers view evidence and the existing scientific literature.

[PatrickHenry]

You could have added the solar system. Interestingly, the shape of the earth and the solar system are contradicted by a literal reading of some scriptural passages. Yet creationists seem untroubled by these things, often going into a frenzy of "liberal construction" techniques to defend the findings of science.

[js1138]

However, there is controversy in science on the issue of objectivity and subjectivity, and exactly at that point where theoretical autonomy finds its limit.

If you can phrase that in a way that doesn't sound like it was written by Michel Foucault, I'd be interested.

[cornelis]

I'm not sure how rephrasing would help. I only point out a controversy in scientific thinking between objectivity and subjectivity.

[js1138]

Could you point out how this controversy affects the acceptance of facts and theories, such as the ones I listed in #76?

[longshadow]

frenetic placemarker

[Fester Chugabrew]

Gee. With so little controversy in science I guess everything is settled now.

But only a fool would believe all of the controversies you listed have been completely settled. Geologists are still learning the shape and content of the earth, and what would you bet there are still a few learned arguments over how to go about it and exactly what shape the earth is now, and how exactly to determine its mass, all the while using the INTELLIGENT DESIGN in their minds and the INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED tools they have for observation.

It is the duty of science to challenge all of the above and more; to visit the facts again and again, and "challenge the status quo."

What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment.

Well, I suppose you can sit there at your computer and tell us what is, and what is not, possible, but all we can can do is ask: How do you know? And please tell us, while you're at it, how all the intelligence and design in the world could appear without an intelligent designer. The question is very simple, but I have yet to see anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution answer it without equivocation. It is beneath their "dignity."

No, ID is not a "non-credible" idea. It is an idea open for inquiry just like anything else in the universe. But you would make a "non-credible" scientist for declaring outright what is, or is not, possible.

[cornelis]

Because the acceptance of information as fact is dependent on extraneous things like public opinion, perceived success, advantage, or disadvantage. This dependance points to the historical contigency of any scientific consensus.

[cornelis]

dependence

[Fester Chugabrew]

I am not sure what you are driving at here.

Nothing fancy. Just free inquiry and a voice for all inquiring minds.

[rwfromkansas]

They are state curriculum guides...they always will be a lot more advanced than what is in the classroom.

I look at the KS history standards and have to laugh...we don't get to half that stuff until college.

[VadeRetro]

Nothing fancy. Just free inquiry and a voice for all inquiring minds.

You should have asked more questions when you actually WERE in High School. However, your questions don't belong in the curriculum now.

"Voice for all enquiring minds" is a little ridiculous. There's no time, and the students need to know what science does know before they worry about what some zealots refuse to know.

[cornelis]

There's no time, and the students need to know what science does know before they worry about what some zealots refuse to know.

Just like Sunday School ;)

[rwfromkansas]

Why would a creationist have a problem with the age of the Earth?

The earth is old. It is just that since I also believe evolution to be bunk, I get lumped in with the nutso young-earth crevo's. Don't lump us all together like creationists all think alike.

[js1138]

please tell us, while you're at it, how all the intelligence and design in the world could appear without an intelligent designer.

You encapsulate what is wrong with ID and why it isn't science. You go about asking questions the wrong way.

A scientist, confronted with the enormous task you have preesented, would ask, "Is there some piece of this puzzle that I can place? Is there some evidence I can find that supports or refutes the hypothesis? Is there some process I can analyze to see if it can occur without intervention?

And after 150 years or so, and tens of thousands of scientists or so, you gain confidence in your paradigm.

[VadeRetro]

Sunday Schools still exist. The brouhaha would make more sense if they had been outlawed, but they exist.

[VadeRetro]

It is just that since I also believe evolution to be bunk, I get lumped in with the nutso young-earth crevo's.

That, and some of us still remember your YEC days. You and Patriotic Teen. ;) But I'm glad to see you fighting your way to reality a block of data at a time.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There's no time, and the students need to know what science does know . . .

How much time is there? Do you know what time is (ontologically) and where it came from? Do you detect anything intelligent, or regular, about time? Clocks shave a speicific DESIGN so we can INTELLIGENTY ascertain how much time has passed.

Frankly, I think it's past your bed time.

[rwfromkansas]

lol. We did have "earth science" before I took biology and chemistry in HS.

Earth science was such a pud class.