Ohio biology curriculum - petition

Stephen,Don't mention it. Pennock both attacks ID creationism and defends evolution as a scientific enterprise. Those of us who have read Pennock's work well understand his position on Darwinism. While you're waiting for Pennock to respond, though, you could always mull over this essay that Pennock wrote concerning 'Supernaturalist Explanations.' In fact, he even mentions old Chuck D here:

quote:

---

These characteristics of the supernatural show why supernatural explanations should never enter into scientific theorizing. Science operates by empirical principles of observational testing; hypotheses must be confirmed or disconfirmed by reference to inter-subjectively accessible empirical data. One supports a hypothesis by showing consequences obtain that would follow if what is hypothesized were to be so in fact. Darwin spent most of the Origin of Species applying this procedure, demonstrating how a wide variety of biological phenomena could have been produced by (and thus explained by) the simple causal processes of the theory. But, as we have seen, supernatural theories can give no guidance about what follows or does not follow from their supernatural components.

---

In addition, your claim that evolution does not give God credit for His creation is addressed by Pennock here:

quote:

---

It is misleading for Creationists to characterize science in general and to define evolution in particular and as being "godless." Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless. Evolutionary biology is no more or less based on a "dogmatic philosophy" of naturalism than are medical science and farming. Why should [author Phillip] Johnson find methodological naturalism so pernicious and threatening in the one context and not the others?

---

I just wanted to point out that a real philosopher of science is not likely to sit on the fence 'twixt creationism and evolution on rational grounds. The methodology of evolutionary biology is perfectly consistent with scientific methodology in general.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I should have guessed as much that you would respond so vaguely.What was I thinking?

MrHambre,If I can contact Pennock, I will challenge this comment; Which is precisely what I am claiming is not true. This is based on the assumption that the supernatural does not intervene in natural events in any predictable, systematic way. But, the supernatural claims that it does exactly intervene in the natural in predictable ways, and prayer studies confirm that claim.

MrOpus,You're just too lazy to do the research yourself. You know very well that the guy's name will easily be found, if you really want to know. And, if he's still alive, you will be able to ask him yourself to confirm my account. I've told you all I remember, and enough for you to find out what you want to know, or to stay ignorant if that's what you choose.Stephen

Stephen,Yeah, whatever. I doubt Pennock will wither in the harsh light of the 'prayer studies' you claim invalidate the basis of methodological naturalism. You never know. I think Mammuthus would like to put some money on it, though.What I intended with Pennock's essay was to demonstrate how secure the foundation of evolutionary theory is in the estimation of philosophers of science. I hope Pennock's writing makes it clear that Darwinism constitutes a rational mode of inference that meets the requirements of science.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

I think Mammuthus would like to put some money on it, though.

---

Yes, and the plausibility that I will pay up if I lose will go from 0.5 to 0.51 if I get my next grant ...and if the thing I see floating in my tea is not poisonous..crap..should have looked into the cup before drinking

Stephen-I do not wish to take this topic off course, so I'll keep this response short. A recap:I asked you for the prof's name. You told me you didn't remember his name four years ago, but managed to tell me your story of your conversation with this prof. I was somewhat skeptical of your story in the first place (and still am), and you reply that it should be ME that needs to find this mystery individual. Why oh why did this become my burden to find out the prof's name? Why would I have asked you in the first place if the burden was on me to find out who the hell you're referring to?And you should be careful on whom you deem "ignorant". Judging how a handful of individuals have handed your butt to you here on a number of threads, it's somewhat comparable to the pot calling the kettle black.You say you don't remember, I'm seriously fine with that at this point, regardless of my skepticism in your story. If, by any chance you do seem to remember, please let me know. It would certainly make my quest for enlightenment much easier.Regards,Opus1

O.To stay on thread, this is about science education, and the notion that the validation of ideas is in efforts to replicate and confirm or not predictions stemming from those ideas. The idea in question is, do philosophers of science regard evolution as "good" science. I told my story as an example of how to proceed. "Good" scientists don't fuss at great length over whether a reported piece of data is accurately presented, at least not when it is fairly easy to replicate the materials and methods. Whether or not I am remembering poorly, or lying, or my philosopher remembers differently, hey, we're all humans here, and this is only one data point. Check in with other philosophers, if you want to be a "good" scientist.At least, this is the way I believe that science should be taught. A point of view that is obscured by the way evolution is defended as science.Stephen

Syamsu, uh I mean Stephen,Having presented you with what I consider a very comprehensive and insightful defense of evolutionary theory and methodological naturalism from a prominent philosopher of science, I can't help but feel a little perturbed at your continued insistence that evolution is unscientific. I assume your grasp of the material is lacking, and that your mantra "Bayes theorem, H-D reasoning, strong inference, and epistemology" is an attempt to appear objective and rational when all you have ever offered is anecdotal evidence for your groundless claims.Please offer some real support for your assertion that evolution should not be taught as science.regards,
Esteban Hambre

It is also rather disturbing that someone who claims that teaching standards in science are not up to par uses as an example (evidence) something an undesignated, supposed scientist once said to him, in a personal conversation years ago, where he cannot remember any of the details, conveniently thinks the person may be dead, but everything this person said supposedly is remembered and supports the outrageous claims being made. The average American gets a lousy enough education as it is without lowering the standards to the point that kids who can walk and chew gum at the same time would be required to get a lobotomy in order to meet Stephen's standards.Would any creationist accept Stephen's account? If I claimed that I read an article four or five years ago in a book, the title and author of which I have forgotten, which absolutely without a doubt proves evolution, the book may however be out of print, I can't remember where I was when I read it, but it proves everything I say... Don't be lazy, go out an find the book if you want to know for yourself... Until them I am right...would any creationist accept this as an argument? This type of reasoning is what Stephen is wishing that we all accept.

Mammuthus,Damn straight. I'm most amused/frustrated by the way he refuses to see evolution (or anything else) in the context of the entirety of scientific knowledge. That is, he claims that a few highly disputable prayer studies "confirm" the existence of the supernatural and invalidate methodological naturalism, but the literally millions of systematically conducted studies that constitute the mountain of evidence supporting evolutionary biology don't mean jack.It reminds me of your loyal detractor Syamsu and his insistence that the way Nazi theorists misused Darwinism constitutes an essential link between evolutionary biology and genocidal racism. Evidently the dozens of research papers he's been cited in which evolutionary biology is curiously lacking this racist agenda don't constitute evidence at all.If the philosophical resemblance becomes any more acute, I'm sure I'll lose interest in ben Yeshua the same way I've abandoned discussion with Syamsu.regards,
Esteban "Fickle" Hambre

The consequences of crap like the Ohio ruling and the superstitious tripe that Stephen wants in the classroom is already starting to show itself. In most science and engineering departments, 50% or more of the students are foreign i.e. having been taught actual science somewhere not throttled by religious dogma. Second, the jobs these graduates get after getting a their degree are starting to pop up off American soil i.e. the IT migration. It is only a matter of time before biotech moves offshore like it has with stem cell research. The third consequence is that the public will rely on medicine and technology they don't understand in any way shape or form and are forced to trust the authorities (who will all be from somewhere else) that the stuff is useful or not dangerous...what a Utopia

MrHambre,You ask, Why should I offer support for something that I don't believe, and have never asserted?My assertion is that evolution should be taught, and researched, as good science. Starting with rejection of the idea that "discovering" "the best explanation" for observations is "good science." That's really rationalization. Science is all about making surprizing predictions, and developing ideas so that they are so plausible, we can bet our life on them. Evolutionists, when their theory does make a validated and important prediction (as Pauling did with Vitamin C) reject that prediction and go on to defend their theory because it is the "best" explanation for what we see in nature. That's poor and very incomplete science. We should tell the children about that, in case any of them want to choose to love the truth.Stephen

quote:

---

Science is all about making surprizing predictions, and developing ideas so that they are so plausible, we can bet our life on them.

---

We do bet our lives on evolution. Flu vaccines, new antibiotics, and epidemeologic predictions are all based on evolutionary theory. Not to mention new discoveries in medicine that may cure new diseases or inprove current medication. Without evolutionary education, this spring of new discovery will dry up.

quote:

---

Evolutionists, when their theory does make a validated and important prediction (as Pauling did with Vitamin C) reject that prediction and go on to defend their theory because it is the "best" explanation for what we see in nature. That's poor and very incomplete science.

---

Did you mean to insert a negative qualifier in there somewhere? Or do you actually mean that when evolutionists make predictions that actually bear out they tend to reject them? Not getting this part.

quote:

---

We should tell the children about that, in case any of them want to choose to love the truth.

---

Tell the children about the mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution? OK, sure, go ahead. I'm sure 99% of it will fly over their heads due to the fact that they are being exposed to the actual theory for the first time. How many high school students have a working knowledge of genetics, biochemistry, or morphology? Not many. The purpose of evolutionary education is to teach what the theory is stating, not to put the theory through the grist mill of evidenciary support. That will be handled in college/university if they continue their education. If learning about the theory of evolution makes one immoral, then you should tell the rest of the creationists on this site to run for the hills.

Exactly, loudmouth! As a high school bio teacher, my job is to prepare my kids for college, if that is their objective. For those not going on in education or those not furthering themselves in biology, evolution education is important for furthering critical thinking skills, demonstrating the effects of good science, making kids think twice about not taking all of their antibiotics, stimulating interest in a subject that not only is relavent to their lives, but explains life on Earth, etc. Evolution is not religious and is backed up by mountains of evidence. What do all of you think is easier to teach in the four weeks (13 hours of actual instruction), I have been given to teach evolution--God did it or "once we get done with these 15 lines of evidence for common descent,then we can culture bacteria and, and, and,..." I give what I think is a pretty thorough unit on evolution, but there is just too much stuff to go through in four weeks (26 hours of total instruction if I include work outside of class)! I provide what I think the students need to be successful in whatever future they choose. I would be a dishonest ass hole if I didn't teach evolution to the best of my abilities, and then some. Funny, I actually went to college in Ohio (not OU or OSU, though) for biology/geology/environmental science. I had always had a bad feeling about that state.