The Ohio BOE "Achievement" Committee Skates (again!)

Perhaps the Michigan story on standards will motivate them. Nothing like state rivalry!

Are any of these people up for reelection next month?

Are any of these people up for reelection next month?

Craig and Owens-Fink are running for reelection. Also Sam Schloemer, who's been consistently pro-science AFAIK.

Martha Wise, who's been a very strong ally of good science education, is unfortunately leaving (and couldn't come back anyway, thanks to term limits). I believe several Ohio science education groups have supported John R. Bender as her replacement; Bender was formerly on the state Education Committee and (unsuccessfully) opposed adding governor-appointed members to the Board of Education.

Yup, Martha will be a loss to the BOE. However, she's running for the State Senate now, which is a good place to have a friend of honest science.

The situation in Ohio is actually worse that portrayed here ... Dick let the Board off easily.

Starting in the April meeting of the Achievements Committee there was discussion of replacement language for the standards that might earmark certain topics as being "controversial." Some committee members were dubious, but Mike Cochran, Colleen Grady, and Debbie Owens-Fink all wanted "something." Stan Heffner of the ODE (Dept. of Ed, not Board of Ed.) then suggested a "framework" on teaching controversial issues, without identifying them, that would be simply a link on their web site using existing materials such as the AAAS Education site. It sounded innocuous at the time, and who could complain if teachers were linked to the AAAS? (Note - none of us have been able find any such framework there.)

The May meeting was more interesting. Grady brought some possible replacement language with her, to add to a Nature of Science indicator. Current the indicator reads "Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretations of daya or about rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science." She wanted to add the following line: "Demonstrate this as it applies to the following areas of science: evolutionary theory, global warming, and the chemical origins of life." Her argument was that none of the wording was new, and came from other parts of the existing standards, so there should be no problem. (Never mind that all of the words were lifted from their context and put in a new context and a new order -- that's not "new language" in her book.)

As the tv commercials say, "But wait, there's more!"

As the committee discussed the wording, she said it was "just an idea" and other controversial issues could be added. Her list included "plate tectonics." (I unfortuantely laughed out loud when she said that ... a snorty canthisbeforreal type laugh.)

That was only half of the proposal. The other was to elevate the indicator to be a benchmark. This is kind of like going from sub-species to species level, in Ohio Standards taxonomy. Why? Because then it can be fodder for the Ohio achievement tests (although that nuance was not discussed at the meeting.)

Steve Millett, Board member suggested an alternative approach: "Do nothing." He went on to suggest that no changes were necessary to the standards, and that teachers could decide how to deal with these issues. But note his words ... they were prophetic.

Meanwhile, Heffner said they were still working on the "Framework" and promised it by July. (Two points: it finally surfaced in September, and if it had been as advertised -- links to supposedly existing materials -- why was it taking so long?)

I was not at the June meeting, which was a retreat where suspicious things were going on. I also could not make the July meeting, but that is when Grady had the replacement language for the standards that included stem cell research, cloning, evolution, and global warming. And presumably Heffner was still working on the "framework" (also sometimes called a "template")

So here is where we stand before the August recess: There has been discussion of changes in the standards to include controversial issues, elevate them to benchmarks (for testing purposes), and, in the word of Owens-Fink, "operationalize" them with a seemingly innocuous framework/template.

In September, the Achievements committee started out with historical revisionism, in which Grady rewrote the July minutes to deny that stem cell, etc had been part of her proposal. (I recorded that, and it is available on the Ohio Citizens for Science web site.) The committee then conviently ran out of time before they could get to that issue, which was last on the agenda. There was no motion or vote to adjourn. It just ended, immediately after the ODE passed out their long-awaited Framework (also on the OCfS web site).

Yesterday's meeting was similar, except that a few days before the meeting of the Achievement Committee, the topic mysteriously disappeared from the agenda. In Dick Hoppe's post, he recounts how Jim Craig had been quoted as saying that the issue was dead. Yet he had promised to have vote to end discussion on the issue and effectively kill both the replacement language and the framework. At-large Board member Ockerson brought up the topic at the end of the meeting. I have a recording, which I hope to have put up on OCfS later, in which Cochran said that, he hoped the topic (resolution 31) would come up either next month or the following month, as time allows. There was no motion or vote to adjourn.

But wait, there's more!

Okerson and Steve Millett had wording for a motion that would have quashed further discussion of this nonsense, and allowed the Board and the ODE to get back to more important business. They assured fellow a fellow board member of like mind that they would do so. They also had the votes, especially because Owens-Fink wasn't there (she strode in after the meeting from across the road, for the meeting of the full Board -- she wasn't there on purpose.) What you won't notice on the recording, and what few people saw, was that Steve Millett subtely waved his hand up and down to stop Okerson from making the motion, and let it ride.

"Do nothing" indeed.

Jim Craig went back on his word, but I hold the entire Achievement Committee complicit in perpetuating this nonsense upon the Board, and upon the Ohio education system. If nothing happens today, and something could quite literally as I write this, then I hold the entire Board complicit in this mess.

If nothing happens today, we Ohioans have our votes in November.

sincerely,
Jeff

Yup, Martha will be a loss to the BOE. However, she's running for the State Senate now, which is a good place to have a friend of honest science.

— RBH

Re "(Never mind that all of the words were lifted from their context and put in a new context and a new order --- that's not "new language" in her book.)"

And all of those words can be found in an English language dictionary, right? Ergo, not new. Uh huh. [rolling eyes]

Henry

RESOLVED, That the Achievement Committee of the State Board of Education, having recommended no response to Board Resolution 31 referred to it in February 2006, is hereby discharged from further consideration of Resolution 31 and anything arising therefrom, including the template for teaching controversial issues.

I am coming to some conclusions about science based in part on my time spent here.

1. Science is a tool limited by its PRACTICE of methodological naturalism.

2. If the supernatural exists science can never prove it. So science may not know when it has missed evidence of the supernatural. Therefore, the possibility exists that in a scientific investigation where supernatural evidence may be present, the investigation may not consider all the evidence. This means science may find itself in an investigation which is beyond the limits of science --- if the supernatural exists and is present.

3. Theories of science reached in investigations described in #2, cannot rule out the possibility of other means of explanation, except to say they are not scientific. (E.g. if evidence of supernatural intelligence exists, a scientific investigation of origins may theorize naturalistic causes but cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural causes.)

4. A scientist who does not accept naturalism as a world-view may still be able to practice methodological naturalism as required by science. Likely, only those who do hold to a belief in naturalism will outright dismiss #2 & #3. This would also likely hold true for those of other philosophical perspectives such as materialism. They will not only likely dismiss #2 & #3, but believe the scientific results of such investigations to be absolute truth.

5. (This one is based upon my limited knowledge of ID, and is more an observation) Until such time that science can include phenomena currently labeled supernatural, science should remain in its current form and practice with those studying it having a good grasp of #1-4. Other forms, such as ID must continue outside of science as currently defined and practiced.

Of course these are my conclusions and subject to revision as I follow this debate.

I posted this here the second time to be sure all those hammering me yesterday could see I was truthful about my objectivity. By the way I do believe the biblical account of creation.

This kills Resolution 31 and the template. It effectively answers the question whether anything should replace the deleted lesson plan, benchmark and indicator with a resounding NO. The motion itself passed 14-3. Cochran, Ross and Westendorf voted No. Owens-Fink and Baker were absent.

— Brian McEnnis

HG, could you show us how a "supernatural science" would work? Please cite an example?

...so long as whatever "theoretical" effects the "supernatural" might have on whatever situation science is studying don't actually leave the slightest trace of detectable "evidence," one supposed you are left to dream on, HG.

You are certainly welcome to whatever "philosophical" satisfaction you are able to derive from such an unevidenced "theoretical" entanglement of the "supernatural" with the real world that science so successfully studies.

Still, I gotta say it beats me how you can claim "objectivity" when you are apparently blithely ignoring all the mountains of actual, physical, reproducible, and independent lines of evidence that indicate that your delusionary, er, deluge ever happened.

HG, could you show us how a "supernatural science" would work? Please cite an example?

Still, I gotta say it beats me how you can claim "objectivity" when you are apparently blithely ignoring all the mountains of actual, physical, reproducible, and independent lines of evidence that indicate that your delusionary, er, deluge ever happened.

1. Science is a tool limited by its PRACTICE of methodological naturalism.

2. If the supernatural exists science can never prove it. So science may not know when it has missed evidence of the supernatural. Therefore, the possibility exists that in a scientific investigation where supernatural evidence may be present, the investigation may not consider all the evidence. This means science may find itself in an investigation which is beyond the limits of science --- if the supernatural exists and is present.

3. Theories of science reached in investigations described in #2, cannot rule out the possibility of other means of explanation, except to say they are not scientific. (E.g. if evidence of supernatural intelligence exists, a scientific investigation of origins may theorize naturalistic causes but cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural causes.)

4. A scientist who does not accept naturalism as a world-view may still be able to practice methodological naturalism as required by science. Likely, only those who do hold to a belief in naturalism will outright dismiss #2 & #3. This would also likely hold true for those of other philosophical perspectives such as materialism. They will not only likely dismiss #2 & #3, but believe the scientific results of such investigations to be absolute truth.

5. (This one is based upon my limited knowledge of ID, and is more an observation) Until such time that science can include phenomena currently labeled supernatural, science should remain in its current form and practice with those studying it having a good grasp of #1-4. Other forms, such as ID must continue outside of science as currently defined and practiced.

No. I am not a scientist. I am simply making up my own mind based on the information I have been exposed to.

Perhaps you should consider whether your understanding is imperfect.

If you can't point out how to conduct science using the supernatural, perhaps making up your mind is not a good thing to do.

The Board, as a whole, finally came around today.

Our rejoice must come with caveats:

I stick my my earlier comment today that many Board members, not all, are complicit in prolonging this assault against honest science education in Ohio.

Apparently Cochran has vowed to bring it back to the Achievement Committee under a different aegis. I'll be there, again, to monitor the committee.

Apparently there was a lot of bad blood floating around the room, from Grady and others, despite their sensible votes.

This is over for now, but it is a long way from being completely over.

But rejoice ... this was a huge step forward. We must keep the honesty-in-science-education momentum going.

Cheers,
Jeff

No. I am not a scientist. I am simply making up my own mind based on the information I have been exposed to.

Before I would accept the "mountains of evidence", I looked at the method of investigation.

What, exactly, is it that you are bitching about?

HG, unfortunately, science cannot investigate the supernatural. Indeed, it could be argued that no human method of investigation could reliably research that which is outside of nature. Should there be a supernatural being or beings out there, they made it downright impossible for us to learn anything about them. Mysterious and all that.

'Course, this is coming from an agnostic, though I think I've thought it out pretty well. If there is a method for looking into the existence of and traits of supernatural entities, I have yet to hear about it. A small mountain of Nobel prizes are waiting for the man who can think one up.

We are left to look at the world we can see for answers (scientific ones, not necessarily philosophical ones), and oddly enough we've come a long way by doing so.

Hg, using ANY method of investigation that you like, please explain the evidence that seems to be against creationism.

Start with fossil sorting, then we'll move to the really hard stuff.

You know, I've been asking creationists to explain fossil sorting for two decades now. Isn't it strange none of them seem to be able to answer? Now, why would that be...

The sad result of this victimization is that the sum total of all scientific evidence is nowhere near sufficient to ratify his beliefs. Nothing wrong with the beliefs themselves, as I said. If only the method of science could be born in Christ again and see the light (i.e. use the standard of evidence where facts lead FROM faith, rather than TO it), the "real" evidence would (ta-daa!) confirm HG's preferred fables. The key phrase, I think, is the "belief in naturalism" he talks about. When everything is a belief, you know the Religious Method is being applied full force.

Start with fossil sorting, then we'll move to the really hard stuff.

Course, this is coming from an agnostic, though I think I've thought it out pretty well. If there is a method for looking into the existence of and traits of supernatural entities, I have yet to hear about it. A small mountain of Nobel prizes are waiting for the man who can think one up.

No. There is no "supernatural evidence". Evidence is evidence - physical, natural, empirically detectable. There could conceivably be evidence of phenomena caused by supernatural agents/mechanisms, however.

HG says:

"Andrea,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

Soon to say:

"Lenny,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

"Steviepinhead,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

"gwangung,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

"Flint,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

"Sounder,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

"Michael Suttkus II,

I stand corrected. Thank you."

:-)

It strikes me as odd that you all here seem more concerned with bashing my religous belief than you were interested in discussing the limits of science.

I thought religion has no place in science.

By the way, I don't think naturalism is evil.

It's sad this whole debate is so contentious.

I know the ID folks are after science. I'm not versed in ID enough to say what there motive is.

I'd like to believe it is to open up science to intelligent causes, but I think there is a chance it is to get ID into the schools and to overthrow darwinism.

Students at a public school may discuss the various religious traditions of the world, different cultures' conflicting perspectives on deities, and even traditional philosophical proofs of God's existence, but only in classes where it is clear the government is not putting forth a set of religious ideas as true. Thus, these concepts may be relevant to history, philosophy, or comparative religion courses in a public school, and may be taught in these contexts without running afoul of the Constitution. But teaching intelligent design in a science class is different; in that context students are presented with a package of conclusions that has at its core the notion that God created the world in more or less its present form. In this context God is not being presented as a "theoretical postulate"; rather, He is being presented as the Lord your God, who created the world and presumably still controls it and is therefore worthy of deference.

It strikes me as odd that you all here seem more concerned with bashing my religous belief than you were interested in discussing the limits of science.

No.

We know quite well the limits of science.

It's that you try to stuff those limits into your rather narrow beliefs, which you try to PORTRAY as religious.

Other Christians, with similar doctrinal beliefs, don't have the same problems.

It's sad this whole debate is so contentious. I know the ID folks are after science. I'm not versed in ID enough to say what there motive is.

When I read this, I think that A) You are too lazy to bother doing even minimal research, or B) You are a blatant liar.

Given the copious quotes GIVEN to you by ID supporters, I tend to think the latter.

And THAT'S why you are given the well deserved roasting you are receiving here; intellecutal dishonesty such as yours should receive nothing but contempt. And trying to cloak yourself in "religious" protection is hypocritical and subversive to the spiritual qualities you claim to hold.

I'm going to try this again...

HG, your problem here is you've taken the fact that science cannot reach supernatural conclusions from the evidence, and jumped to an inaccurate conclusion, that science must be biased because it ignores possibilities.

But science isn't biased by this because of the null conclusion possibility.

To go back to my former example of the tree being erased from my front yard by God, if a scientist investigated the phenomena, he would be left with no answers. He would not make up a mysterious force to account for it, at least not one that couldn't be tested for, and since God did it, whatever force he hypothesized and tested for wouldn't exist and he would again return to the null answer.

Evolutionary theory is not the result of science being biased against God and coming up with an explanation, any explanation to fill in a hole. Evolutionary theory is the product of multiple lines of evidence, supported by all known evidence, and capable of making robust predictions about evidence we have not yet found, such as telling us not only what fish/amphibian transitions would look like, but where to look for their fossils!

If it was simply a case of God having made the world per Genesis and science being unable to fathom the "god theory", science would be saying, "I don't know" about the origin of the world. Science is NOT saying "I don't know" because the evidence doesn't lead to "I don't know", it leads to evolution, common descent, and chemical abiogenesis.

Mr Suttkus, I read your wiki article on fossil sorting with relish. I look forward to HG's refutation of what seem to me to be unassailable points presented simply, clearly and elegantly. Whenever it appears, that is ("Michael, I'll try to do that real soon").
But I'm particularly interested in your remark that you've been challenging creationists to counter your arguments for some 20 years. Have you kept a record of whom you challenged, and what their response was ("Michael, I'll try to do that real soon")? I'd love to see a list of what they actually said ("Michael, I'll try to do that real soon"), followed by what they actually did (" ").

Well. I stick by my 5 conclusions.

You all have a nice day.

And so HG sails into the sunset, predictably and right on schedule. I have observed this behaviour enough that I have captured it in a simple life-cycle:

The Life Cycle of a Creationist

The Introduction
quote:

Hi! I just stumbled on this website and my, oh, my what a lot of good information there is here! Y'all seem like very nice folk maybe you could help me out.

The Bait

quote:

Ya see, I fell asleep during Science Day and I have a question. Try not to be too technical 'cause, you see, I'm just a good old country boy.

The Non Sequitur

quote:

It seems to me that all this common descent stuff misses the point of the Hox-Gamma Quadrant gene transmogrifying through Hoximosynthesis to become the Hox-Alpha Quadrant derivitive, twice removed in mildly acidic solutions. I don't see how the primordial soup could have provided enough spice to make that happen.

The Reply

quote:

Hi. I'm Josh. What follows is a 900-page comment detailing...

The Reply to the Reply

quote:

Thanks. That was helpful but it seems to me that all this common descent stuff misses the point of the Hox-Gamma Quadrant gene transmogrifying through Hoximosynthesis to become the Hox-Alpha Quadrant derivitive, twice removed in mildly acidic solutions. I don't see how the primordial soup could have provided enough spice to make that happen.

The Reply to the Reply to the Reply

quote:

Hey, I just answered your question. What more do you want?

The Hook

quote:

That's a bunch of b******t! You miserable, low down, athiest liberal. You're all a bunch of liberals. You even have a town in Kansas named Liberal. What's up with that? Huh? And that Tasty Freeze in Lawrence still owes me four cents. The Founding Fathers would have been ashamed of ALL of you!

The End, er, Repeat Forever

The conclusion of HG:

It seems to me that HG's beef was that we would not allow him to connect a scientist's "world view" (whatever that is and I'll assume it's creationist code words for religious beliefs) to one's interpretation of data.

What HG has described, however, is the current state of creation science. Because of individual "world views" and bias you have Old Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Flood Geologists, Pan-spermians, intelligent designers, etc, all of whom put forth "theories" about the same physical reality, although none of the "theories" fit with each other. Is HG suggesting that all of science should adopt that model?

Could we have Texan Science where all of the universal constants are just a little bigger than other sciences? Yeah, I could go with that!

And people wonder why science standards are so important. Well done, Ohio.

I wonder if these people understand that "conclusion" and "preconception" are different words, with different meanings? All I can say is, they are treated as interchangeable. I wonder if it even could occur to HG that all of the information provided to him has not served to change his preconceptions a bit. The learn-proofing capabilities of religious belief are truly impressive.

An official record? No. I should probably start, it would be fun. But I can estimate.

I only wrote the article itself a few months ago, so mostly I'm referring to much shorter versions of the challenge.

The majority answer is: {Insert sound of one hand clapping}

This would include variations like, "I'll get back to you on that... {Insert sound of one hand clapping}". So far, this is the one and only kind of response the article has gotten.

The next most common answer is to plug "fossil sorting" into the search feature on their favorite creationist website and regurgitate whatever comes up. This produces some entertaining results, like, "How do you explain the sorting of fossil mangroves (which should be the lowest of fossils in a YEC world) over fossil plants like Rhynia?" Answer: "Some species can outrun rising flood-waters better than others." I have gotten this exact answer to queries about fossil plants at least five times simply because the creationists put "fossil sorting" in and got "differential of escape" back. No thought, no paying attention to see if it makes any sense as a response, just repeat. Even if the result is less surreal (jokes about Jurassic racing mangroves and runner beans abound), I then point out that the explanation doesn't make sense (which it never does, my examples are chosen because they confound every creationist explanation I've ever heard of) and we're back to either repeating this answer or moving on to one of the others (usually the first).

Next up we have, "Then explain {insert your choice of Precambrian pollen, fossil fingers, squashed trilobites, Paluxy tracks, Paleozoic human teeth, etc.}." This not only invariably refers to falsified "evidence", but also fails at all to answer the question I asked.

I suppose I should include total non-sequitur on the list somewhere. It's probably second most common, if you count repetition from a single source given that it's the favored response of the truly insane creationists who hang around on forums forever. For instance, Laurie Appleton responded to a question about the sorting of Amphicyon (the dog/bear transition fossil) with a quote from Darwin about circus bears, followed by a line like, "Is this what you were thinking of?" Laurie also gets "credit" (debit?) for one of my favorite answers: Amphicyon isn't mentioned in his library (a dozen books, by his own estimate), so not important! He also claimed to have tried the word in "the" Internet search engine (there's only one, you know) and found nothing! He was then buried in links to search results for Amphicyon from dozens of search engines and asked to point out which one he used which found nothing. Laurie refused to provide us any information about this mythical search engine that didn't have it.

Laurie, incidentally, is very nearly if not actually the stupidest creationist in existence. Yes, I know, it's a hotly contested title, but there you go. His primary competition is a total loon named "Jabriol". I can rant about both of them for hours. Laurie gets extra points for mocking my grandfather's funeral, and being the only creationist I was dealing with to do so.

Also popular is "You're going to HELL!" and variations like, my personal favorite, "I hope I'm mature enough not to laugh AS YOU BURN IN HELL."

I had one creationist actually argue that mangroves lived on mountain tops before the flood. Yes, the platform roots designed to resist hurricanes in sandy soil would be perfect for resisting flash floods on rocky mountains! The salt glands on their leaves were due to saltier pre-flood air. (How did other plants survived without them? What are you asking me for?!) Humans also only lived on mountain tops to be closer to God. Pine trees are found in lowlands, so it "roughly matches" their distribution beneath flowering plants, nevermind flowering plants are found in ALL levels of the world now, it's a rough match! You have to almost admire the amount of creative thinking that goes into something like this.

So, in short, I haven't gotten a single actual answer to my fossil sorting queries. Unless you think mangroves could live on mountain sides, along with all the fish that got sorted to the top and aren't found in the lower layers.

Well. I stick by my 5 conclusions. You all have a nice day.

— HG

Mr Suttkus,

I quickly read through your article. It appeared you had two objectives. First, to establish that fossil sorting is evidence of, and consistent with evolution. Second, to discredit the biblical record of a global flood. I haven't read a rebuttal or examined any other evidence the other side might offer, but you did explain the opposing position in your article so I'll take your word for it.

This may be an opportunity to practice my five conclusions -- I'll give it a try.

You looked at the natural evidence scientifically and concluded it supported evolution. I do not disagree with you on that point. The argument you present seems perfectly logical and sound. Based solely on your article, I think science did its job and the conclusion that the evidence supports evolution is obvious.

As far as your attempt to refute and discredit the biblical record of a global flood I would disagree. You seem to refute the arguments of the creationists rather than the biblical record. The biblical record states that the world prior to the flood was different than today; and that the flood was not only from above, but also from beneath; and that the world that then was, perished. The language of the record might be examined to better know the conditions that were present. However, being that we only have a biblical record of the world prior to the flood, there is no way to observe the conditions pre-flood or duplicate them. There is no way to observe or know with certainty the exact conditions of the flood or what effect such an event would have. This is especially true since the biblical record claims the global flood was caused by what science calls the supernatural. These things seem to put the biblical record global flood beyond the reach of science. However, the claims of creationist who attempt to prove the flood scientifically are fair game, and you seem to have done a good job of calling them on it. Personally, I don't think science can confirm or deny the biblical record of a global flood.

Michael,

I'm kinda surprised you didn't list the response "God did it that way on purpose for mysterious reasons/to create the appearance of age/just because." What emerges from your listed responses is ironic - all of those people are trying to find natural explanations for natural phenomena, which somehow sidestep any contradiction with their favorite fables. You don't list any efforts to find *supernatural* explanations. Why not?

What we're seeing here is a boundary condition, I think. These people, to survive any ordinary day, must necessarily have internalized the presumption and rather intimate understanding that natural causes produce natural results, because that's the only way to walk, eat, and avoid fatal errors moment to moment. But their Matters Of Faith are bounded into a special reserve in their minds, where doubt is not allowed.

Fossil sorting violates this careful boundary. On the one hand, it's a natural phenomenon daily lifelong experience says has a natural cause. On the other hand, if it DOES have a natural cause, it permits evidence to violate the boundary and threaten Matters Of Faith.

I think creationists intuitively recognize that simply ascribing something as pervasive and consistent as fossil sorting to magic and miracle, would necessarily push the boundaries of their Matters Of Faith much too far out, forcing them to include matters as fundamental as eating, walking, and avoiding fatal errors. So the boundaries aren't permitted to move, nor are they permitted to be erased. They must be finessed. Doing so requires true creativity.

However, being that we only have a biblical record of the world prior to the flood,

there is no way to observe the conditions pre-flood or duplicate them.

There is no way to observe or know with certainty the exact conditions of the flood or what effect such an event would have.

This is especially true since the biblical record claims the global flood was caused by what science calls the supernatural. These things seem to put the biblical record global flood beyond the reach of science.

However, the claims of creationist who attempt to prove the flood scientifically are fair game, and you seem to have done a good job of calling them on it. Personally, I don't think science can confirm or deny the biblical record of a global flood.

Are you kidding? Floods have been common occurrences throughout human history and indeed for the last few billion years.

What do any "conclusions" about science have to do with that?

Faith is quite a powerful phenomenon isn't it.

Quite the contrary, we have an absolutely enormous record of conditions over the duration of the last few hundred million years at the very least. This record establishes beyond rational doubt that the "biblical record" is a work of fiction.

GuyeFaux:

So long as you're not confusing the fact of faith, with the claims made in faith. Clearly, HG has faith. Granted, what he takes on faith is entirely imaginary, but that's why it's a matter of faith. Otherwise, it would be a matter of evidence, and silly claims about global floods would be honestly labeled as fiction.

If only faith (belief-despite-evidence) were NOT a phenomenon, and people were rational, at the very least our living standards would be wonderful. One might almost label them phenomenal.

A nit-pick: matter's of faith don't count as phenomena. A phenomenon is by definition detectable by the senses and therefore by science.

The world described in the biblical record prior to the flood. That world, that according to the biblical record perished, so the biblical record is all we have of it.

If only faith (belief-despite-evidence) were NOT a phenomenon...

Matters of faith may not be but faith itself is [a phenomenon.

Flint,

I am not asking anything. I am stating that the biblical record is could not be subject to scientific investigation for the reasons I stated. One of which was that
science cannot investigate the world prior to the flood because it doesn't exist.
You say it doesn't exist because it is imaginary, the biblical record says it perished. Either way it doesn't exist.

By the way, thanks for putting up with me. I appreciate your civility, for the most part.

I'm kinda surprised you didn't list the response "God did it that way on purpose for mysterious reasons/to create the appearance of age/just because."

— Flint

I quickly read through your article. It appeared you had two objectives. First, to establish that fossil sorting is evidence of, and consistent with evolution. Second, to discredit the biblical record of a global flood.

— HG

I haven't read a rebuttal or examined any other evidence the other side might offer, but you did explain the opposing position in your article so I'll take your word for it.

— HG

This may be an opportunity to practice my five conclusions --- I'll give it a try.

— HG

You looked at the natural evidence scientifically and concluded it supported evolution. I do not disagree with you on that point. The argument you present seems perfectly logical and sound. Based solely on your article, I think science did its job and the conclusion that the evidence supports evolution is obvious.

— HG

As far as your attempt to refute and discredit the biblical record of a global flood I would disagree. You seem to refute the arguments of the creationists rather than the biblical record.

— HG

The biblical record states that the world prior to the flood was different than today; and that the flood was not only from above, but also from beneath; and that the world that then was, perished.

— HG

The language of the record might be examined to better know the conditions that were present.

— HG

However, being that we only have a biblical record of the world prior to the flood, there is no way to observe the conditions pre-flood or duplicate them.

— HG

There is no way to observe or know with certainty the exact conditions of the flood or what effect such an event would have.

— HG

This is especially true since the biblical record claims the global flood was caused by what science calls the supernatural. These things seem to put the biblical record global flood beyond the reach of science.

— HG

Yet another thread hijacked by The Flood.

How many times, how many times...

One last time...

IF God made the oak tree in my front yard disappear, there would be evidence of this. The plants in my yard are adapted to shade. There are oak leaves everywhere. There are pictures of my yard with an oak tree in it. There's a hole in the ground consistent with an oak and it's roots.

Scientists looking at my yard in this condition would conclude that there HAD been an oak there, and that the oak had vanished. They could not explain this vanishing, but the conclusion of the vanishing would be obvious. All the evidence points to an oak tree having existed and no longer existing.

In exact parallel, IF there had been a miraculous global flood, scientists would have no explanation for the flood, but would still conclude from the evidence that there had been such a flood.

IF.

There is no evidence that there was a global flood, miraculous or otherwise. There is much evidence that there was no flood.

If there was a flood, science would recognize it's existence, but have no explanation for it's origin or cause.

IF

Science does not recognize the existence of the flood not because of a bias against the supernatural, but because every scrap of evidence denies it.

Arm waving. How was it different? What effect on fossil sorting would those differences have produced? What does the source of the waters have to do with fossil sorting?

I say again. If there had been a flood, the explanation for the flood would be beyond science, but there would still be evidence of the flood itself.

If, on the other hand, faith is something that you do not sense with your five senses, then it fails to be a phenomenon.

I am stating that the biblical record...

Flint,

I'll refer to the biblical 'record' as the biblical 'account' on this site from now on. Please substitute 'account' for 'record' whenever reading my previous posts.

I find your notion of what constitutes a phenomenon to be excessively narrow. By your definition, memory wouldn't qualify. Neither would (for example) creativity, imagination, comprehension, preference, etc.

I noticed HG has made absolutely no attempt to answer the original question on fossil sorting. The nearest he comes to it is 'science cannot investigate the world prior to the flood because it doesn't exist' which I find to be an unusual, if not unique, argument.

I noticed HG has made absolutely no attempt to answer the original question on fossil sorting.

Yet another thread hijacked by The Flood. How many times, how many times...

The nearest he comes to it is 'science cannot investigate the world prior to the flood because it doesn't exist' which I find to be an unusual, if not unique, argument.

I would have to look at ID or creationism to see the evidence they use to support a global flood before I could accept your claim that "no evidence" exists.

I'll refer to the biblical 'record' as the biblical 'account' on this site from now on

I trust you understand that this sidesteps, rather than addresses the substance of my complaint? Genesis is not an 'account' either. It is fiction. If you wish me to substitute "fictional account" for every use of the word "record", I can do this, but it makes my wonder why you have picked this work of fiction, rather than any other, to cite.

Out of curiosity, what was the basis for calling for an emergency vote? Obviously, the January emergency vote (which failed) was spurred by the FOIA request, and the February vote (successful) was spurred by the ACLU's "cease and desist" notice in the papers the morning of the vote. The AG of Ohio has stated that an "actual or imminent lawsuit" is a proper reason for holding an emergency vote. But I don't see any obvious reason this vote had to be done as an emergency, other than for political reasons (the next meeting is after the elections, right?).

I will not refer to the biblical account of the flood as fiction. My doing so would be dishonest on my part.

Another victim of The Flood.

And a demonstration of why solid science standards are so important.

Well. I stick by my 5 conclusions.

You all have a nice day.

Put 'world' into the context of which I wrote. The world described in the biblical record prior to the flood. That world, that according to the biblical record perished, so the biblical record is all we have of it.

Out of curiosity, what was the basis for calling for an emergency vote? Obviously, the January emergency vote (which failed) was spurred by the FOIA request, and the February vote (successful) was spurred by the ACLU's "cease and desist" notice in the papers the morning of the vote. The AG of Ohio has stated that an "actual or imminent lawsuit" is a proper reason for holding an emergency vote. But I don't see any obvious reason this vote had to be done as an emergency, other than for political reasons (the next meeting is after the elections, right?).

The biblical account was not detailed only generally described.

— HG

The source of waters suggests the earth was broken up, and the result was the earth perished.

— HG

There is no way from this general description to fully know or duplicate the conditions.

— HG

The biblical record claims only 8 people were alive who could have known what the previous earth was like compared to the earth after the global flood.

— HG

They didn't record anything to help science investigate the account.

— HG

I would have to look at ID or creationism to see the evidence they use to support a global flood before I could accept your claim that "no evidence" exists.

— HG

HG: I'm not sure you understand quite how hard it is for a world to "perish" in such a way that no evidence of it could be found.

More seriously, consider for a moment how much kinetic energy the water would have to have to demolish every building, every artefact, every possible trace of the previous world's existence. Now think of the effect that that water would have on an oversized, overloaded, undercrewed wooden boat. We're talking a matchstick in a blender here.

Just as long as you're not misleading yourself (or others) about the weight of evidence here.

However, given the method of investigation, science cannot prove or deny supernatural intervention in events such as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

Then the surface would be a jumble of broken pieces. It isn't.

Doc,

Dishonesty seems to be your strategy of debate. First you group a couple of my quotes with those of someone else in a weak attempt to characterize my visit here. Then you attempt to put words in my mouth. Keep it up. I don't mind you making a fool of yourself.

Hey HG, both the creation "scientists" and the intelligent design 'theorists" testified, in court, under oath, that neither creation "science" nor design "theory" had anything to do with the Bible or religion.

Were they just lying to us when they testified to that?

Oh, and would you mind explaining to me why we should care any more about your religious opinions than we should to, say, those of my car mechanic or my veterinarian or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

HG,

What debate? Scientifically you're wrong. It's that simple.

Regarding a matter of faith, however, I respect your opinion and belief. In fact, the ultimate believer with a science background is Kurt Wise, PhD, who has said something to the effect that even if the entire Universe presented data to the contrary, he would still believe. I won't argue with that and I defer to Dr. Wise's strength of faith.

However, to attempt to contort science to support beliefs is where I object. That's where creation science and "intelligent design" are in direct opposition to science education, and I will oppose any attempt however minor to water down science education, whether it be code words like "teach the controversy" or the recent attempt in Ohio to institute "controversy frameworks" or blatent attempts as in Dover and Louisiana decades earlier.

Personally, I am honored to be at the tip of my little evolutionary twig knowing that all my ancestors, all of them, through 3.5 billion years of evolutionary trials and tribulation survived so I could write these words. That, to me, is more marvelous than your supernatural flood. I am blessed by the perseverance, and luck, of my ancestors and I respect their success.

As for making a fool of myself, I've done that all my life. It's my trademark.

Once again, congratulations to Michigan and Ohio for standing firm for strong science standards.

Were they just lying to us when they testified to that?

Oh, and would you mind explaining to me why we should care any more about your religious opinions than we should to, say, those of my car mechanic or my veterinarian or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

What debate? Scientifically you're wrong. It's that simple. However, to attempt to contort science to support beliefs is where I object.

As for making a fool of myself, I've done that all my life. It's my trademark.

"Are any of these people up for reelection next month?"

Yes, Deborah Owens-Fink is one of them. She has been the biggest ringleader for Creationism over the last few years. Her proposals for changing the curriculum come right out of the Disco play book. If you are sufficiently motivated to help us out here in Ohio, please visit http://www.votetomsawyer.com and drop a few bucks. This is Ohio Board of Ed candidate Tom Sawyer running against Ms. Owens-Fink.

Tom Sawyer is a well respected longtime Ohio statesman, having been everything from an educator to mayor to US Representative. He is running for Ohio school board because he is disgusted with the decline of education in Ohio. As a side note, he comes with glowing recommendations from the scientific community. Although not a single issue candidate, he understands the history and the nuances of this cultural war on science very well. Help us out in Ohio if you can so we can rejoin The Enlightenment. Remember, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

HG writes:
I am coming to some conclusions about science based in part on my time spent here.

"1. Science is a tool limited by its PRACTICE of methodological naturalism."

That is an assertion, yet you state it as fact. There is no objective evidence for any superor extra-natural phenomena.
Science studies what can be measured. Come up with objective evidence for the existence of supernatural phenomena, and develop a metric
for it, than your statement has some validity.

"2. If the supernatural exists science can never prove it. "

Another assertion. If the supernatural has measurable effects then science can demonstrate its existence.
"But so far, nobody has come with any objective evidence for the supernatrual.

"So science may not know when it has missed evidence of the supernatural. Therefore, the possibility exists that in a scientific investigation where supernatural evidence may be present, the investigation may not consider all the evidence."

What evidence? You've put the cart before the horse. Show us this objective evidence for the super-natural.

"This means science may find itself in an investigation which is beyond the limits of science --- if the supernatural exists and is present."

If ifs and butts were candies and nuts...

"3. Theories of science reached in investigations described in #2, cannot rule out the possibility of other means of explanation, except to say they are not scientific. (E.g. if evidence of supernatural intelligence exists, a scientific investigation of origins may theorize naturalistic causes but cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural causes.)"

We can never rule out unseen, unmeasurable super-natural causes. Thats why they are not science. I can't rule out the existence of unicorns either.
So far you have nothing to offer.

4. "A scientist who does not accept naturalism as a world-view may still be able to practice methodological naturalism as required by science. Likely, only those who do hold to a belief in naturalism will outright dismiss #2 & #3. This would also likely hold true for those of other philosophical perspectives such as materialism. They will not only likely dismiss #2 & #3, but believe the scientific results of such investigations to be absolute truth."

So?

5. "(This one is based upon my limited knowledge of ID, and is more an observation) Until such time that science can include phenomena currently labeled supernatural, science should remain in its current form and practice with those studying it having a good grasp of #1-4. Other forms, such as ID must continue outside of science as currently defined and practiced."

First you need to demonstrate the existence of super or extra-natural phenomena.

"Of course these are my conclusions and subject to revision as I follow this debate.

I posted this here the second time to be sure all those hammering me yesterday could see I was truthful about my objectivity. By the way I do believe the biblical account of creation."

You think you're objective? LOL

Here's my conclusion about you. You have no evidence for any supernatural phenomena. You wish science to incorporate phenomena which have no objective evdience for
their existence. But you want science to support your biblical literalist hallucinations.

Is that about right?

HG writes:
"Well. I stick by my 5 conclusions.

You all have a nice day."

Ah yes... fundy in.... fundy out.

"I don't mind you making a fool of yourself."

said - wait for it... HG!!!!!!!!!!

"I know *scientifically* I am wrong. I already admitted that."

Then your argument is moot, yes?

"Well. I stick by my 5 conclusions."

And I'll stick by my six. You stand corrected. Or sit.

Blast my internet connection, why does all the funny stuff happen while I'm away? :(

I couldn't say for certain.

I do not know enough about ID, or creationism

Having lurked and occasionally posted here for up unto a year now, I have to say that HG represents one of the most purely distilled victims of Creationist propaganda that I've ever seen bother to post here. It's interesting to be reminded of just how simplistic and predictable these arguments are when unhampered by the political rhetoric and pseudo-scientific obfuscation that clouds and pollutes the ID movement in general. As best as I can tell, the thinking follows:

1) Every story in the Bible is literally true.
2) Any evidence that suggests otherwise is false and/or incomplete.
3) Any way of thinking (science, in particular) that may potentially lead people to come to other conclustions is flawed and/or suspect.

Is that pretty much it? It's amazing to me what the human brain is capable of when it tricks itself into starting with the conclusion, and molding the interpretation of evidence to fit it. In this light, I propose a haiku to give a basic overview of an important part of the Scientific Method:

First comes evidence
From there, conclusions follow
Simple one-way street

Then the surface would be a jumble of broken pieces. It isn't.

— HG

Mr. Suttkus, Not necessarily. The language suggests that, but nobody saw it. The language also suggests a re-ordering of the earth since it was destroyed during the flood (Gen. 8:22). It could be the earth was in pieces, a slurry, or both. Read Gen. 7&8; II Peter 2&3 for the majority of the biblical account.

I know *scientifically* I am wrong. I already admitted that.