Page 1 of 1

The Plain Dealer opines House Bill 164

PostPosted: November 27th, 2019, 7:49 am
by Michaels153
This past Saturday, The Plain Dealer's Editorial Roundtable asked their columnists if House Bill 164 would let Ohio Students turn in wrong answers based on religion. (From the Forum section on page A16)

Those who say this bill is an invitation to scientific inaccuracy (by allowing students to offer Biblical passages "in place of accepted evolutionary fact" in tests and papers) are confused by what exactly are the facts, and about what their concerns should be. called "unproven" the claim the bill would allow wrong answers because of religious beliefs, saying that what the bill "might ultimately allow or not allow in the intersection of education and religion cannot be definitively determined until it is put into effect and applied to specific cases."
Bravo! That declaration should accompany every piece of hysteria that the progressive left files for in the form of injunctions against any piece of legislation that they are not in favor of.
It is also well reasoned common sense.

Unfortunately, statements offered by some columnists of the Plain Dealer were not well reasoned, nor did they even simulate common sense.
Mr. Thomas Suddes wrote: "How long would it take till some crafty Ohio High School pupil assigned to write a Biology paper on say human origins, turns in a copy of the Book of Genesis.
Actually Mr. Suddes; submitting the Book of Genesis for a Biology paper on human origins would at least be filled with historically verifiable facts, whereas any reference to Evolution would not be scientifically verifiable as fact (unless the paper were to include the dates of the hoaxes submitted as proof of Evolution, which would be the only true verifiable facts they could muster on the topic.)

There are people like Lisa Garvin, who speak of evolution as established fact and ignore the fact that Evolution never even met the requirements to be defined as a Scientific Theory.
Ms. Garvin writes: "Unfortunately, we already seem to be in a post-factual world, but we must still fend off incursions into evidence-based science in the name of "religious freedom" like (she believes) House Bill 164 does.
She continues..."While there is a role for Creationism in certain educational settings, conflating it with evolution and biology is an incremental attack on the wall between church and state."

I agree with you Ms. Garvin when you point out that we seem to be in a post factual world. And I agree with you that we must still fend off incursions into evidence based science in the name of religious freedom. But, the incursions into evidence based science are not coming from people who have a certain religion, it is coming from Secularism, and Secularists who do not
want anything to do with God and seek to eliminate any and all references to the existence of God.
In 1963, the court wrote in the case of Abington School District vs. Schempp,..."the State may not establish a religion of Secularism in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

Thus teachers cannot be dismissive of the biblical account of Human Origins by teaching that God had nothing to do with Human origins as the teaching of Evolution does. And in the interest of preserving the purity of scientific fact based explanations, they can not refer to life beginning from a primordial ooze, or that Humans descended from apes and Hominids unless they preface the introduction of this as conjectural speculation in the absence of fact based evidence.

House Bill 164 has the benefit of preventing the incursion of non fact based Secularist teachings.

Re: The Plain Dealer opines House Bill 164

PostPosted: November 29th, 2019, 5:35 pm
by leftyg
There is one problem with your argument: the Genesis story is not a scientific study; it is a mythological narrative. It is profoundly valuable literature and sacred script, but it is not scientific evidence. It is not verifiable in the sense that peer reviewed studies have verified anything to do with Adam taking a rib and creating Eve at God;s behest. Besides, the biblical narrative is not falsifiable, testable or predictable. It is great literature but not great science. You are trying to tear down a very important fence.

Re: The Plain Dealer opines House Bill 164

PostPosted: November 29th, 2019, 11:32 pm
by Michaels153
There is no problem with my example. None. Genesis is the first book in the Bible it contains 50 chapters. Beginning with chapter 5, there is the listing of the generations of Adam. You seem to have a problem with the first four chapters that include the Creation (ch. 1 and 2). It is not considered a mythological narrative by various experts in the field.
In Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict", the Creation is discussed beginning on page 101. There are discussions of portions of the book of Genesis leading to Joseph found on pages 101 to 110.
Let me share with you what he says about the creation:
The opening chapters of Genesis (1-11) are typically thought to be mythological explanations derived from earlier versions of the story found in the ancient Near East. But this view chooses only to notice the similarities between Genesis and the creation stories in other ancient cultures. If we can propose derivation of the human race from one family, plus general revelation, some lingering traces of the true historical account would be expected. The differences are more important. Babylonian and Sumerian accounts describe the creation as the product of a conflict among finite gods. When one god is defeated and split in half, the River Euphrates flows from one eye and the Tigris from the other. Humanity is made of the blood of an evil god mixed with clay. These tales display the kind of distortion and embellishment to be expected when a historical account become mythologized.
Less likely is that the literary progression would be from this mythology to the unadorned elegance from Genesis 1. The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend is fallacious. In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions give rise by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not the reverse
Legends do not lead to historical accuracy
So the evidence supports the view the Genesis was not myth made into history. Rather the extrabiblical accounts were history turned into myths

Now this is an important consideration to your argument that it is not "scientific evidence". The creation of Adam or Eve has not been observed by man, but if you are going to be intellectually consistent and honest, then we are going to have to abide by the same conditions of evidence for both sides. The historical accuracy of the old testament has been established over and over again by archaeology and historians. What has not been witnessed first hand but can be verified by archaeologists and historians (second hand information) is still considered evidence, and is also used in our courts today. Using both deductive and inductive reasoning with the known historical accuracy already documented on the Old Testament, we go back to the first two chapters of Genesis where we have no first hand witnesses of the stated event. If we are to accept this, and want to abide by the strict rules of evidence in use today, we could accept all but the first two chapters of Genesis because they were not observable phenomena.
That brings us to the claims of evolutionists, and let me remind you of what I have already quoted in Juiced Truth's thread.
"Our theory of evolution has which can not be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus outside of empirical science," but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it... (Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." - Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch. "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214 p. 352. [March 10, 2014 post of Texas Public Schools Teaching Creationism]

"The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter." - Theodosius Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," American Scientist, Vol. 45 p.388.

Thus evolution, according to Evolutionist's Paul Ehrlich, L.C. Birch, and Theodosius Dobzhansky is "outside of empirical science," (but not necessarily false) [color=#FF0000] Do you intend then to extend to Genesis that which these three evolutionists have stated? Our creation account in the Book of Genesis can not be refuted by any possible observations.
It is thus outside of empirical science, but not necessarily false.

*Please note then, if both sides are on equal footing, than neither has a superior standing. Because Evolution, which has never been observed, and it too is a narrative that is not falsifiable, testable, or predictable, at least not in the manner of the scientific method.
Evolutionists can point to bones and label some bones belonging to a certain ape or a hominid, but they have no observations of any hominid or ape transforming into another species. They also have no second hand information to support such a theory. They have no evidence in the form of transitional fossils found from which to trace a transformation. The various mechanisms that they have posited are also not observed. The various mechanisms that they have posited are because there is no evidence and no satisfactory explanation given to each mechanism resulting in another attempt to explain what they can't (the lack of transitional fossils found, and the many gaps in the fossil record, and the existence of living fossils, obviously unaffected by Darwin's Micromutation through natural selection, Soren Lovetrup's Macromutation, John Simpson's increase in the flux of ionizing radiation, Stephen J. Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium, Synthetic theory, all failures.)
Evolutionists can not trace in their speculations on the origin of man: Ardi, Lucy, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc.
“There is little consensus on what our(?) family tree is. Everyone accepts that the
robust, Australopithecines aethiopicus, roubustus, and boisei are not ancestral to us,
being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from
Australopithecus afarensis, africansus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known Australopithecines is our ancestor.”

“What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids
(A. africanus, the robust Australopithecines, and Homo habilis), none, clearly derived
from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during
their tenure on earth: none become branier or more erect as they approach the present day.”
- S. J. Gould, Natural History. 85:30

So since these found species have not been determined to be traced from past to present, the value of studying "the origin of man" is what?
Lord Zuckerman, himself an evolutionist, has expressed his conviction that there really is no science at all in the search for man’s fossil ancestry. He has arranged various scientific endeavors in a spectrum beginning with what he considered to be pure science and moving toward endeavors he considered to be less and less scientific. He began with chemistry and physics, then moved into the biological sciences, and then into the social sciences.” He then goes on to say:
“We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man’s fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible – and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.”
– S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, page 19.
- [Duane T. Gish, Evolution: the fossils Still say NO!, page 311]

In review then, Evolution never met the criteria to be designated a scientific theory. Evolution is not fact based science. Evolution is not falsifiable, testable, or predictable.
So as I said in reference to Mr. Suddes and Ms. Garvin; they are confused as to what the "facts" really are, and if their concern is that science should teach science, then that can still be done without advancing conjectural speculations as science. "In 1874, Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz (biologist, geologist, and physician) wrote:
...."and Darwin's theory, like all other attempts to explain the origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural."
Returning then to the merits of House Bill 164. The student who quotes about the Biblical account of human origin (the generations of Adam (beginning in chapter 5) is dealing with facts, whereas the evolutionists discussing Ardi, Lucy, and the rest are not. The evolutionists have only conjecture, speculation, and more questions. They have no answers