Re: Looking for an evolution exam, to confirm understanding

"On Sun, 31 May 2009 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT), in article
<bd7cb09c-413b-485e-96d2-d71c15c8a74c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Frank J
stated..."

On May 30, 5:18=A0am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message
<e363a588-42bf-4194-b108-77361f53b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
TimR <timothy...@xxxxxxx> writes
For several years I've engaged in discussion with one of the more
fundagelic creationists on a private forum. =A0Recently he has made
some bold claims with respect to his knowledge of ToE being superior
to other forum members.

I'm looking for an objective introductory exam that will confirm who
does and who does not understand the basics. =A0It should be oriented
towards a general high school literate group, not college biology
majors, etc. =A0Basically the chapter you'd get in 9th or 10th grade
"biology for dummies."

With regards to his claims, should you not be setting the bar higher.
Even if the standard of college biology majors is too high, is there
no-one in the forum who's taken Biology for Jocks.

Is there something like this online? =A0I could take questions from my
child's school text, but it would have more credibility if it were
more standardized.

I guess in essence this relates to the question of what the average
literate nonscientist should know.

I have the impression that the average literate American non-scientist
knows remarkably little about evolution, and that much of what they
know is wrong.

Reasonable knowledge about evolution is almost absent in society, even he=
re
in secular Europe. For your entertainment I have here a piece that I
translated some years ago in the interest of getting a second opinion fro=
m a
guy that used to be more active here back then. His response:

Okay, here's my opinion: He's a nut, and he has so many wrong ideas in th=
e
material you quote that I'm not sure where to even begin.

I relayed the comments, incuding that one to the author, who replied:

Dear Rolf Aalberg.

Thank you for your correspondence. Nobody likes to hear that other people
consider you a crackpot. The point I wanted to make when writing about th=
e
ToE was just to declare that I do not consider the issue understood and
settled once and for all. The question of scientific details is of course
outside of my profession and my professional competence. My engagement wr=
t
the ToE is limited to a couple of incidents when I have studied Monod or
Gould. Darwin's own books I know professionally. What all three of them
makes clear to me is that evolutionism may be good biology, but that it i=
s a
poor philosophy. There are all too many philosophical questions that rema=
in
unanswered.

=A0 =A0That does of course not imply that creationism is an alternative, =
or that
ancient myths might serve the same purpose as living scientific hypothese=
s.
When you transplant my quick comments to an excited American forum
misunderstandings are apt to arise. You correspondent then immediately dr=
aws
me into a debate that I never have intended partaking in, and he replies =
as
if I am challenging his creed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


"...evolutionism may be good biology, but that it is a poor
philosophy...."

No. *Evolution* is good biology, and the only explanation that makes
sense, whether or not "evolutionism" is good or bad philosophy.

If he refuses to acknowledge the error, it's safe to assume that it's
not confusion, but a deliberate bait-and-switch.


If "... it is a poor philosophy. [because] There are all too many
philosophical questions that remain unanswered", then what is the
status of creationism (especially in its later forms, such as
"Intelligent Design")? Creationism leaves far more questions
unanswered, in the extreme having no prospect of having interest
in answering *any* questions.

Of course, it is hardly any fault of a study that it leaves many
questions unanswered. Arithmetic leaves many questions unanswered.
History leaves many questions unanswered. Quantum mechanics is
downright paradoxical. But leaving *all* questions unanswered, that
makes one wonder what's the point of something that does that. I'd
say that leaving all questions unanswered is not only poor philosophy,
it's also poor theology, poor stamp-collecting, and poor mountain-
climbing. Maybe it's good poker, good poetry, or good marketing.

As far as a science which is extended into philosophical realms,
I'd think of the Copernican Principle, of which Wikipedia says:
"In cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus
Copernicus, states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured
position.[1] More recently, the principle is generalised to the
relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the
universe.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity
principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science."


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

.

Relevant Pages