Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 21 of 83 (814015)
07-03-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 11:31 AM

Re: EvC
Think it through properly, the ones whose field is evolution, a full understanding of that theory, are the only ones that can fully assess evolution.
Then read DeliverUsFromEvolution's Message 41 in which he explains his beliefs. Three earned degrees in biology, studied evolution for years. Became a Christian and accepted their false dichotomy teachings that equate evolution with atheism. He studied creationism and ID, but found them to be full of holes.
DeliverUsFromEvolution writes:
So where do I stand today? I am a creationist in the sense that I do believe God created the universe from nothing. By faith (not by "evidence") I believe that God has a purpose for the universe and everything in it. I am an Intelligent Design proponent in the sense that I believe God is an intelligent agent that created the universe with intelligibility, and infused it with the ability to bring forth complex biological life through laws and processes He providentially foreordained. I am an theistic evolutionist in the sense that I believe that evolution can make sense of almost everything I observe in the biological realm, without having to appeal to ex nihilo creation or periodic tinkering ala Michael Behe. At the end of the day, I forgo the creationist title because it is usually associated with a 6,000-year-old Earth and anti-evolutionary stances. I pass on the ID designation, because that has the connotation of denying common ancestry, and seeks to "prove" God's hand in the universe by means of "evidence"--something I think that is misconceived and misunderstands the modest aims and limitations of science. I believe in purpose, but by faith. I believe in design, but by faith. I don't make my science try to prove things it can't, and I don't try to make my faith say things it doesn't.
I follow the evidence where it leads, because truth will always lead to God, no matter how counter-intuitive. I love God, and I fully believe in evolutionary theory. And I believe that when both are properly understood, there truly is no conflict between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 11:31 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 12:33 PM dwise1 has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 36 of 83 (814059)
07-04-2017 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 2:02 PM

On the population genetics test, I scored 74% (32 correct, 11 incorrect, 0 unanswered). For that one you would have had to have studied population genetics in order to have all the terminology and equations down.
On the Evolution T/F quiz, I scored 92%. I got two "wrong":
1. The evolution of major groups of animals and plants is an observed fact.
13. Evolution can be compatible with all the world's major religions.
We could quibble about #1, but I strongly disagree with #13. Evolution does not in any way conflict with the idea of Divine Creation nor with the existence of any of the gods. The only source of conflict is when the religions create that conflict. When religions insist on conflicting with reality (such as YEC does), then they also conflict with evolution. Evolution can be compatible with all the world's major religions so long as those religions do not make contrary-to-fact claims about the reality -- even those who take issue with the very idea of reality at least do not try to claim that if the real world is actually as it is then God does not exist (basically, the YEC claim).
I would need to challenge your 88% score on that one. Most of those questions were creationist misconceptions about evolution. As the unrepentant YEC that you evidence yourself to be, if you had answered them honestly, then you would have thought most of them to be true and hence should have gotten a much lower score. For those who did not notice, that quiz had a preface:
Since, 1) I will be teaching intro. to physical anthropology in the fall, and 2) I found out "they" are attempting to open a creationist museum on the border on Ohio and Kentcuky, I figured I would just see for myself were Americans stand on the idea of evolution. 3 out of 9 congressmen polled about whether they believed in "evolution" or not stated that they didn't. That to me is scary.
Please indicate whether each following statement is true or false, in terms of how you think biologists use and understand the term "evolution" today. YOU do NOT necessarily have to AGREE with the statement for it to be "true" as you think biologists see it. The purpose of this is to determine the collective level of understanding on this topic. In every case below, "evolution" means "biological evolution".
OK, so you could answer contrary to what you think. Which makes you and your situation even worse, because you know better and yet you persist in misconstruing evolution.
The Pew Research quiz/poll, I aced it, 13 out of 13. It was really simple.
Wait a tick ...
mike the wiz writes:
And finally a science and technology quiz, which I got 14 out of 15;
(This last one is a good one because when you are finished it shows a statistic of how you compare to people of the same age group and so forth.)
"14 out of 15"? ???? There were only 13 questions, so where are you getting that "15" from?
Now, for statistical data collection purposes, they also asked us our age range, our gender, and our educational level. Are those what you are talking about? Well, I hate to inform you that 13 + 3 = 16, not 15.
Assuming that you can correctly answer questions about your age, gender, and educational level (no, I am not fishing for sarcasm here, but if you wish to claim that you in fact cannot answer those questions correctly, then do please proceed), what does that do to your actual score? I trust that you did print out a PDF of that page and will share it with us (I did print mine). Otherwise, it would appear that you got two of those extremely simple science questions wrong, not -1 of them as you claim.
Edited by dwise1, : First paragraph: "For that one you would have had to have studied population genetics in order to have all the terminology and equations down"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 2:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2017 5:21 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 8:06 AM dwise1 has not replied

Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 37 of 83 (814061)
07-04-2017 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
07-03-2017 3:29 PM

mike the wiz writes:
And finally a science and technology quiz, which I got 14 out of 15;
Public’s Knowledge of Science and Technology | Pew Research Center
You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.
Interesting to see that all of the answers but one are answered correctly by the majority of people. That one question gets 3/4 of people.
Two things:
  1. There were only 13 questions, yet he claims "14 out of 15". That is a factual discrepancy that needs to be resolved. I pointed that out to him in my Message 36, which should have been posted immediately before this one.
  2. Which question are you referring to? I printed out my results page as a PDF, but it did not include all the questions. I would be interested to know which question 75% of the people didn't answer correctly.
BTW, regarding your new avatar. At a Scottish Games here in the USA, I saw a t-shirt that read, "If this were a skirt, I'd be wearing underwear!"
On a slightly different note, back in the day when Brandon Frazier redid Bedazzled in 2000 in which Elizabeth Hurley played Peter Cook's part, the Devil, I noticed something. In one scene she's wearing a tartan mini-skirt. But then I notice the leather straps. She's wearing a mini-kilt! As they say, the Devil's in the details!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 07-03-2017 3:29 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 07-04-2017 9:34 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2017 2:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024