E.T. Phone Home - Part II

Mathematically the answers are 5 inches, insufficient information, and insufficient information. Answers derived from the scientific method are 5 inches, insufficient information and insufficient information. The above explanation could be attached as an observation of why there was insufficient information. That would be correct. That would teach critical thinking skills.

Instead of following these basics all the way through, arguments abound between “professionals” as to what topics should be taught in science. There aren’t such arguments in mathematics. Debating on methodology of teaching the subjects is healthy for the profession. Debating on what topic to teach when all of the options have a similar flaw is irrational. The topics of controversy are the Evolutionary Theory, Creation Theory, Intelligent Design Theory and all of their variations. The debates on which to teach often boil down to “professionals” using 2^nd grade playground logic instead of adult thinking. One side or the other will claim the other as junk science. Another common one is to declare the other side isn’t science because both sides don’t have the same point of view. This is the same as the 2^nd grade playground logic of “You don’t belong with this group because you aren’t cool.” Let’s shelve that type of thinking.

Intelligent Design Theory holds a large variety of opinions on the origins of life. The differences are too grand to summarize. Creation Theory uses an assumption that writings in a book (The Bible) are true even though they aren’t demonstrable by the terms of the scientific method (in regards to the Creation in Genesis). Evolution Theory uses an assumption that writings in 3 books (by Hutton, Lyell and Darwin respectively) are true even though they aren’t demonstrable by the terms of the scientific method. All three use empirical data to substantiate some portions of their stances. But only the Evolution Theory is taught in public schools. Why when all three are in essence in the same boat?

There are over 300 empirical scientific challenges to the Evolution Theory that are often ignored. That isn’t the scientific method. That is closer in resemblance to a dogmatic belief structure. Ignoring the challenges is risking a true labeling of “Junk Science”. The last time the scientific community assumed they were correct on a hypothesis/ model / theory, and shunned any that didn’t agree with them despite that the hypothesis/ model / theory assumed to be a fact was not subjected to the scientific method was the belief in the Flat Earth. In hindsight, what they assumed turned out to make them look like fools. That is what assuming does.

With the assumptions made in the Evolutionary Theory, we will look again at the candle questions. First, using the beliefs of Uniformitarianism, we will assume that when we burn the candle and measure the rate of burning now, that rate will have always been true despite all of the unknown circumstances. Borrowing from the geologic column and arguments for it, we will now assume we know how long the candle burned and come up with how tall it was. Or we could have assumed we knew how long the candle was to begin with and calculate how long it burned at what ratio. Both are faulty in their logic. However, this is what is taught. The layer of the rock determines the age of the fossil. The identifier fossil identifies the age of the layer of rock. That is circular reasoning. This teaches students to make erroneous conclusions on insufficient information.

to be continued...