Unsurprisingly I got the same result...
matt | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 4:23 pm | #

I can't honestly answer a number of the questions, given the choices, so it won't let me play.

I'm disappointed, but not at all surprized, but I found a couple of answers that are related to each other, that I thought were worth commenting on in context with the kind of test that I'd like to see:

I thought that this was an interesting answer to question #4 about the inevitablity of human life...

No, but some intelligent species was

I might agree with that, although I'm not sure that human-like life isn't the only avenue given the available raw material in conjunction with a constant physical need for it to arise.... which would be my answer.

This is why:

Man is special, and his environment including natural resources were specially created

The landscape is equally important to our evolution and survival, and so the energy that we can expend in the direction of survival must be readily expendable. This means that the cooperative environment enables entropy to increase within the limits of practical human effort, and this necessarily entails that carbon-based life must be environmentally favored.

An entropic interpretation notes that this defines a means to raise the energy level enough to breach the relevant environmental constraints in order that entropy may continue to increase by way of the next most difficult path of entropic action.

Humans are historically proven to have the ability to do this, and that ability defines a thermodynamic effect that enables the preferred system to leap to higher orders of entropic efficiency. This is quite plainly proven if humans did this when they evolved from apes to the 'fire breathing monsters' that they are today, which indicates that asymmetries, (imperfections), are carried perpetually forth to higher orders by the second law in the impossible effort toward idealistically pure symmetry. That means that there is a special link between the evolution of humans, and the evolution of the universe. The link defines purposeful design in nature, which comes about as a result of the higher-level universal need for our presence here.
island | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 5:07 pm | #

Nice quiz. The possible answers were well thought-out and articulated, and adequately representative. I gave it a good rating.
Ryft Braeloch | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 7:23 pm | #

Hi David,
A couple of comments on the quiz from a YEC / educator type.

A few of the questions seemed a little vague. If I hadn't read as much on the topic, I think I would have struggled to get the appropriate meaning out of the question.

E.g. "Is Common Descent Real?" Common descent across which categories? Perhaps 'Is all life related via common descent?'

On the big bang question, I also found a little off because big bang is generally considered a theory. As such answering 'there was no such thing as the big bang' doesn't seem appropriate. Looking then at possible meanings, I have to ask what was the 'big bang'? What part/s of the theory do we need to identify it? Was it the beginning of the universe from an infinitely (sic) small point which then expanded out? This may not be inconsistent with YEC. Or, from a logical perspective a YEC could say that fine tuning exists, use this as a basis to argue for God, and then by this conclusion argue that some of the assumptions involved in the big bang are therefore shaky and so should not be relied on (e.g. cosmological principle, unbounded universe etc).
Not sure how to improve this question.

'Is Radiometic Dating Reliable?' should probably be clarified to 'Is Radiometric dating reliably able to determine an accurate age of the test substance?'

"Should the creation account in Genesis be taken literally?" I would change the YEC answer to 'Yes, as it is in historical narrative form, it refers to 6 literal twenty-four hour days'. A bit clunky, but more correct and brings it more into line with other answers which talk of textual composition (allegory, myth etc)

All in all, a good effort. I of course came out as YEC.

Cheers
AG
Alan Grey | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 9:32 pm | #

John 5:46-47 - For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?
Elvis | 11.16.05 - 10:19 pm | #

Motivated science isn't honest science because it doesn't come about from the honest interpretaton of evidence. Both sides of the debate are guilty of this, but arguing for god from fine-tuning isn't justified even if we're not here by accident, because the answer that's closest at hand is natural design, until otherwise proven.

Other than that, I like your logic, Alan Grey, and there is a new paper that puts a serious hurting on the Copernican Cosmological Principle, and the infinite unbound universe to 99.9% CL.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-p...tro-ph/0508047/

I commonly argue that origins cosmology isn't about idealizations that are pointed *toward* by speculative theoretical physics projections, and the observed universe tells a very interesting story when you approach it in this manner.

The anthropic principle is incredibly more meaninguful in a bound and closed universe, especially if Mach's Principle comes back into play because of it, because that would kill uncertainty, and LaPlace's demon then becomes perfectly valid.

I have good reason to believe that this is the most accurate cosmological model... much to the chagrin of many uncertainty worshiping physicists.
island | Homepage | 11.17.05 - 10:24 am | #

I hereby bestow the "most transparent quiz" award. Congratulations, What Type of Evolutionist/Creationist Are You? Quiz.
Mike Graham | 11.17.05 - 7:38 pm | #

He lives...and he's damn pissed off, too

Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?
One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.

You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.

If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:

All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).

Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.

George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.

And conservative columnist George Will points out that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion. Does that sound like fiscal discipline to you?

You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral leaders” in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.

Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?

Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb...tbb-0510- 26.pdf

Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/w...-edt- geo17.html
Phil | Homepage | 11.18.05 - 5:33 pm | #

You are an atheist evolutionist. You do not believe
that anything supernatural is required to
explain any aspect of creation.


What Type of Evolutionist/Creationist Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

OOPS! Got lost. I mean 'am' lost.
william | 11.20.05 - 3:35 pm | #