From the state that once gave us pi = 3

[Jeffrey Turner]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php

Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.

But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.

At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...

The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
and Scientology.

[John Vreeland]

I have always recommended discussing religion in science classes. It
tends to produce atheists.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

[Ron O]

More confusion than anything else.

Ron Okimoto

[J. J. Lodder]

John Vreeland <john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:55:18 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
> >
> >Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> >creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> >unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
> >
> >But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
> >
> >At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
> >
> >The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> >various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> >must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> >is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> >and Scientology.
>
> I have always recommended discussing religion in science classes. It
> tends to produce atheists.

It's an incredible waste of time.
It just gets the same non-arguments recycled endlessly,

Jan

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/02/2012 05:03 PM, John Vreeland wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:55:18 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>>
>> Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
>> creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
>> unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
>>
>> But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
>>
>> At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
>>
>> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
>> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
>> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
>> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
>> and Scientology.
>
> I have always recommended discussing religion in science classes. It
> tends to produce atheists.

Learning evolutionary biology in the university level biology curriculum
didn't convert me to atheism, as a deistic or theistic evolutionism
could be accommodated. It did cause quite a bit of cognitive dissonance
though.

Actually taking a serious look at the Bible itself (historicity,
theodicy, and contradictions) was what did the trick. A rigorous
critical Bible study class would create more atheists IMO than teaching
of evolution.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:15:20 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

I would agree if the venue is science class, but nothing
indicates that would be the venue. And a course in
comparative religion is far from a waste of time; it would
be nearly impossible to paint a correct or complete picture
of Western and Middle Eastern civilization without
discussing religion. The same is probably true of any
civilization, from Ur onward.

Of course, since history is downplayed in today's schools
(the phrase "not relevant in today's world" comes to mind,
the idiots), at least in the US, the point might be moot.

>It just gets the same non-arguments recycled endlessly,

Discussion can, and does, yield insight. Note that this is
about the study of religions, not religious instruction.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[dali_70]

Scientology?? LOL, really. I wonder if they'll have to fork over a few
grand before they can learn that one. Absolutely ridiculous.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:15:20 +0100, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >John Vreeland <john.v...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:55:18 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
> >> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
> >> >
> >> >Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> >> >creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> >> >unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
> >> >
> >> >But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
> >> >
> >> >At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
> >> >
> >> >The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> >> >various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> >> >must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> >> >is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> >> >and Scientology.
> >>
> >> I have always recommended discussing religion in science classes. It
> >> tends to produce atheists.
> >
> >It's an incredible waste of time.
>
> I would agree if the venue is science class, but nothing
> indicates that would be the venue.

Huh? See above.

> And a course in
> comparative religion is far from a waste of time; it would
> be nearly impossible to paint a correct or complete picture
> of Western and Middle Eastern civilization without
> discussing religion. The same is probably true of any
> civilization, from Ur onward.

Sure, but that was not what this thread was about.

> Of course, since history is downplayed in today's schools
> (the phrase "not relevant in today's world" comes to mind,
> the idiots), at least in the US, the point might be moot.
>
> >It just gets the same non-arguments recycled endlessly,
>
> Discussion can, and does, yield insight.

Sure, if the aim is to gain insight.
(which is rarely the case)

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:45:21 +0100, the following appeared in

I see nothing about the venue, just that the ideas of all
major religions (and idiocies from Scientology) be addressed
in *a* class. Perhaps you could point out where you see
"science class"?

>> And a course in
>> comparative religion is far from a waste of time; it would
>> be nearly impossible to paint a correct or complete picture
>> of Western and Middle Eastern civilization without
>> discussing religion. The same is probably true of any
>> civilization, from Ur onward.
>
>Sure, but that was not what this thread was about.

It wasn't? I could have sworn it was about the inclusion of
classes about religion (but not religious classes) in public
schools.

>> Of course, since history is downplayed in today's schools
>> (the phrase "not relevant in today's world" comes to mind,
>> the idiots), at least in the US, the point might be moot.
>>
>> >It just gets the same non-arguments recycled endlessly,
>>
>> Discussion can, and does, yield insight.
>
>Sure, if the aim is to gain insight.
>(which is rarely the case)
>
>Jan

[Ron O]

On Feb 4, 12:09 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:45:21 +0100, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:15:20 +0100, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
>

> >> >John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:55:18 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
> >> >> <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>
> >> >> >Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> >> >> >creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> >> >> >unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
>
> >> >> >But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
>
> >> >> >At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
>
> >> >> >The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> >> >> >various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> >> >> >must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> >> >> >is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> >> >> >and Scientology.
>
> >> >> I have always recommended discussing religion in science classes. It
> >> >> tends to produce atheists.
>
> >> >It's an incredible waste of time.
>
> >> I would agree if the venue is science class, but nothing
> >> indicates that would be the venue.
> >Huh? See above.
>
> I see nothing about the venue, just that the ideas of all
> major religions (and idiocies from Scientology) be addressed
> in *a* class. Perhaps you could point out where you see
> "science class"?

Just wait until the kids get exposed to the Alien Thetans. A good
story, might be a better story than the one they were raised with.
They might even combine it with Hinduism and Buddhism and create their
own religious ideas.

Ron Okimoto

[Josh Miles]

On 2/3/2012 10:46 AM, dali_70 wrote:
> Scientology?? LOL, really. I wonder if they'll have to fork over a few
> grand before they can learn that one. Absolutely ridiculous.

There's a reason for that:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/vi_simpson_the.php

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:07:20 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O
<roki...@cox.net>:

Could be; that's how it seems most religions get started.

>> >> And a course in
>> >> comparative religion is far from a waste of time; it would
>> >> be nearly impossible to paint a correct or complete picture
>> >> of Western and Middle Eastern civilization without
>> >> discussing religion. The same is probably true of any
>> >> civilization, from Ur onward.
>>
>> >Sure, but that was not what this thread was about.
>>
>> It wasn't? I could have sworn it was about the inclusion of
>> classes about religion (but not religious classes) in public
>> schools.
>>
>> >> Of course, since history is downplayed in today's schools
>> >> (the phrase "not relevant in today's world" comes to mind,
>> >> the idiots), at least in the US, the point might be moot.
>>
>> >> >It just gets the same non-arguments recycled endlessly,
>>
>> >> Discussion can, and does, yield insight.
>>
>> >Sure, if the aim is to gain insight.
>> >(which is rarely the case)

[Mike Painter]

Fine with me.
As long as they present valid scientific theories.

[prawnster]

On Feb 2, 9:55 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>

> [...]

> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> and Scientology.

Funny! The Indiana senate accurately equates evolution, the atheist
creation myth, to other religious creation myths.

But I have a much better idea: the federal government and US state
governments really should not force citizens to study evolution at
all. Evolution is metaphysics and doesn't belong in science
classrooms because no one needs to believe in or know about evolution
to have a full and complete understanding of biology.

[Tim Norfolk]

I do not believe that any human has "a full and complete understanding
of biology". That's why people do research.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:34:44 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Mike Painter"
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net>:

Why so, unless this is to be included in a science course? I
can't imagine why it would be; I'd think a history or
philosophy course would be far more appropriate.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 02:04:06 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Feb 2, 9:55 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>>
>> [...]
>> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
>> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
>> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
>> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
>> and Scientology.
>
>Funny! The Indiana senate accurately equates evolution, the atheist
>creation myth

Still a bit vague on the meaning of evolution, huh?

Do you also think the mining of iron ore is part of the
Daytona 500?

[Paul J Gans]

Sorry, but there are demonstrable facts supporting evolution. It is
not a myth in any sense of the term.

Clearly, you are not aware of those facts. Shall we discuss why that
might be?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[chris thompson]

On Feb 5, 12:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:07:20 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O

> <rokim...@cox.net>:

Nah. Most new religions get started when some huckster doesn't have
bus fare to get to the next town to sell his snake oil.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Feb 6, 12:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:34:44 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Mike Painter"

> <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>
> >> Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> >> creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> >> unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
>
> >> But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
>
> >> At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
>
> >> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> >> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> >> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> >> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> >> and Scientology.
>
> >Fine with me.
> >As long as they present valid scientific theories.
>
> Why so, unless this is to be included in a science course? I
> can't imagine why it would be; I'd think a history or
> philosophy course would be far more appropriate.

The intent of the bill is clearly targeted at science classes,
although they are not specifically mentioned. It would be stretching
things to teach Darwinian evolution anywhere else, don't you think?

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Feb 6, 5:04 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

Really? Here's something I posted years ago (in response to someone
named "Snubis"), and no creationist has ever provided a rebuttal:

***BEGIN***
What a fascinating notion. You really brought me up short there,
Snubis. I started to come back at you with a snappy one-liner, but
then
I actually began to think about your claim. What would a Biology
textbook look like, if evolution was eliminated entirely? I have
several here at home, although I usually keep the most recent editions
at the office. Maybe we can just take a quick stroll through a couple
of them, and present some of the altered versions, eh?

Methods: Open a biology text to a random spot, look for any mention of
the ToE or any concept that relies on the ToE or its components, and
present the concept(s) as if evolution had never been proposed. I
will
also add comments as I see fit to accentuate the fact that evolution
has
been removed _in toto_. In one cases, I rephrased a paragraph to make
it sound like Snubis' original assertion (that evolution had been
disproven) was indeed the case.

Texts used: Purves, Sadava, Orians, & Heller. 2001. Life: The
Science
of Biology. Sixth ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Campbell, Reece, & Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth ed. Addison
Wesley, Longman, Menlo Park, CA.

From Purves et al., page 415 (no kidding, this really was the first
spot
I opened it up to):

There are 12 species of Picture-wing _Drosophila_ on Kauai, 29 on
Oahu,
40 on the Maui complex of islands, and 26 on the Big Island, Hawaii.
When we look at the genetics of these fruit flies, we find an
inexplicable pattern: namely, pairs of flies on neighboring islands
exhibit greater genetic similarity than pairs from distant islands.

Purves et al, page 803:

The pinna of an ear collects sound waves and directs them into the
auditory canal, which leads to the actual hearing apparatus in the
middle ear and the inner ear. If you have ever watched a rabbit, a
horse, or a dog change the orientation of its ear pinnae to focus on a
particular sound, then you have witnessed the role of ear pinnae in
hearing. It was certainly a stroke of luck that all those creatures
had
the right muscles in the right places to move those structures around!

Purves et al., page 518:

There used to be a lot more plants alive a long time ago than there
are
now. And the plants that are still today just don't form fossils
well;
we infer that from their total absence in the fossil record. There
must
have been something about the ability to form fossils that made those
plants (and animals) extinct. A fine example of this is seen in the
extinct Gymnosperms: the extinct Gymnosperms had characteristics of
rhyniophytes and ferns, but they also had tracheids similar to those
in
modern Gmynosperms. This was evidently a losing combination and they
went extinct a long time ago.

Purves et al., page 947:

When a Thomson's Gazelle sees a predator such as a cheetah, it starts
to
run away but then usually slows down a bit and performs a behavior
called stotting. It jumps about half a meter off the ground with all
four legs held straight down and its white rump patch fully everted.
Why would an animal that is fleeing from a predator slow down rather
than speed up?

They must be retarded, huh?

Purves et al., page 754:

It is a wonder we can ever reproduce. If you are lucky, when you
attempt to reproduce with your wife, your sperm will have on their
surfaces an enzyme that dissolves a tiny portion of the zona
pellucida.
If your luck fails, that enzyme will only be found on the sperm of
some
aardvark or maybe a Naked Mole Rat, and you will be out of luck.

From Campbell et al., page 254:

The most common lethal inherited disease in the United States is
cystic
fibrosis, which strikes one out of every 2500 whites of European
descent
but is much rarer in other groups. Something that white people eat or
do (maybe ice hockey) causes them to catch this bad disease.

Campbell et al, page 878:

Kangaroo rats live in the desert because they don't need much water.
If
they needed more water they would have settled near ponds or rivers.

Campbell et al., page 299:

There is only one way to live, and that's to have a specific set of
DNA
triplets that results in a specific amino acid when you are making a
protein. This has to be the case because there are no exceptions to
this rule. Things were made this way so that we could put genes into
bacteria to make things like insulin.

Campbell et al., 425:

Rhesus monkeys are almost as good as us. We can see this because
their
hemoglobin is a lot like ours. Mice and chickens aren't bad, but
frogs
and lampreys are really primitive things because their hemoglobin is
so
different.

Campbell et al., 583:

We cover the yeasts now for convenience' sake. Since they are
unicellular, they rightly belong with the Protista, and our overall
scheme reflects that. However, because of the superficial similarity
of
their reproductive structures to the asci and basidia of the
Ascomycota
and Basidiomycota, we will examine them here.

Campbell et al., page 482:

Phenetics compares as many anatomical characteristics as possible and
makes no attempt to construct referents like homology or analogy.
This
makes it the only valid scheme of arranging organisms into a system,
since appearance is, after all, the most important thing about
organisms.

Campbell et al., 925:

Humans and many Primates have menstrual cycles, whereas other mammals
have estrous cycles. It is not clear at this time why this should be
so. It has been proposed that since humans, apes, and monkeys often
walk upright, stuff sort of drains out of them.

Campbell et al., page 306:

It was once thought that living things were related. One piece of
discredited evidence is the similarity between the ribosomes of
prokaryotes and those of eukaryotes. Now, however, we see that
despite
a superficial similarity, the ribosomes are so different that
antibiotics like tetracycline and streptomycin paralyze the ribosomes
of
prokaryotes. Since there is no known mechanism for this change to
occur, we conclude that there is no relation between the two types of
organisms.

Campbell et al., 1110:

Biologists must always be alert to the possibility of teleological
explanations. We see this pitfall in the discredited notion of
coevolution. This idea, popular in the sociobiological era, asserted
that when pairs of organisms interact, there are reciprocal genetic
changes in the organisms, and we now know this cannot be the case.
Indeed, a cursory examination reveals the teleological nature of this
argument: the coevolutionists believed that the changes in one species
came about to help that species in its interactions with the second
species. The second species would then somehow trigger a change in
response. This hypothesis is easily disproven since predators and
their
prey, for example, have never been seen to change their anatomy or
behavior.

Campbell et al., page 902 (OK, I hunted this one down. Sue me.):

Prolactin (PRL) is a protein remarkably similar to GH. The
physiological roles of the two hormones, however, are different.
Prolactin's most remarkable characteristic is the great diversity of
effects it produces in different vertebrate species. For example, PRL
stimulates mammary gland growth and milk synthesis in mammals;
regulates
fat metabolism and reproduction in birds; delays metamorphosis in
amphibians, where it may also play a role as a larval growth hormone;
and regulates salt and water balances in freshwater fishes.

While this hormone was once touted as proof of evolution, we now see
that instead it clinches the case for ID- that is, Indolent Design.
Why
should a designer go to all the trouble of making a half-dozen
different
hormones when one will do? So what if then that designer has to
custom
tailor tens of thousands of vertebrate species around this single
protein (along with all the other proteins, carbohydrates, lipids,
nucleic acids, and multitudinous combinations thereof)- it all hangs
together.
***END***

Would you care to address the inconsistencies in Biology textbooks
should the idea of evolution be omitted? We use Reece, Campbell et
alia (9 ed.) at our college, and they unambiguously state that they
include evolution in _every_single_chapter_...because that's what ties
every chapter to every other chapter. Please have a look at the text
and rebut the evidence presented therein.

Chris

[jillery]

Judging from the paragraph above, the bill doesn't mention evolution
either. And evolution certainly isn't part of any religion I know
about. So how is this appropriate for any kind of science class?

[Mike Painter]

Odd that biologists and other scientists don't agree with you.

[John Harshman]

Theodosius Dobzhansky would disagree. So would I.

[Mike Painter]

If the intent of the bill is to present religious ideas on how we came about
in a religion class then there would be no need for demanding a scientific
theory.
However the bill does not say this and if ToE is talked about in this class
then the difference between a scientific theory and a vague idea with little
study should be clearly understood.
Having seen teachers made to teach scienc classes I doubt most know the
difference.
Personally I like the stories of a raven or fox creating man much better
than those of teh religions that make them, then kill them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:06:35 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

Now, yes. But I suspect there was a bit more to it several
millennia BCE, and that dishonesty was much less involved.
The one thing that seems almost a universal trait is the
desire for answers and meaning.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:08:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

>On Feb 6, 12:43 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:34:44 -0800, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Mike Painter"
>> <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >>http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>>
>> >> Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
>> >> creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
>> >> unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
>>
>> >> But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
>>
>> >> At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
>>
>> >> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
>> >> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
>> >> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
>> >> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
>> >> and Scientology.
>>
>> >Fine with me.
>> >As long as they present valid scientific theories.
>>
>> Why so, unless this is to be included in a science course? I
>> can't imagine why it would be; I'd think a history or
>> philosophy course would be far more appropriate.
>
>The intent of the bill is clearly targeted at science classes,
> although they are not specifically mentioned.

I bow to your superior insight; all I saw was "The

curriculum for the course must include theories from
multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited
to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and

Scientology", which indicates to me a comparative religion
course; please state why you see science class as the "clear
target" of the bill as passed. Thanks.

BTW, I especially like the introduction of Scientology in
the bill prior to passage; Ms Simpson is obviously One of
Us.

>It would be stretching
>things to teach Darwinian evolution anywhere else, don't you think?

I agree, and a search of the page article in question and
found zero mention of either "Darwin" or "evolution".
Perhaps you could say why you mentioned them? Thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:36:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Obviously it's not. So the question becomes, where does
anyone get the idea it's intended for a science class rather
than (as seems obvious to me) a history or philosophy class,
as I mentioned?

>>It would be stretching
>>things to teach Darwinian evolution anywhere else, don't you think?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:31:23 -0800, the following appeared in

Agreed, but I'm still trying to discover where it mentions
anything about a *scientific* theory. The term "theory" is,
after all, used in other fields; it's only in science that
it has a specific and restricted meaning.

>Having seen teachers made to teach scienc classes I doubt most know the
>difference.

Again agreed, but since as I mentioned I'd expect it to be
taught as part of a history or philosophy course I don't
consider that a problem.

>Personally I like the stories of a raven or fox creating man much better
>than those of teh religions that make them, then kill them.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 7, 11:40 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:08:25 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson

> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>:

Because the bill does mention "origin of life". That's normal
creationist-code for evolution.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But that's how I interpret it.

Chris

[jillery]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:43:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I looked for a copy of the actual bill, to see if it mentions anything
specific, but I could not find it. Probably it's just as well, as I'm
not proficient in interpreting legalese. But it would be interesting
if some of the legal authorities on TO weighed in with an opinion on
what the bill actually stipulates.

[chris thompson]

As would I, and as would pretty much every freshman biology major in
any college (with the exception, perhaps, of Liberty U) and (if we
read responses on the NC State website to Spaceman's most recent post)
any well-educated person. Not to mention pretty much every person
doing real research in any field even tangentially related to biology.

Chris

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:19:32 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson

<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

>Because the bill does mention "origin of life". That's normal
>creationist-code for evolution.

Actually, if one is to discuss objectively the various ideas
regarding the origin of life, including the scientific one,
it's rather difficult to avoid the term.

>Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But that's how I interpret it.

OK. I think you're wrong (I read it as a bill to establish
classes to discuss the effects of various religions on
society) but we can see how it plays out. So long as it's
not used to proselytize I see nothing wrong with it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:50:55 -0500, the following appeared

Same here. And I'm well aware of the pitfalls of using a
news story as a factual reference, which is why I'm not
claiming the nonexistence of a religious bias, just asking
if anyone has seen info which I haven't.

> Probably it's just as well, as I'm
>not proficient in interpreting legalese. But it would be interesting
>if some of the legal authorities on TO weighed in with an opinion on
>what the bill actually stipulates.

Assuming they could find the text of the actual bill I fully
agree; legalese isn't always (or even usually) translatable
to English by anyone not trained in the subtleties.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:50:55 -0500, in article
<9uv2j7tsnham3v6h5...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

The original version of the bill is here:

<http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/IN/IN0089.1.html>

The amended version (which passed the whole state senate) is here:

<http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html>

>
>
>>>>It would be stretching
>>>>things to teach Darwinian evolution anywhere else, don't you think?
>

--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Tim Norfolk]

On Feb 7, 11:28 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:06:35 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson

> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>:

>                           - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For the record, the proposed bill didn't give pi=3. The paper had at
least 3 different values for pi, which the 'inventor' agreed to let
the state use for free if the bill passed. pi=3 is the song of soloman.

[jillery]

That's it? That's too short for something from a bunch of lawyers :)
No mention of evolution, or the kind of class it should be taught, or
even a recommended grade level. Why do I feel like I'm missing
something?

[prawnster]

Oh, an appeal to authority?
An appeal to bumpersticker-quality catchphrases?
Appeal to numbers?
An appeal to John Harshman's vanity?

Typical stellar argumentation from a Darwinista.

[John Harshman]

But perhaps not so succinctly as Dobzhansky.

[John Harshman]

I was just pointing out a disagreement, not intending to make an
argument. You made a naked claim, I responded with another naked claim.

> Typical stellar argumentation from a Darwinista.

If you would like to argue some point, I'm ready. You should try
presenting your argument first, and then I'll respond.

Or we could start with one simple observation, say that the human and
chimpanzee genomes differ at only 1.3% of all homologous nucleotide
sites. How do you have a complete understanding of that without
evolution? I suppose you could say that it pleased God to create them
that way for unknown reasons. But is that any sort of understanding?

[prawnster]

On Feb 6, 12:22 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 6, 5:04 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>

> [...]

> Would you care to address the inconsistencies in Biology textbooks
> should the idea of evolution be omitted? We use Reece, Campbell et
> alia (9 ed.) at our college, and they unambiguously state that they
> include evolution in _every_single_chapter_...because that's what ties
> every chapter to every other chapter. Please have a look at the text
> and rebut the evidence presented therein.
>

Yeah, I actually did this before. I took a college biology textbook
published circa 1993 that mentions evolution on just about every page
of the book, similarly in an attempt to tie each chapter together. I
found that I could substitute the word "God" for "evolution" and
"designed" for "adapted" or "evolved," and in every instance this did
no violence to the intelligibility or coherence of the text. I would
think it very strange for someone to keep evoking God or design every
time they're describing a biology concept, and I find it just as
pointless and strange for a textbook writer to constantly evoke
evolution and adaptation when describing biology -- because it only
serves to bring focus to the writer's prejudices and not to the
subject at hand.

(The textbook has a a big in-your-face picture of a tiger on the
front, and I don't remember who wrote it.)

[prawnster]

On Feb 8, 6:26 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Or we could start with one simple observation, say that the human and
> chimpanzee genomes differ at only 1.3% of all homologous nucleotide
> sites. How do you have a complete understanding of that without
> evolution? I suppose you could say that it pleased God to create them
> that way for unknown reasons. But is that any sort of understanding?

Anyone who studied this matter would find, assuming your statement is
true, that the DNA of chimps and people differ at only 1.3% of all
homologous nucleotide sites. Whether someone believes in evolution or
not wouldn't change this fact. Looking at chimps and people, noting
the differences, and then interpreting this difference to mean that
one of us turned into the other demands faith. And neither a
creationist nor Darwinist interpretation of evidence helps anyone
understand anything about chimps or people.

So once again, I end up where I always do: we must choose between
faith in an unobserved event, creation, or an unobserved process,
evolution. Neither is more rational than the other. You just find a
materialist explanation to be more satisfying, for whatever reason.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<b72a8d5f-5ac2-4378...@rz3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

*
This might explain your misunderstanding:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

--Theodosius Dobzhansky (1917-1975)
(American Biology Teacher vol.35, March 1973)

earle
*

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:02:47 -0800 (PST), prawnster

<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 6, 12:22 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>> On Feb 6, 5:04 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> [...]

>> > But I have a much better idea: the federal government and US state
>> > governments really should not force citizens to study evolution at
>> > all.  Evolution is metaphysics and doesn't belong in science
>> > classrooms because no one needs to believe in or know about evolution
>> > to have a full and complete understanding of biology.
>>
>> Really? Here's something I posted years ago (in response to someone
>> named "Snubis"), and no creationist has ever provided a rebuttal:

>> [...]

>>
>> Would you care to address the inconsistencies in Biology textbooks
>> should the idea of evolution be omitted? We use Reece, Campbell et
>> alia (9 ed.) at our college, and they unambiguously state that they
>> include evolution in _every_single_chapter_...because that's what ties
>> every chapter to every other chapter. Please have a look at the text
>> and rebut the evidence presented therein.
>>
>

>Yeah, I actually did this before. I took a college biology textbook
>published circa 1993 that mentions evolution on just about every page
>of the book, similarly in an attempt to tie each chapter together. I
>found that I could substitute the word "God" for "evolution" and
>"designed" for "adapted" or "evolved," and in every instance this did
>no violence to the intelligibility or coherence of the text. I would
>think it very strange for someone to keep evoking God or design every
>time they're describing a biology concept, and I find it just as
>pointless and strange for a textbook writer to constantly evoke
>evolution and adaptation when describing biology -- because it only
>serves to bring focus to the writer's prejudices and not to the
>subject at hand.
>

>(The textbook has a a big in-your-face picture of a tiger on the
>front, and I don't remember who wrote it.)
>

>I didn't read all of your examples because I was able to quickly
>mentally refute every one I did read. I notice that a lot of
>Darwinists, when defending their faith, like to create long lists of
>supposedly undeniable evidence for evolution. It think this is a con,
>done mostly to create the impression that evolution's well of evidence
>is unfathomably deep.
>
>But if any element of your document dump is examined, it becomes
>quickly apparent that every piece of so-called evidence is based on
>assuming that evolution is true. In other words, it's just a deep,
>deep well filled with empty question-beggary.
>
>So I guess you'll still be waiting for a point-by-point rebuttal,
>because I certainly won't give it to you; it would be a waste of my
>time. But here's an omnibus rebuttal: every example I read assumes
>that evolution is true, then interprets evidence in that light. That's
>specious reasoning, and it goes by the name "begging the question."


If you mean your omnibus rebuttal is an example of specious reasoning
and question-begging, I agree with you. All you offer is a bald
assertion. ISTM more likely you have it exactly bass-ackwards; they
provided the evidence which demonstrates the veracity of evolution.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<02153b91-76df-40f4...@uc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> writes

You argue like a crypto-evolutionist. Why should anyone pay any
attention to your maunderings?
--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:56:52 -0500, in article
<0sr5j71noe9s318t4...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

>
>On 8 Feb 2012 10:26:00 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[...snip...]

>>The original version of the bill is here:
>>
>><http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/IN/IN0089.1.html>
>>
>>The amended version (which passed the whole state senate) is here:
>>
>><http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html>
>
>
>That's it? That's too short for something from a bunch of lawyers :)
>No mention of evolution, or the kind of class it should be taught, or
>even a recommended grade level. Why do I feel like I'm missing
>something?

[...snip...]

Remember that the amended version of the bill was designed to be
bad.

But it does not reflect very well on the diligence of the
legislators who voted for it, does it?

[jillery]

On 9 Feb 2012 03:56:38 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>"On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:56:52 -0500, in article
><0sr5j71noe9s318t4...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."
>>
>>On 8 Feb 2012 10:26:00 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>>The original version of the bill is here:
>>>
>>><http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/IN/IN0089.1.html>
>>>
>>>The amended version (which passed the whole state senate) is here:
>>>
>>><http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html>
>>
>>
>>That's it? That's too short for something from a bunch of lawyers :)
>>No mention of evolution, or the kind of class it should be taught, or
>>even a recommended grade level. Why do I feel like I'm missing
>>something?
>[...snip...]
>
>Remember that the amended version of the bill was designed to be
>bad.
>
>But it does not reflect very well on the diligence of the
>legislators who voted for it, does it?

The previous version was even more vague. Where are all the whereases
and therefores and etceteras and multisyllabic clauses within clauses?
I smell a trap!

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:27:29 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 6:26 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Or we could start with one simple observation, say that the human and
>> chimpanzee genomes differ at only 1.3% of all homologous nucleotide
>> sites. How do you have a complete understanding of that without
>> evolution? I suppose you could say that it pleased God to create them
>> that way for unknown reasons. But is that any sort of understanding?
>
>Anyone who studied this matter would find, assuming your statement is
>true, that the DNA of chimps and people differ at only 1.3% of all
>homologous nucleotide sites. Whether someone believes in evolution or
>not wouldn't change this fact. Looking at chimps and people, noting
>the differences, and then interpreting this difference to mean that
>one of us turned into the other demands faith.

If you know anything about evolution and the arguments for it, you
know the above isn't true.

>And neither a
>creationist nor Darwinist interpretation of evidence helps anyone
>understand anything about chimps or people.

ISTM a Darwinist interpretation, in contrast to the one you gave
above, helps to understand the relationship between chimps and people,
and the rest of living things.

>So once again, I end up where I always do: we must choose between
>faith in an unobserved event, creation, or an unobserved process,
>evolution. Neither is more rational than the other. You just find a
>materialist explanation to be more satisfying, for whatever reason.

So your claim is the two are logically equivalent. The problem with
that assertion is evolution has been observed, and is observed.

[Arkalen]

(2012/02/03 2:55), Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>
> Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
>
> But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
>
> At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
>
> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> and Scientology.
>

The Scientology origin story is now to be taught in US schools ? Surely
even L. Ron Hubbard would roll in his grave at this one. Or laugh
hysterically.


--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:32:10 -0500, in article
<1ki7j7lu4bp0c98ln...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

"The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
and Scientology."

I have some problems parsing the second sentence. What is the subject
of "may include" and "is not limited to"? "Course"? "Curriculum"?
"Religions"? I would think that it was "religions", but that is a
plural while "is" is a singular.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:26 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Or we could start with one simple observation, say that the human and
>> chimpanzee genomes differ at only 1.3% of all homologous nucleotide
>> sites. How do you have a complete understanding of that without
>> evolution? I suppose you could say that it pleased God to create them
>> that way for unknown reasons. But is that any sort of understanding?
>
> Anyone who studied this matter would find, assuming your statement is
> true, that the DNA of chimps and people differ at only 1.3% of all
> homologous nucleotide sites. Whether someone believes in evolution or
> not wouldn't change this fact.

I wasn't asking for confirmation of the fact. I was asking for an
explanation of the fact. Evolution provides one. Are you claiming that
explanations add nothing to understanding?

> Looking at chimps and people, noting
> the differences, and then interpreting this difference to mean that
> one of us turned into the other demands faith.

Of course nobody is claiming that one turned into the other, merely that
there is a common ancestor. It doesn't demand faith, just an ability to
draw inferences from data. Do you have another hypothesis that would
explain the similarity?

> And neither a
> creationist nor Darwinist interpretation of evidence helps anyone
> understand anything about chimps or people.

That would assume that "anything" doesn't include an explanation of the
similarity. Why is it that explanations are excluded? You must lead a
very uninteresting life if all you know are isolated factoids.

> So once again, I end up where I always do: we must choose between
> faith in an unobserved event, creation, or an unobserved process,
> evolution. Neither is more rational than the other. You just find a
> materialist explanation to be more satisfying, for whatever reason.

You, so far, haven't attempted any explanation. In fact you have denied
that explanations are at all interesting or useful. So we seem not to be
choosing between explanations but between explanation and happy
ignorance. Evolution fits the evidence. I don't see that creation does,
and you seem completely uninterested in examining the question. Why?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:56:52 -0500, the following appeared

So the news blurb got it right. Well, unlikelier things have
happened... ;-)

And from the text it looks to me like I was correct; no
mention of science class (which would be inappropriate for a
comparative class in a social phenomenon) and no mention of
either Darwin or evolution. So on the whole I'd consider it
a good thing; too much fanaticism is the result of a total
ignorance of the alternatives, which this class should tend
to correct.

>>>>>>It would be stretching
>>>>>>things to teach Darwinian evolution anywhere else, don't you think?
>>>

[Bob Casanova]

On 9 Feb 2012 03:56:38 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:

>"On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:56:52 -0500, in article
><0sr5j71noe9s318t4...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."
>>
>>On 8 Feb 2012 10:26:00 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>>The original version of the bill is here:
>>>
>>><http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/IN/IN0089.1.html>
>>>
>>>The amended version (which passed the whole state senate) is here:
>>>
>>><http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html>
>>
>>
>>That's it? That's too short for something from a bunch of lawyers :)
>>No mention of evolution, or the kind of class it should be taught, or
>>even a recommended grade level. Why do I feel like I'm missing
>>something?
>[...snip...]
>
>Remember that the amended version of the bill was designed to be
>bad.

Actually, I'd say it was designed to be good, by removing
the potential Constitutional issue and specifically noting
the ecumenical nature of the requirement.

>But it does not reflect very well on the diligence of the
>legislators who voted for it, does it?

Let me get this straight... You expect diligence and an
appreciation of the possibility unintended consequences from
legislators? *Any* legislators? Oy...

[prawnster]

On Feb 10, 6:33 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]

>  > So once again, I end up where I always do: we must choose between
>  > faith in an unobserved event, creation, or an unobserved process,
>  > evolution.  Neither is more rational than the other.  You just find a
>  > materialist explanation to be more satisfying, for whatever reason.
>
> You, so far, haven't attempted any explanation. In fact you have denied
> that explanations are at all interesting or useful. So we seem not to be
> choosing between explanations but between explanation and happy
> ignorance. Evolution fits the evidence. I don't see that creation does,
> and you seem completely uninterested in examining the question. Why?

Who would care whether or not you see that creation fits the evidence?

I don't need to attempt an explanation. I need only point out that
your explanation is an interpretation of evidence and is not, in fact,
evidence in itself. That's enough. Any attempt by you to force me to
explain creation in any way other than Goddidit is a form of burden
shifting. You, evidently, are unable to demonstrate or provide
evidence that evolution ever happened anywhere at anytime. You claim
that evolution happens constantly. Demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're
just wasting everyone's time.

And you assert that evolution fits the evidence. Evolution is an
interpretation, not evidence (as you have tacitly admitted). Again,
who cares whether or not you see that creation fits the evidence?
It's your burden to demonstrate your hypothesis; it is not my burden
to come up with some sort of alternative hypothesis. My hypothesis is
unobserved; your hypothesis is unobserved. Why should anyone believe,
without any observable evidence, that your hypothesis is superior to
mine, unless you simply have a prejudice for materialistic
explanations?

So please, present observable evidence of evolution, or admit that
your belief is purely faith-based. Go!

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:33 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So once again, I end up where I always do: we must choose between
>> > faith in an unobserved event, creation, or an unobserved process,
>> > evolution. Neither is more rational than the other. You just find a
>> > materialist explanation to be more satisfying, for whatever reason.
>>
>> You, so far, haven't attempted any explanation. In fact you have denied
>> that explanations are at all interesting or useful. So we seem not to be
>> choosing between explanations but between explanation and happy
>> ignorance. Evolution fits the evidence. I don't see that creation does,
>> and you seem completely uninterested in examining the question. Why?
>
> Who would care whether or not you see that creation fits the evidence?

Anyone who was interested in reasoned argument or, to put it another
way, in science.

> I don't need to attempt an explanation. I need only point out that
> your explanation is an interpretation of evidence and is not, in fact,
> evidence in itself. That's enough.

Semantics. Evidence is interpretation. The question is whether there is
another reasonable interpretation. I suppose you are tacitly agreeing
here that there is not.

> Any attempt by you to force me to
> explain creation in any way other than Goddidit is a form of burden
> shifting. You, evidently, are unable to demonstrate or provide
> evidence that evolution ever happened anywhere at anytime. You claim
> that evolution happens constantly. Demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're
> just wasting everyone's time.

In fact I have not so far made such a claim. I only claim that evolution
is the only plausible explanation for the genomic similarity between
humans and chimps. Would you agree that is is in fact a plausible
explanation? That is, would you agree that evolution, if it happened,
would show just the sort of similarity we observe?

But, speaking hypothetically, what sort of evidence would convince you
that evolution happens? Do I have to show you a movie of an ape evolving
into a human in front of witnesses?

> And you assert that evolution fits the evidence. Evolution is an
> interpretation, not evidence (as you have tacitly admitted).

Of course it's an interpretation. Everything we know is an
interpretation. And yet we know it.

> Again,
> who cares whether or not you see that creation fits the evidence?

Again, anyone interested in reason. Do you see that creation fits the
evidence? What's your argument?

> It's your burden to demonstrate your hypothesis; it is not my burden
> to come up with some sort of alternative hypothesis. My hypothesis is
> unobserved; your hypothesis is unobserved. Why should anyone believe,
> without any observable evidence, that your hypothesis is superior to
> mine, unless you simply have a prejudice for materialistic
> explanations?

Because my interpretation fits the evidence and other interpretations do
not. That's how science works. That's how everyday life works, in fact.

> So please, present observable evidence of evolution, or admit that
> your belief is purely faith-based. Go!

You seem not to have any understanding of how science works. The genomes
are in fact observable, and they are evidence. We accept the simplest
explanation that fits the evidence. No faith needed, other than faith (I
would call it instead a necessary assumption) that evidence is probative.

[jillery]

So please describe the kind of evidence which will satisfy you that
evolution was observed, or admit that you have no rational objection
to evolution. Go!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:57:58 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, *that's* going to happen...

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/10/12 7:46 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:33 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So once again, I end up where I always do: we must choose between
>> > faith in an unobserved event, creation, or an unobserved process,
>> > evolution. Neither is more rational than the other. You just find a
>> > materialist explanation to be more satisfying, for whatever reason.
>>
>> You, so far, haven't attempted any explanation. In fact you have denied
>> that explanations are at all interesting or useful. So we seem not to be
>> choosing between explanations but between explanation and happy
>> ignorance. Evolution fits the evidence. I don't see that creation does,
>> and you seem completely uninterested in examining the question. Why?
>
> Who would care whether or not you see that creation fits the evidence?
>
> I don't need to attempt an explanation. I need only point out that
> your explanation is an interpretation of evidence and is not, in fact,
> evidence in itself. That's enough. Any attempt by you to force me to
> explain creation in any way other than Goddidit is a form of burden
> shifting. You, evidently, are unable to demonstrate or provide
> evidence that evolution ever happened anywhere at anytime. You claim
> that evolution happens constantly. Demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're
> just wasting everyone's time.

I see you rely on word magic to support your preconceptions. Because
you are able to call evolution something else ("an interpretation"), you
can pretend to yourself that it is not real. Sorry, but the world does
not change when you relabel it. Evolution is real. Deal with it.

> And you assert that evolution fits the evidence. Evolution is an
> interpretation, not evidence (as you have tacitly admitted). Again,
> who cares whether or not you see that creation fits the evidence?
> It's your burden to demonstrate your hypothesis; it is not my burden
> to come up with some sort of alternative hypothesis. My hypothesis is
> unobserved; your hypothesis is unobserved. Why should anyone believe,
> without any observable evidence, that your hypothesis is superior to
> mine, unless you simply have a prejudice for materialistic
> explanations?
>
> So please, present observable evidence of evolution,

It has been presented here (or at least indicated; it is hard to post
actual plants and animals) many times. Any online search will find more
evidence. Entire libraries and museums are filled with the evidence.
You have no excuse for claiming ignorance of it.

If you really want to see for yourself, go out and collect flies from at
least 30 species. Look at them closely under a disecting microscope.
Note the pattern of their similarities and differences.

> or admit that your belief is purely faith-based. Go!

Because, to the creationist, there is nothing worse than faith. I
agree: the sort of approach to life that you call faith really is bad.
You would be better off without it, so that you could replace it. Faith
does not have to be an insult.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[prawnster]

On Feb 10, 8:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> prawnster wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 6:33 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]

> Semantics. Evidence is interpretation. The question is whether there is
> another reasonable interpretation. I suppose you are tacitly agreeing
> here that there is not.
>

You're funny. Obviously, evidence does not equal interpretation, as
normally defined. This is the dumbest thing any Darwinist here has
written since one of you dopes (I think it was Kalkidas) wrote that
inference equals evidence.

And no, I disagree; there is another reasonable interpretation:
Goddidit.

[Earle Jones]

In article <Gfe*n1...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:

> (2012/02/03 2:55), Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
> >
> > Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> > creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> > unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
> >
> > But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
> >
> > At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
> >
> > The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> > various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> > must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> > is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> > and Scientology.
> >
> The Scientology origin story is now to be taught in US schools ? Surely
> even L. Ron Hubbard would roll in his grave at this one. Or laugh
> hysterically.

*
You got something against Teegeack?

You need to shed your engrams.

earle
*

[prawnster]

On Feb 11, 11:37 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>[...]

> You're funny.  Obviously, evidence does not equal interpretation, as
> normally defined.  This is the dumbest thing any Darwinist here has
> written since one of you dopes (I think it was Kalkidas) wrote that
> inference equals evidence.
>

Actually, I think it was Arkalen who equated inference and evidence,
not Kalkidas. My bad.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:37:41 -0800 (PST), in article
<75ea8ae1-9b8f-4a84...@n4g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, prawnster
stated..."

For something-or-other to be a reasonable interpretation, it must
meet some basic standards. Here are some suggestions for standards
(maybe you have some of your own suggestions for standards):

1. It should be descriptive prose, telling us things like What,
Where, When, How, Why or Who. (Or you might think of Motive,
Opportunity, Means.)

2. It should distinguish between things that are and things that
are *not* treated. (Do you have an example of something - even
something hypothetical, imaginary, or impossible - for which you
can say God didn't do it?)

3. How does Goddidit apply to evolutionary biology more
appropriately than it applies to other processes in the world of
life: Reproduction, Development, Genetics, Metabolism? Because
each one of us is a creature of God, does that deny that reproduction
involves natural processes that can be studied by science?

[John Harshman]

You are redefining "reasonable". Are you just a troll, then?

[Randy C]

On Feb 2, 11:55 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/indiana_senate.php
>
> Yesterday, Indiana's state senate voted 28-22 to adopt yet another
> creationism-in-the-schools bill, which have been routinely found
> unconstitutional since a 1988 Supreme Court decision.
>
> But this one was a little different, and in a surprising way.
>
> At the last minute, Senate Bill 89 was changed so that it now reads...
>
> The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on
> various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course
> must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but
> is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
> and Scientology.

According to http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120214/LOCAL04/120219722/-1/LOCAL11
the bill has been killed, at least for this session. The article says
that Indiana Republican House Speaker called Brian Bosma called the
proposal "a lawsuit waiting to happen".

Really? No one else in Indiana could figure that out?

[prawnster]

On Feb 11, 2:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> prawnster wrote:

> [...]

> > And no, I disagree; there is another reasonable interpretation:
> > Goddidit.
>
> You are redefining "reasonable". Are you just a troll, then?

My beliefs are consistent and genuine. I know that Darwinists, having
no evidence for their faith, prefer to play semantic games and
redefine interpretation to equal observation, inference to equal
observation, and computer simulations to equal observation, but please
don't redefine troll to mean "someone with whom I disagree." A troll
is someone who says things disingenuously for the sake of provoking an
emotional response in another person.

Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature,
Goddidit is perfectly reasonable.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:28:05 -0800, prawnster wrote:

> On Feb 11, 2:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>> > And no, I disagree; there is another reasonable interpretation:
>> > Goddidit.
>>
>> You are redefining "reasonable". Are you just a troll, then?
>
> My beliefs are consistent and genuine.

Which didn't *quite* answer the question. Well played.

> I know that Darwinists, having
> no evidence for their faith, prefer to play semantic games and redefine
> interpretation to equal observation, inference to equal observation, and
> computer simulations to equal observation, but please don't redefine
> troll to mean "someone with whom I disagree." A troll is someone who
> says things disingenuously for the sake of provoking an emotional
> response in another person.
>

Clever! Nowhere in there do you deny being a troll, even though you've
structured your response to imply it to a careless reader.

You can do good work when you put your mind to it. I'm looking forward
to seeing more similar quality.

> Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
> nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature, Goddidit
> is perfectly reasonable.

Not a strong finish, I'm afraid. It is, of course, "reasonable" to think
the sun moves around the earth. You're having to rely on your
correspondent not realizing that is the case. Again, this is just too
generic to be effective --- especially when compared with your better
work above.

Do keep the spelling errors, though. It adds a nice touch.

[jillery]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:28:05 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 2:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>> > And no, I disagree; there is another reasonable interpretation:
>> > Goddidit.
>>
>> You are redefining "reasonable". Are you just a troll, then?
>
>My beliefs are consistent and genuine. I know that Darwinists, having
>no evidence for their faith, prefer to play semantic games and
>redefine interpretation to equal observation, inference to equal
>observation, and computer simulations to equal observation, but please
>don't redefine troll to mean "someone with whom I disagree." A troll
>is someone who says things disingenuously for the sake of provoking an
>emotional response in another person.

QED

>Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
>nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature,
>Goddidit is perfectly reasonable.

Goddidit is useless.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> prawnster wrote:
>> [...]
>>> And no, I disagree; there is another reasonable interpretation:
>>> Goddidit.
>> You are redefining "reasonable". Are you just a troll, then?
>
> My beliefs are consistent and genuine.

So you say. But a troll might easily say that. Your other actions don't
support your claim.

> I know that Darwinists, having
> no evidence for their faith, prefer to play semantic games and
> redefine interpretation to equal observation, inference to equal
> observation, and computer simulations to equal observation, but please
> don't redefine troll to mean "someone with whom I disagree."

I haven't, and nobody is playing any such games. Perhaps this is an
honest misunderstanding on your part, but what people are generally
saying here is that every observation is an inference, not what you say,
that every inference is an observation. Do you see the difference?

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, so I'm not sure what you
mean. If you really want to deal with this seriously, you will confront
the evidence. Start with this: human and chimp genomes differ by 1.3%.
What is the reason for that?

> A troll
> is someone who says things disingenuously for the sake of provoking an
> emotional response in another person.

Exactly. That seems to be what you spend much of your time doing.

> Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
> nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature,
> Goddidit is perfectly reasonable.

That doesn't follow. Nobody has demonstrated (by bringing back a sample)
what the core of the moon consists of. Is it then perfectly reasonable
that it's made of cheese? This illustrates two points: 1) we have good
evidence, though indirect evidence, for the composition of the moon's
core, and 2) lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute
evidence in favor of another theory.

There is a great deal of evidence that, for example, humans and chimps
are descended from a common ancestral species about 5 million years ago.
You don't have to see something happen in order to have evidence that it
happened. That's why DNA evidence is conclusive in court. Why not in
science too?

[prawnster]

On Feb 17, 7:40 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [...]

> I haven't, and nobody is playing any such games. Perhaps this is an
> honest misunderstanding on your part, but what people are generally
> saying here is that every observation is an inference, not what you say,
> that every inference is an observation. Do you see the difference?
>
> There is plenty of evidence for evolution, so I'm not sure what you
> mean. If you really want to deal with this seriously, you will confront
> the evidence. Start with this: human and chimp genomes differ by 1.3%.
> What is the reason for that?

> [...]

> > Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
> > nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature,
> > Goddidit is perfectly reasonable.
>
> That doesn't follow. Nobody has demonstrated (by bringing back a sample)
> what the core of the moon consists of. Is it then perfectly reasonable
> that it's made of cheese? This illustrates two points: 1) we have good
> evidence, though indirect evidence, for the composition of the moon's
> core, and 2) lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute
> evidence in favor of another theory.

> [...]

First, some post-modernist word salad. Nobody actually lives their
life as if they believe observation is inference. People don't
normally behave as if their observations are subjective and debatable;
they behave as if their observations are facts. I'll bet you do, too,
every sober waking moment. Anything less might result in death or
dismemberment. And people are sometimes very confident about their
inferences (see: virtually everyone on usernet), but they don't
usually confuse observation with inference. Except Darwinists, of
course, although I doubt they exhibit this confusion in their day-to-
day lives, or else they would have ceased posting and assumed 72-
fahrenheit long, long ago.
----
Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3% Why? Because
that's the way Goddidit. Doner.
----
Then, you change the subject by invoking a mythical population that
believes the moon's core is made of cheese. Please, let's talk about
something real.
----
And finally, it is true that lack of evidence for one theory does not
constitute evidence in favor of another theory, but it is also true
that lack of evidence for one theory certainly does not constitute
evidence for that same theory. Wow -- yes, I actually have to write
such blithering-obvious A=A statements when debating evolution. It is
sufficient for me to demonstrate that evolution is question-begging
metaphysics. That alone destroys its claim to rationality, and to any
claim that evolution is science.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:40 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I haven't, and nobody is playing any such games. Perhaps this is an
>> honest misunderstanding on your part, but what people are generally
>> saying here is that every observation is an inference, not what you say,
>> that every inference is an observation. Do you see the difference?
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence for evolution, so I'm not sure what you
>> mean. If you really want to deal with this seriously, you will confront
>> the evidence. Start with this: human and chimp genomes differ by 1.3%.
>> What is the reason for that?
>> [...]
>>> Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
>>> nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature,
>>> Goddidit is perfectly reasonable.
>> That doesn't follow. Nobody has demonstrated (by bringing back a sample)
>> what the core of the moon consists of. Is it then perfectly reasonable
>> that it's made of cheese? This illustrates two points: 1) we have good
>> evidence, though indirect evidence, for the composition of the moon's
>> core, and 2) lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute
>> evidence in favor of another theory.
>> [...]
>
> First, some post-modernist word salad.

Thanks for the warning. I'll skip ahead.

> Nobody actually lives their
> life as if they believe observation is inference. People don't
> normally behave as if their observations are subjective and debatable;
> they behave as if their observations are facts. I'll bet you do, too,
> every sober waking moment. Anything less might result in death or
> dismemberment. And people are sometimes very confident about their
> inferences (see: virtually everyone on usernet), but they don't
> usually confuse observation with inference. Except Darwinists, of
> course, although I doubt they exhibit this confusion in their day-to-
> day lives, or else they would have ceased posting and assumed 72-
> fahrenheit long, long ago.
> ----
> Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3% Why? Because
> that's the way Goddidit. Doner.

That isn't an explanation. It's a get-out-of-explanation-free card. It
shows that you have no interest in explanations.

> ----
> Then, you change the subject by invoking a mythical population that
> believes the moon's core is made of cheese. Please, let's talk about
> something real.

It's an analogy. Do you you know what analogies are?

> ----
> And finally, it is true that lack of evidence for one theory does not
> constitute evidence in favor of another theory, but it is also true
> that lack of evidence for one theory certainly does not constitute
> evidence for that same theory.

You show great skill in misreading simple sentences. In this case you
have substituted "that same" for "another".

> Wow -- yes, I actually have to write
> such blithering-obvious A=A statements when debating evolution. It is
> sufficient for me to demonstrate that evolution is question-begging
> metaphysics. That alone destroys its claim to rationality, and to any
> claim that evolution is science.

As usual, you make up your own strawman and attack it. My presence is
hardly necessary. Hope your keyboard doesn't get too sticky.

[alextangent]

On Feb 17, 8:01 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3%  Why?  Because
> that's the way Goddidit.  Doner.

Kebabed, just like your argument.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 7:40 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I haven't, and nobody is playing any such games. Perhaps this is an
>> honest misunderstanding on your part, but what people are generally
>> saying here is that every observation is an inference, not what you say,
>> that every inference is an observation. Do you see the difference?
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence for evolution, so I'm not sure what you
>> mean. If you really want to deal with this seriously, you will confront
>> the evidence. Start with this: human and chimp genomes differ by 1.3%.
>> What is the reason for that?
>> [...]
>> > Since no one has demonstrated that life sponaneously springs from
>> > nonlife or that any creature ever turns into another creature,
>> > Goddidit is perfectly reasonable.
>>
>> That doesn't follow. Nobody has demonstrated (by bringing back a sample)
>> what the core of the moon consists of. Is it then perfectly reasonable
>> that it's made of cheese? This illustrates two points: 1) we have good
>> evidence, though indirect evidence, for the composition of the moon's
>> core, and 2) lack of evidence for one theory does not constitute
>> evidence in favor of another theory.
>> [...]
>
> First, some post-modernist word salad. Nobody actually lives their
> life as if they believe observation is inference.

That's true, but many people believe things that aren't so. For instance, don't
you believe that you're both informed and clever? I rest my case.

> People don't
> normally behave as if their observations are subjective and debatable;

Again, this is true. But people's observations are nevertheless subjective and
of debatable reliability. Go here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=490946

> they behave as if their observations are facts.

Again, absolutely true. But again, they're often wrong. As stage magicians will
be relieved to know.

> I'll bet you do, too, every sober waking moment.

Good bet. At least for Harshman. I don't have many sober waking moments.

> Anything less might result in death or dismemberment.

True again. It's not that our observations are necessarily wrong. But we're
not plugged directly into the "objective" world. Everything we know about an
event is mediated by our senses and is displaced in spacetime from that event by
at least a little bit.

> And people are sometimes very confident about their
> inferences (see: virtually everyone on usernet),

Like you? I rest my case.

> but they don't usually confuse observation with inference.

All observation is inference. Our senses give us the feeling of immediacy for
some events, but we still have to use our neural apparatus to infer what's going
on.

> Except Darwinists, of
> course, although I doubt they exhibit this confusion in their day-to-
> day lives, or else they would have ceased posting and assumed 72-
> fahrenheit long, long ago.

Darwinists are long gone. There are just biologists now. Just like there used
to be atomists and anti-atomists. The latter pretty much disappeared around
1905 thanks to Albert Einstein.

<snip/>

[jillery]

There are several posters who don't believe in inferences. What about
them?

>----
>Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3% Why? Because
>that's the way Goddidit. Doner.

That may be true, but it isn't very useful. Which 1.3%? Why not 2%?
Or 1%? How does the difference in genome create the difference in
phenotype? As you say, these questions don't get asked, nevermind
answered, once you say Goddidit.

>----
>Then, you change the subject by invoking a mythical population that
>believes the moon's core is made of cheese. Please, let's talk about
>something real.

Your inability to follow a logical argument noted.

>----
>And finally, it is true that lack of evidence for one theory does not
>constitute evidence in favor of another theory, but it is also true
>that lack of evidence for one theory certainly does not constitute
>evidence for that same theory. Wow

Wow, if only anybody even implied that was true.

>-- yes, I actually have to write
>such blithering-obvious A=A statements when debating evolution.
>It is
>sufficient for me to demonstrate that evolution is question-begging
>metaphysics. That alone destroys its claim to rationality, and to any
>claim that evolution is science.

I'm still waiting for that. Let me know when you get started.

[prawnster]

On Feb 17, 10:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3%  Why?  Because
> >that's the way Goddidit.  Doner.

>[...]

> That may be true, but it isn't very useful.  Which 1.3%?  Why not 2%?
> Or 1%?  How does the difference in genome create the difference in
> phenotype?  As you say, these questions don't get asked, nevermind
> answered, once you say Goddidit.
>
> >----
> >Then, you change the subject by invoking a mythical population that
> >believes the moon's core is made of cheese.  Please, let's talk about
> >something real.
>
> Your inability to follow a logical argument noted.

> [...]

> >It is
> >sufficient for me to demonstrate that evolution is question-begging
> >metaphysics.  That alone destroys its claim to rationality, and to any
> >claim that evolution is science.
>
> I'm still waiting for that.  Let me know when you get started.

Asking why there's a 1.3% difference in people's and chimps' DNA and
not a 1% or 2% or -14.6% is most likely a category error and/or an
artificial linguistic construction.
----
Inventing mythical populations of people who believe that the moon's
core is made of cheese will never help anyone understand anything.
It's a stupid analogy. Move on.
----
I long ago demonstrated that evolution is metaphysics. I'm tired of
repeating myself. Check my archives.

[deadrat]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 10:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3%  Why?  Because
>> >that's the way Goddidit.  Doner.
>>[...]
>> That may be true, but it isn't very useful.  Which 1.3%?  Why not 2%?
>> Or 1%?  How does the difference in genome create the difference in
>> phenotype?  As you say, these questions don't get asked, nevermind
>> answered, once you say Goddidit.
>>
>> >----
>> >Then, you change the subject by invoking a mythical population that
>> >believes the moon's core is made of cheese.  Please, let's talk about
>> >something real.
>>
>> Your inability to follow a logical argument noted.
>> [...]
>> >It is
>> >sufficient for me to demonstrate that evolution is question-begging
>> >metaphysics.  That alone destroys its claim to rationality, and to any
>> >claim that evolution is science.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for that.  Let me know when you get started.
>
> Asking why there's a 1.3% difference in people's and chimps' DNA and
> not a 1% or 2% or -14.6% is most likely a category error and/or an
> artificial linguistic construction.

OK, let's add argumentation and linguistics to the long list of things you
don't understand.

> ----
> Inventing mythical populations of people who believe that the moon's
> core is made of cheese will never help anyone understand anything.
> It's a stupid analogy. Move on.
> ----

Not good with analogies either, eh?

> I long ago demonstrated that evolution is metaphysics. I'm tired of
> repeating myself.

Does this mean you're going away?

> Check my archives.

A monthly *self*-exam is best. But thanks for the offer.

[Burkhard]

The fact that all observations are (also ) inferences does not make
them subjective or debatable.
Quite on the contrary, fitting into a sound theory is one way to
validate an observation.

That's why we hae lots of DNA based exonerations of people convicted
based on flawed eyewitness identification.

[jillery]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:54:17 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 17, 10:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3%  Why?  Because
>> >that's the way Goddidit.  Doner.
>>[...]
>> That may be true, but it isn't very useful.  Which 1.3%?  Why not 2%?
>> Or 1%?  How does the difference in genome create the difference in
>> phenotype?  As you say, these questions don't get asked, nevermind
>> answered, once you say Goddidit.
>>
>> >----
>> >Then, you change the subject by invoking a mythical population that
>> >believes the moon's core is made of cheese.  Please, let's talk about
>> >something real.
>>
>> Your inability to follow a logical argument noted.
>> [...]
>> >It is
>> >sufficient for me to demonstrate that evolution is question-begging
>> >metaphysics.  That alone destroys its claim to rationality, and to any
>> >claim that evolution is science.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for that.  Let me know when you get started.
>
>Asking why there's a 1.3% difference in people's and chimps' DNA and
>not a 1% or 2% or -14.6% is most likely a category error and/or an
>artificial linguistic construction.

However you choose to label it, the quantitative difference has
relevance in quantitative comparisons, and so it can be important to
identify more precisely.

And you avoid my actual point. The specific questions aren't the
issue. What matters is that your Goddidit precludes asking and
answering them.

>----
>Inventing mythical populations of people who believe that the moon's
>core is made of cheese will never help anyone understand anything.
>It's a stupid analogy. Move on.

Your argument to which John Harshman responded is stupid, and so his
analogy is valid. There are always more possible inferences which are
wrong than which are right. Unless you assert there are no stupid
arguments, but I would be surprised if that's what you meant.

>----
>I long ago demonstrated that evolution is metaphysics. I'm tired of
>repeating myself.

And yet here you are repeating your assertions without basis. So your
problem is *not* with repeating yourself, but with posting a cogent
and comprehensive argument. There are lots of posters like that
around here. Get in line.


>Check my archives.


I read them the first time. I assume they are just as wrong now as
they were then.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:40:33 -0500, in article
<me9vj7locptulf45i...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

Your question can be formulated a little more broadly:

Why is there less difference between human and chimp DNA than there
is between human and mouse DNA, or human and frog? That in just about
every respect, humans and chimps have more similarity to one another
than the similarity between humans and any other living thing?

>
>And you avoid my actual point. The specific questions aren't the
>issue. What matters is that your Goddidit precludes asking and
>answering them.

Indeed. What is there about the purposes that humans were designed
for (or the materials and methods that were used) that humans ended
up more like chimps than like any other living thing?

>
>
>>----
>>Inventing mythical populations of people who believe that the moon's
>>core is made of cheese will never help anyone understand anything.
>>It's a stupid analogy. Move on.
>
>
>Your argument to which John Harshman responded is stupid, and so his
>analogy is valid. There are always more possible inferences which are
>wrong than which are right. Unless you assert there are no stupid
>arguments, but I would be surprised if that's what you meant.
>
>
>>----
>>I long ago demonstrated that evolution is metaphysics. I'm tired of
>>repeating myself.
>
>
>And yet here you are repeating your assertions without basis. So your
>problem is *not* with repeating yourself, but with posting a cogent
>and comprehensive argument. There are lots of posters like that
>around here. Get in line.
>
>
>>Check my archives.
>
>
>I read them the first time. I assume they are just as wrong now as
>they were then.
>

[prawnster]

On Feb 18, 2:05 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> [...]

>  The fact that all observations are (also ) inferences does not make
> them subjective or debatable.
> Quite on the contrary, fitting into a sound theory is one way to
> validate an observation.
>
> That's why we hae lots of DNA based exonerations of people convicted
> based on flawed eyewitness identification.
>

More post-modernist relativist word salad.

The brain must interpret the data fed to it by the senses, thus there
is no objective reality -- everything is inference; everything is
interpretation. As I pointed out before, no one lives their life like
this. This sort of word salad only makes sense when one is parked
deep within a warm, comfy recliner, the lights turned down low, and
sipping a nice cup of hot chocolate or single-barrel scotch. In the
real world, if people continuously doubted their observations, they
would either lie very still in bed with their eyes closed or they
would make absurd, dangerous decisions that would soon reduce their
blood's temperature to 72-fahrenheit. QED.

Neither I, nor any creationist, doubts the utility of DNA. People are
exonerated by DNA evidence because experts and laypersons are able to
observe two strands of DNA and see that they are identical. If I were
the prosecution and I knew you and most of the Darwinists here were on
the jury, I would argue in closing that all observation is inference,
all observation is interpretation, and would suggest that the matching
DNA you think you see may not really be what you think you see, and so
you should err on the side of caution and put the perp back in prison
for the safety of the community. If you truly believe in the word
salad you tossed above, you should doubt your observation, assume that
your senses and/or interpretation may be false, and put the perp
away. But you good and well know you wouldn't do that; you would
trust your observation, you would trust your senses.

And it's news to no one that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of
evidence; forensic evidence is always best. Because people have
unreliable memories, it does not follow that observation =
interpretation = inference. Nice try, though.

[jillery]

Good point. And by making these quantitative comparisons, we can
observe a nested hierarchy which strongly correlates to the nested
hierarchy based on phylogeny. And both nested hierarchies taken
together strongly suggest common descent. None of which was noticed
by those who settled for Goddidit.

[John Harshman]

prawnster wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:05 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> [...]
>> The fact that all observations are (also ) inferences does not make
>> them subjective or debatable.
>> Quite on the contrary, fitting into a sound theory is one way to
>> validate an observation.
>>
>> That's why we hae lots of DNA based exonerations of people convicted
>> based on flawed eyewitness identification.
>>
>
> More post-modernist relativist word salad.

Oh, I see. I thought you meant that you were about to offer some, but I
see you're actually characterizing (wrongly) what Burkhard said. I see
your problem here: you can't read and have misinterpreted. It's
convenient for you, because your misunderstandings make his claim into
an easily criticized strawman. It's almost too convenient, as if you are
misunderstanding on purpose.

> The brain must interpret the data fed to it by the senses, thus there
> is no objective reality

Nope, not what he said. There is an objective reality. We just don't
comprehend it directly.

> -- everything is inference; everything is
> interpretation. As I pointed out before, no one lives their life like
> this.

As has been pointed out before, just because we don't notice something
doesn't make it false. If you look closely, you will notice the
inferences you make continuously. Consider optical illusions: they work
because your brain is making lots of inferences about what it gets from
the eyes, and there are conditions under which those inferences are wrong.

> This sort of word salad only makes sense when one is parked
> deep within a warm, comfy recliner, the lights turned down low, and
> sipping a nice cup of hot chocolate or single-barrel scotch. In the
> real world, if people continuously doubted their observations, they
> would either lie very still in bed with their eyes closed or they
> would make absurd, dangerous decisions that would soon reduce their
> blood's temperature to 72-fahrenheit. QED.

Fortunately, our unconscious inferences are usually correct, well enough
for us to live. Fortunately, in science, our inferences are pretty good
too. If we couldn't make valid inferences, science would be impossible.

> Neither I, nor any creationist, doubts the utility of DNA. People are
> exonerated by DNA evidence because experts and laypersons are able to
> observe two strands of DNA and see that they are identical. If I were
> the prosecution and I knew you and most of the Darwinists here were on
> the jury, I would argue in closing that all observation is inference,
> all observation is interpretation, and would suggest that the matching
> DNA you think you see may not really be what you think you see, and so
> you should err on the side of caution and put the perp back in prison
> for the safety of the community.

For some reason creationists seem to think that "inference" is a dirty
word, equivalent to "wild-ass guess". Nope. Inferences can be very
solid, as is for example usually the case for your unconscious
interpretation of what you see. The inference in the court case from DNA
is highly reliable, so the hypothetical Darwinists would rightly reject
your silly objections.

> If you truly believe in the word
> salad you tossed above, you should doubt your observation, assume that
> your senses and/or interpretation may be false, and put the perp
> away. But you good and well know you wouldn't do that; you would
> trust your observation, you would trust your senses.

You would in fact trust the reliability of well-supported inferences.

> And it's news to no one that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of
> evidence; forensic evidence is always best. Because people have
> unreliable memories, it does not follow that observation =
> interpretation = inference. Nice try, though.

Yes, in fact it does follow. Forensic evidence requires inference.
Because the DNA matches, we infer that the suspect was at the scene,
despite not having seen him there. You can't even recognize an inference
when it's given to you. Odd.

[prawnster]

On Feb 18, 7:26 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Indeed. What is there about the purposes that humans were designed
> for (or the materials and methods that were used) that humans ended
> up more like chimps than like any other living thing?
>

You're asking me? Why? I designed neither people nor chimps.

You also say that people "ended up" more like chimps than any other
living thing. You're engaging in question begging again. You're
already assuming that people started in one place and ended up where
they are now, and you're asking me to explain your assumption. Please
stop it. You should know I will not accept Darwinist assumptions.

Asking "why" people look more like chimps than any other living being
is not a question for science. Observation shows that there are many
similarities between us. When you get beyond that, assume that one
turned into the other, and then start imagining that process, you're
no longer practicing science.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 18, 3:48 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:05 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >  The fact that all observations are (also ) inferences does not make
> > them subjective or debatable.
> > Quite on the contrary, fitting into a sound theory is one way to
> > validate an observation.
>
> > That's why we hae lots of DNA based exonerations of people convicted
> > based on flawed eyewitness identification.
>
> More post-modernist relativist word salad.

Nope, the findings of the Innocent project, coupled with the recent
report into forensic science in the US by the National research
council

>
> The brain must interpret the data fed to it by the senses, thus there
> is no objective reality -- everything is inference; everything is
> interpretation.

Who says that the fact that everything is inference and interpretation
entails that there is no objective reality?

<snip stuff that shows you are as ignorant about epistemology and DNA
as you are about the ToE>

[hersheyh]

All observation involves interpretation and inference. Witness the man
who mistook his wife for a hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_agnosia

But there is a wide range in the quality and
public availability of observation, interpretation, and inference. It is
the public availability of scientific 'data' that makes science different
from religious faith, which requires subjective internal non-public
'knowledge'. Science requires repeated testability or observation
by more than one individual. Your vision of the sun moving in the
sky in a field in Portugal is out-weighed by the failure of others
in the world to observe it. Not to mention the rest of the world
not observing the consequences of such movement.

The reason why forensic evidence is often better (not best) than eye-
witness evidence is because the forensic evidence involves the
non-emotional, late-evolving, rational and thinking ability of humans
while eye-witness evidence is biased by the emotional and early
evolving primitive brain we all have.

DNA analysis is useful not only in forensic cases. The very same
reasoning and rational interpretation and inference process that
allows us to determine paternity and other familial relationships
through DNA is what allows us to determine relationships between
different species.

It is your primitive emotional brain that prevents you from accepting
the extension of the logic of DNA analysis to describe the familial
relationship of species. Your emotional need is real and is what
requires you to reject any science or scientific finding that counters
your core value in the literal truth of your sacred text (whichever
one that is). So you accept DNA analysis to the extent that it doesn't
threaten your core belief system and reject the very same logic
when it does.

It is the same brain trick that allows an audience to "see" a white
man mug a black man and "reinterpret" it into the reverse, which
is more consonant with their world-view.

And, of course, any lawyer worth the money would know how to
appeal to the emotional brain of the jury to get them to deny or
discount the scientific evidence in favor of emotional evidence --
which is why juries always favor rich white defendants, even those
who have stolen millions by creating the modern financial 'services'
of payday loans, tax rebate loans, bundled subprime loans, or fees that
only the poor pay for bank services, over poor black defendants who have
stolen bread or beer from a grocery.
Emotional appeals are much stronger than appeals to rationality
and dispassionate weighing of evidence.

[jillery]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:10:28 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 18, 7:26 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Indeed. What is there about the purposes that humans were designed
>> for (or the materials and methods that were used) that humans ended
>> up more like chimps than like any other living thing?
>>
>
>You're asking me? Why? I designed neither people nor chimps.
>
>You also say that people "ended up" more like chimps than any other
>living thing. You're engaging in question begging again.

You're jumping to conclusions again. "Ending up" doesn't imply
anything other than what is the current state. So yes, no matter how
they got that way, people and chimps ended up looking like each other.

>You're
>already assuming that people started in one place and ended up where
>they are now, and you're asking me to explain your assumption. Please
>stop it. You should know I will not accept Darwinist assumptions.

The only assumptions here are yours.

>Asking "why" people look more like chimps than any other living being
>is not a question for science.

Why not?

>Observation shows that there are many
>similarities between us. When you get beyond that, assume that one
>turned into the other, and then start imagining that process, you're
>no longer practicing science.

You have it exactly bass-ackwards. The observations of morphologic
similarities among all species, not just chimps and humans, led to the
conclusion of common descent.

Again, the only assumptions here are yours.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/17/12 10:35 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:01:23 -0800 (PST), prawnster

> [...]

>> ----
>> Next, the genomes of people and chimps differ by 1.3% Why? Because
>> that's the way Goddidit. Doner.
>
> That may be true, but it isn't very useful. Which 1.3%? Why not 2%?
> Or 1%? How does the difference in genome create the difference in
> phenotype? As you say, these questions don't get asked, nevermind
> answered, once you say Goddidit.

You misunderstand the use for which "useful" applies. Prawnster's
answer functions to allow prawnster to not think, and there is, for him,
no greater measure of usefulness.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mike Painter]

I assume you deny astronomy for the same reasons?

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<b162b821-ac3a-455f...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Who says that the fact that everything is inference and interpretation
> entails that there is no objective reality?

One could take the position that there is an objective reality, but we
can't be certain we can know what it is. OTGH, if we don't know what
objective reality is does it matter that it exists. We just have to make
do with our inferences because they seem to work, but in reality we
can't be certain that they for example, lead us into tremendous torture,
of which the recollection is suppressed.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Earle Jones]

In article
<f88cbabd-0938-4ea1...@b9g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,

*
There being no evidence for any of it, Allahdiddit is equally reasonable.

Also Thordiddit.

....and my favorite: Babalu aye diddit.

Babalu Aye is the God of the Santeria religion of central Africa and
Cuba. Slaves from Bantu Africa brought Santeria to Cuba. Did you know
that more slaves were brought to Cuba than to the USA?

Ricky Ricardo (husband of Lucille Ball, as played by Desi Arnaz) sang
the song, "Babalu Aye". I'll bet Desi Arnaz never sang a song to your
God.

I believe that Babalu Aye diddit.

earle
*