Why students should critically analyze evolution.

[Frank J]

The next time you read or hear someone demanding that students
"critically analyze" evolution, please ask them this:

***********************

Please choose the ONE statement that comes closest to your opinion:

a) I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
show them that it is a stronger and better-supported explanation than
they would think if they didn’t critically analyze it.

b) I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
show them that they actually understand the science better than 99+%
of the scientists who work in relevant fields.

c) I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
show them that 99+% of the scientists who work in relevant fields are
lying.

d) I don’t really want students to critically analyze evolution. I
just want them to memorize misleading arguments that only promote
unreasonable doubt. Evolution is thoroughly supported, unlike all the
failed attempts at alternative explanations, but if students learn
that they will reject God and behave as if all is permitted.

***********************

If they ignore the request, object with “none of the above” and/or an
evasive non-answer, and/or add unsolicited whining about “Darwinism”
or “Darwinists,” you can safely conclude that they’re trying to hide
something. So just imagine what they would try to hide from students.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:28:05 -0800 (PST), in article
<9916643f-86fb-4204...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."

Good point.

I suppose that their answer will depend upon what meaning of "criticism"
they have in mind: fault-finding or analysis. And what sort of teacher
they want: one who is educated in science, or one who is educated in
religion; and if the latter, they mean one who is educated specifically
in a particular sub-branch of Christianity.


--
---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)

[TomS]

"On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:28:05 -0800 (PST), in article
<9916643f-86fb-4204...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>

[Frank J]

On Dec 22, 8:48 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:28:05 -0800 (PST), in article

> <9916643f-86fb-4204-b5e0-360c71f23...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Frank J

Clueless rubes who just parrot the demand might choose (b) or (c), not
realizing how silly it makes them look, even to audiences with many
misconceptions of science, but scam artists won't dare admit which one
is closest to their own opinion.

Furthermore, *we* need to be the ones demanding critical analysis, and
making it clear that it's for reason (a).

>
> --
> ---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)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Steven L.]

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9916643f-86fb-4204...@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

No creationists seriously propose b).

Instead they propose b'), which is a bit different:

b') I want students to critically analyze evolution, because that will
show them that *evolution's critics* have valid arguments against it.




-- Steven L.

[Kalkidas]

On 12/22/2011 5:28 AM, Frank J wrote:
> The next time you read or hear someone demanding that students
> "critically analyze" evolution, please ask them this:
>
> ***********************
>
> Please choose the ONE statement that comes closest to your opinion:
>
> a) I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that it is a stronger and better-supported explanation than
> they would think if they didn’t critically analyze it.

Interviewer bias. You are feathering the nest before the eggs are laid.
What if critical analysis reveals it to be a weaker and less
well-supported explanation?

> b) I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that they actually understand the science better than 99+%
> of the scientists who work in relevant fields.

Appeal to pride. The goal of reveling in one's superior understanding is
not consistent with a scientific attitude.

> c) I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that 99+% of the scientists who work in relevant fields are
> lying.

Interviewer bias again. As crude as answer a).

> d) I don’t really want students to critically analyze evolution. I
> just want them to memorize misleading arguments that only promote
> unreasonable doubt. Evolution is thoroughly supported, unlike all the
> failed attempts at alternative explanations, but if students learn
> that they will reject God and behave as if all is permitted.

Sour grapes.

The only reasonable answer is: I want students to critically analyze
evolution because without critical analysis, an assertion, whether
couched in scientific terms or not, is only dogma.

[Frank J]

On Dec 22, 8:28 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 5:28 AM, Frank J wrote:
>
> > The next time you read or hear someone demanding that students
> > "critically analyze" evolution, please ask them this:
>
> > ***********************
>
> > Please choose the ONE statement that comes closest to your opinion:
>
> > a)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> > show them that it is a stronger and better-supported explanation than
> > they would think if they didn’t critically analyze it.
>
> Interviewer bias. You are feathering the nest before the eggs are laid.
> What if critical analysis reveals it to be a weaker and less
> well-supported explanation?

I listed 4 options, and asked which comes *closest* to your opinion,
and you start out whining about the options.

But I'll play along, for a bit. Students *do* critically analyze
evolution, especially at the college level. And every once in a while
they probably do come up with independently verifiable ideas that show
some parts of the explanation to be weaker than previously thought.
But that encourages scientists who do the actual work to keep testing.
Which they do, ansd which makes the resulting explanation even
stronger.

But if you fantasize that someone will validate anything remotely
close to the mutually contradictory long-falsified "theories" that
millions want to believe, ask yourself why the scam artists refuse to
do the work that could conceivably make that happen, and are instead
obsessed with what students learn during the ~0.1% of their waking
hours that they're learning evolution.

>
> > b)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> > show them that they actually understand the science better than 99+%
> > of the scientists who work in relevant fields.
>
> Appeal to pride. The goal of reveling in one's superior understanding is
> not consistent with a scientific attitude.

See above.

>
> > c)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> > show them that 99+% of the scientists who work in relevant fields are
> > lying.
>
> Interviewer bias again. As crude as answer a).

See above.

>
> > d)  I don’t really want students to critically analyze evolution. I
> > just want them to memorize misleading arguments that only promote
> > unreasonable doubt.  Evolution is thoroughly supported, unlike all the
> > failed attempts at alternative explanations, but if students learn
> > that they will reject God and behave as if all is permitted.
>
> Sour grapes.

See above.

>
> The only reasonable answer is: I want students to critically analyze
> evolution because without critical analysis, an assertion, whether
> couched in scientific terms or not, is only dogma.

Then no change is needed, so you can tell the scam artists and their
trained parrots to stop wasting their time.

BTW, why did you snip the rest without a courtesy of a (snip)? Oh
wait. It's because it's where I predicted exactly what you would do.

[Frank J]

On Dec 22, 4:15 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Frank J" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message

Note that I only asked which comes closest.

Though a better "b" would be:

"I want students to think that the <1% of scientists that 'expel'
themselves from supporting their own ideas on their own merits, and
instead takes mere arguments from incredulity directly to the public,
knows the science better than the 99+% who do the actual relevant work
and have the most to gain by coming up with a better explanation."


>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -

[Steven L.]

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:6c36a207-61a0-4baa...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com:

I was trying to report their arguments objectively. You aren't.



-- Steven L.

[Frank J]

Neither are they. I'm only trying to show that they will refuse to use
the words that state what they actually want.

If they really mean your b', and nothing close to the others, then
they truly believe that the tiny fringe of scientists - mostly non-
biologists - knows the science better than the 99+% who do the actual
work, state their hypotheses clearly, test them, and reject them if
they fail the tests.

One of the ironies that's rarely mentioned is that a small % of
students *would* come away finding evolution stronger, even if taught
the unanswered misrepresentations disguised as "critical analysis."
Because they would realize that "something's not adding up," such as
"If that <1% is so convinced that evolution is weak, why are they not
developing their own theories?" Some students might be curious enough
to find out exactly what that "fringe" thinks is more promising than
evolution. They will find mostly hopeless confusion and disagreement,
and that only a minority of of the biologists who signed the "dissent"
statement denies common descent.

Of course most students won't bother. They'll just memorize sound
bites that make evolution look weak, maybe think that their childhood
origins story is validated by default, and never know that other
students think it validates another origins story that contradicts
theirs. With no critical analysis - real or phony - of any of them.
And that's exactly what the scam artists want.

[Steven L.]

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:aaeb6f87-11ac-4125...@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

Yes, they really do believe that. They're *not* con artists like, say,
Erich Von Daniken.

Because they believe that their scientists are starting from the right
axioms--the creation story of the Bible.
They *started* as sincerely religious people, and now they're looking
for some scientific justification for their religious beliefs.

You never heard of "Intelligent Design Theory" before 1987. But when
the courts ruled that creationism could not be taught in public school
science classes, they started looking around for an end-run around those
rulings and came up with ID.

But I have no doubt that creationism is what they sincerely believe.
They would pass any lie detector test about that.

> One of the ironies that's rarely mentioned is that a small % of
> students *would* come away finding evolution stronger, even if taught

> the unanswered misrepresentations disguised as "critical analysis."....

> Of course most students won't bother. They'll just memorize sound
> bites that make evolution look weak, maybe think that their childhood
> origins story is validated by default, and never know that other
> students think it validates another origins story that contradicts
> theirs. With no critical analysis - real or phony - of any of them.

But let's face it, it's really no big deal for most. The average
citizen of any country can go through his average life without needing
to know macro-evolution.

The average student is much more likely to need what he learned in
reading and writing, and in sexuality education.

I found macro-evolution intellectually interesting, but not really
relevant to my lifestyle.

What I really needed, was how to find the vagina on a double-plus-sized
woman in the dark when the lights were out.
("There's her thigh, it's gotta be around there somewhere....")



-- Steven L.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:19:38 +0000, in article
<QMqdnT-1feGRAWnT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."

What about heliocentrism? The chemical formula for water? "Which of
these countries were allies or enemies of the USA in WWII: Italy,
Ireland, Germany, Russia, China, Japan?"

>
>The average student is much more likely to need what he learned in
>reading and writing, and in sexuality education.
>
>I found macro-evolution intellectually interesting, but not really
>relevant to my lifestyle.
>
>What I really needed, was how to find the vagina on a double-plus-sized
>woman in the dark when the lights were out.
>("There's her thigh, it's gotta be around there somewhere....")


--

[backspace]

Correct, the only reason I can think of that the universe wasn't
created 5min ago with the past a collective trick implanted into our
heads by Loci the trick god is because I don't believe it.

There is no falsifiable(not scientific) means of determining whether
everything wasn't created 5min ago: our only evidence is faith and
faith is the evidence for things we know to be true but will never be
able to prove.

We have to assume something, something that isn't open to Popper
falsification.

[backspace]

We should adopt a rule that avoids using 'scientific' and uses
'falsifiable' instead. This would make it clear for example that God
isn't a falsifiable concept because then he wouldn't be God. God can't
be reduced to something man can comprehend, he will reveal enough
about himself only on his terms as he did via Christ 2000 years ago.

[Kalkidas]

Well you might have gotten an apology if you hadn't let your paranoia
make you jump to the conclusion that I deliberately and with malice
aforethought snipped your post without credit.

But looking at the snipped paragraph, I realize it was just the
equivalent of saying "Nobody would fall for this shit, so I predict
nobody will fall for it. Ha ha! You did just what I predicted!!"

So I accept your thanks for snipping that inadvertently revealed,
embarrassing psychological quirk of yours.

You're welcome.

[John Stockwell]

Why doesn't anybody ask the question about "critically analysing" any
other field of science. For example, should student critically analyse
areas of physics
or what have you? What exactly does that mean?

The answer, of course, is that "critical analysis" is merely a code
word for "open the door
to the politicization" of a particular subject. "Critical analysis" as
in "literary criticism" or
as "political ramifications" has no place in a science classs.

-John

[Kalkidas]

We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
as evolution."

The fact is that evolution is nowhere near as well-established as most
of the prominent physical theories.

[Frank J]

Not quite. The reason I wrote this:

If they ignore the request, object with “none of the above” and/or an
evasive non-answer, and/or add unsolicited whining about “Darwinism”
or “Darwinists,” you can safely conclude that they’re trying to hide
something. So just imagine what they would try to hide from students.

...is because too many people fall for the antics of the scam artists,
and "Darwinists" let them get away with it far too often.

If you think 99+% of scientists either (1) don't understand the
science like the "critics" who take potshots from the sidelines
instead of developing their own theories, or (2) are lying to protect
a "worldview" all you had to do is say it in those words. Or not reply
altogether. Or reply evasively without the extra effort of snipping.

[Frank J]

> -John- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

As you know some scam artists, in a pathetic attempt to avoide being
accused of singling out evolution, have added anthropogenic global
warming to the sciences that they single out for misrepresentation
disguised as "critical analysis" by students at taxpayer expense.
Critics like us see through the charade, especially because AGW denial
is so closely linked to authoritarian ideology. But it doesn't lessen
the work that we still need to do, which is to show the ~75%* of
people who think that "critical analysis" (& related scams) is "fair"
that it is not fair by any measure. The scam artists clearly want to
mislead students and make them think that 99+% of scientists in
selected fields that just happen to be inconvenient to the scam
artists' ideology, are either clueless or lying.

* about 1/3 of which *accepts* evolution.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:24:08 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

But claims made by believers are falsifiable and have been falsified.
Since gods are infinitely mutable for those who worship their own
inventions, it is true that the undefined god is not falsifiable, but
those that have a specific faith can find that their doctrines have been
shown to be false.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:37:56 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
talk.origins:

It is generally agreed that the theory of evolution is more robust, more
well-established than the theory of gravity. The problem is that the
anti-science folks seem utterly incapable of recognizing the difference
between a theory and the natural events that the theory is explaining.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <QMqdnT-1feGRAWnT...@earthlink.com>,

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> What I really needed, was how to find the vagina on a double-plus-sized
> woman in the dark when the lights were out.
> ("There's her thigh, it's gotta be around there somewhere....")

There once was a man from Perdue,
Who was only just learning to screw,
But he hadn't the knack,
And got in too far back,
Right church, wrong pew.

--
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

[Frank J]

If by "anti-science folks" you mean either the <1% of the public that
is anti-evolution activists, or the ~25% that is committed evolution-
deniers, I don't think that's the big problem. What is the big problem
to me is another ~50% that is not strictly anti-science (or
necessarily anti-evolution, though technically that makes one anti-
science). They still buy the "fairness" nonsense and misunderstand
what scientists mean by "theory." They *are* capable of recognizing

the difference between a theory and the natural events that the theory

is explaining. But they don't, due to lack of interest on their part,
the relentless efforts of the 1% to keep it that way, and (as much as
it pains me to say it), a pro-science side that obsessed over
"creationists" and "fundamentalists" instead of educating the "swing
vote."

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 06:32:14 -0800 (PST), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote in talk.origins:

Yes, the credulous middle would be a lot easier to deal with if they had
learned logic and critical thinking, science and math before they had
left school.

[Steven L.]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:m7p9f7t19e223aedf...@4ax.com:

The doctrines are shown to be false?

Like for example, "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?
"The meek shall inherit the earth"?
"Thou shalt not kill"?

No.

Many of the fact claims made about the natural world--like the Genesis
creation myth--have been shown to be false.

But ever since St. Augustine, theologians have carefully hedged their
bets about whether their faith depends on the veracity of any or all of
those fact claims.

Martin Luther certainly believed in geocentrism and said so. But he was
careful never to add, "The truth of Christianity depends on geocentrism
being true." He knew better.

These men were smart enough not to make highly leveraged bets on
statements of fact.

Unlike our very own "iaoua," who was rash enough to state flatly that if
Genesis isn't literally true, Christianity is destroyed.



-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:hstbf71lf5fscg1on...@4ax.com:

That's an excuse, and a poor one.

Good science popularizers like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and the entire
NOVA series on PBS, didn't make that excuse.

And they were pretty effective.

Sagan's "Cosmos" series was a major TV hit in 1979, and has been seen by
a couple hundred million people.




-- Steven L.

[Frank J]

On Dec 25, 8:36 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:m7p9f7t19e223aedf...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:24:08 -0800 (PST), backspace

> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

It's the same old is/ought confusion. People whose respect for the
Bible exceeds their passion for pseudoscience admit that the Bible is
mostly about the "oughts" (how to beheve). And we know that allegories
usually illustrate the message better than the actual story, which can
be so long and complicated that the message gets lost.

>
> But ever since St. Augustine, theologians have carefully hedged their
> bets about whether their faith depends on the veracity of any or all of
> those fact claims.
>
> Martin Luther certainly believed in geocentrism and said so.  But he was
> careful never to add, "The truth of Christianity depends on geocentrism
> being true."  He knew better.
>
> These men were smart enough not to make highly leveraged bets on
> statements of fact.
>
> Unlike our very own "iaoua," who was rash enough to state flatly that if
> Genesis isn't literally true, Christianity is destroyed.

But has he ever made it clear which of the mutually contradictory
literal interpretations must be true? And if so, why we should take
*his* word over that of, say, Ray or Tony?

>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -

[Frank J]

On Dec 25, 8:40 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:hstbf71lf5fscg1on...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 06:32:14 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>

If only there were more efforts like that to sustain the effect.
Worse, I often wonder if people today are even less interested than 3
decades ago - to watch or produce something like Cosmos. If so, it's a
vicious cycle.

>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

With the "is/ought" of my last reply fresh in my mind, I note that it
*ought* not be our job to correct public misconceptions, but it *is*
because no one else will? I think there was a guy who lived ~2000
years ago who spoke of "going the extra mile." The irony is that
"Darwinists" do go the "extra mile" - but seem to direct most of it to
those who can't be helped, while leaving those who can be helped to
fend for themselves.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:36:08 +0000, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
wrote in talk.origins:

Not a doctrine, a moral precept common elsewhere as well.

>"The meek shall inherit the earth"?

Not consistent with anything we have ever seen.

>"Thou shalt not kill"?

Not a doctrine, a moral precept common elsewhere as well.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:40:02 +0000, "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net>
wrote in talk.origins:

>
>

Not in the USA.

But where is the opportunity today? "Nova" only reaches a few million
and the religious conservatives seem to want to destroy even the bits of
science that are available for popular use. There are a large number of
religious people who go out of their way to keep their children from
learning properly about science. Their war against science education
keeps many others from getting a good science education in middle and
high school.

[Steven L.]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:jd2hj7$g4c$1...@dont-email.me:

> We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
> but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
> as evolution."

Physicists would be pleased if the existence of other universes were as
well proven as evolution.

Having said that, it's true that biology has been slower to establish
universal laws than physics or chemistry.

That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.

Dawkins has said that he believes that if there is life on other
planets, then that life must have evolved through natural selection too.
But he admits he has absolutely no evidence for it yet.




-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4bc52042-22ec-4f6c...@s5g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:

There were the four "Walking With...." series produced by the BBC.

The one on "Monsters" (life before the dinosaurs) emphasized evolution
more than the others did. If anything, they lay it on a little thick.
And that's the one out of those four that I've recommended to others.
(The BBC version, not the sucky Discovery Channel re-edited version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OTutRYXVrY

> With the "is/ought" of my last reply fresh in my mind, I note that it
> *ought* not be our job to correct public misconceptions, but it *is*
> because no one else will? I think there was a guy who lived ~2000
> years ago who spoke of "going the extra mile." The irony is that
> "Darwinists" do go the "extra mile" - but seem to direct most of it to
> those who can't be helped, while leaving those who can be helped to
> fend for themselves.

The best defense is a good offense.

And the problem with organizations like NCSE is that they are fighting a
defensive battle against all the attempts by creationists to get
creationism taught in public school.

The creationists have a dramatic and profound story to tell--from
Genesis through the Resurrection--whereas NCSE has bans and lawsuits and
court cases. Guess which one is going to make a positive impression on
the average teenager, who is already trying his best to evade the other
bans on drugs and booze and sex his schools and parents have put on him.


As these types of TV programs have shown, science has a dramatic and
profound story to tell too.

But the BBC and PBS have bigger budgets to produce that narrative than
NCSE has.

So, let all those super-rich Hollywood liberals put their money where
their mouth is--and collaborate with scientists to tell a visually
stunning story of evolutionary biology.

Notice how quickly creationists had to embrace the existence of
dinosaurs after "Jurassic Park" in 1993.



-- Steven L.

[Tim Norfolk]

Sure he does. The basics of evoution should be universal - mutations
happen, and are selceted for/against.

[Steven L.]

"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:a65d0990-ce9f-4c75...@j9g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

His own. He is The Authority.

> And if so, why we should take
> *his* word over that of, say, Ray or Tony?

Historically, those kinds of religious doctrinal conflicts were settled
with war. The victor believed he won because God was on his side.

That's tough to set up here in America.

But maybe we could get "iaoua", Ray, and Tony to agree to some kind of
elimination contest, like strip poker or something. Whoever wins has
the favor of God.

Strip poker. It's less destructive and takes less time than the Thirty
Years' War.



-- Steven L.

[Frank J]

On Dec 25, 3:02 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)

>
> The best defense is a good offense.
>
> And the problem with organizations like NCSE is that they are fighting a
> defensive battle against all the attempts by creationists to get
> creationism taught in public school.

That has been bugging me of late (though not enough to end my 13 year
membership). It may be that I'm just noticing it more, but I'm
detecting a tone that I don't think resonates as much with the "swing
vote" as what they were saying ~10 years ago. E.g. when Eugenie Scott
said to "defuse the religion issue."

>
> The creationists have a dramatic and profound story to tell--from
> Genesis through the Resurrection--whereas NCSE has bans and lawsuits and
> court cases.   Guess which one is going to make a positive impression on
> the average teenager, who is already trying his best to evade the other
> bans on drugs and booze and sex his schools and parents have put on him.

Right. There are 2 "courts" - the one that protects the Establishment
Clause, and the one of "public opinion." Nearly everyone, including
NCSE, fights the former and downplays the latter. I often say that I'm
not happy that it takes the Establishment Clause to keep anti-
evolution pseudoscience out of public schools. I consider it morally
wrong to teach that nonsense *unanswered* - which is the only way the
activists will allow it - *anywhere* - especially in religious schools
that preach "thou shalt not bear false witness." While that approach,
sadly, will not help in legal cases, it's really our only hope in the
other "court."

The worst part about the defensive approach, is that it allows the
anti-evolution activists to frame the "censorship" issue as being one
of "either 'Darwinists' censor or they don't." While the pro-science
side makes a good case (to those very familiar with the "debate" at
least) that "Darwinists" do not censor anything, the damage is done by
even allowing it to be framed that way. As I clumsily tried to say
here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/14d1821962e9dfdb?hl=en

In one sense no one is censoring anything - anti-evolution propaganda
is freely available virtually everywhere - so even bringing up the
"censorship" issue should arouse suspicion of the one making that
accusation. But in the sense of "effective censorship" it is clearly
the anti-evolution side that strives for that.

>
> As these types of TV programs have shown, science has a dramatic and
> profound story to tell too.
>
> But the BBC and PBS have bigger budgets to produce that narrative than
> NCSE has.
>
> So, let all those super-rich Hollywood liberals put their money where
> their mouth is--and collaborate with scientists to tell a visually
> stunning story of evolutionary biology.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that Hollywood liberals do more harm than
good, by sensationalizing it in ways that give anti-evolution
activists just what they want (the "slippery slope" from "survival of
the fittest" to Hitler).

>
> Notice how quickly creationists had to embrace the existence of
> dinosaurs after "Jurassic Park" in 1993.

AIUI, creationists (Genesis literalists) accepted dinosaurs well
before that. With some "kinds" believing that they coexisted with
humans mere 1000s of years ago, and other "kinds" believing that they
were separated by millions of years (though still not sharing common
ancestors). I hope that JP made some YECs convert to OEC, and more
importantly, made some of the "swing vote" aware of that hopeless
deadlock.

[Kalkidas]

On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:
> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:jd2hj7$g4c$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
>> but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
>> as evolution."
>
> Physicists would be pleased if the existence of other universes were as
> well proven as evolution.

But they never say that *any* of their theories is as well-established
as evolution. In fact, evolution is *never* used as a comparative
example of a well-established theory.

> Having said that, it's true that biology has been slower to establish
> universal laws than physics or chemistry.
>
> That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
> so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
> meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.

I disagree. The reason is because the theories of physics and chemistry
are relatively simple and involve a relatively small number of
elementary objects whose properties are for the most part constant and
identical for particles of the same type.

But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
immodest at best.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:48:10 -0700, in article <jda18d$m7o$1...@dont-email.me>,
Kalkidas stated..."

>
>On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:jd2hj7$g4c$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
>>> but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
>>> as evolution."
>>
>> Physicists would be pleased if the existence of other universes were as
>> well proven as evolution.
>
>But they never say that *any* of their theories is as well-established
>as evolution. In fact, evolution is *never* used as a comparative
>example of a well-established theory.

[...snip...]

Check out Ludwig Boltzmann.

[deadrat]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:jd2hj7$g4c$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
>>> but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
>>> as evolution."
>>
>> Physicists would be pleased if the existence of other universes were as
>> well proven as evolution.
>
> But they never say that *any* of their theories is as well-established
> as evolution.

Why would they say that? What significance do you attach to what physicists
say about evolution?

> In fact, evolution is *never* used as a comparative
> example of a well-established theory.

It's *always* used as a comparative example of a well-established theory with
regard to Scientific Cretinism and IDiocy.

>> Having said that, it's true that biology has been slower to establish
>> universal laws than physics or chemistry.
>>
>> That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
>> so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
>> meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.
>
> I disagree. The reason is because the theories of physics and chemistry
> are relatively simple

Sure. Group theory, tensor analysis, statistical mechanics, non-Euclidean
geometry, continuous manifolds, perturbation theory, ....

It's been said that the mathematics of string theory is so complicated that it
started as a piece of 21st century mathematics that accidentally fell into the
20th century. Part of the problem with making predictions from string theory
is that the calculations are so difficult.

> and involve a relatively small number of
> elementary objects whose properties are for the most part constant and
> identical for particles of the same type.

A relatively small number of types of elementary objects. There are an
estimated 10^80 atomic particles in the visible universe. The number of
possible phase states associated with a cooling cup of coffee has an exponent
with multidigit numbers.

Newton's laws seem fairly simple to you, do they? How about trying to solve
the n-body problem analytically? Go ahead with n=3 and try. We can't even
determine whether the solar system is stable long term.

Certain nonlinear feedback systems are chaotic and almost immune to
calculation, even simple systems like a dripping faucet.

> But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
> systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
> claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
> immodest at best.

A well-established scientific theory is one that explains the evidence we have
in a consistent and predictable fashion. Evolution does that. If you
personally decide not to accept the theory as well established until it models
the entire biosphere, then that's your choice.

<snip/>

>> -- Steven L.

[John S. Wilkins]

TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> "On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:48:10 -0700, in article <jda18d$m7o$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Kalkidas stated..."
> >
> >On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:
> >> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:jd2hj7$g4c$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>
> >>> We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
> >>> but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
> >>> as evolution."
> >>
> >> Physicists would be pleased if the existence of other universes were as
> >> well proven as evolution.
> >
> >But they never say that *any* of their theories is as well-established
> >as evolution. In fact, evolution is *never* used as a comparative
> >example of a well-established theory.
> [...snip...]
>
> Check out Ludwig Boltzmann.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=apip-Jm9WuwC&lpg=PA101&ots=YOVyao4u-
5&dq=ludwig%20boltzmann%20darwin&pg=PA101#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also:

"Boltzmann's passionate interest in biology and Darwinism was closely
linked to his philosophy. He called the 19th century Darwin's century,
and he expected "all salvation for philosophy" from Darwin's teachings.
Already in an address to Graz University in 1887 he compared the
"obscurantists" who still struggled against Darwin's ideas to the
enemies of the theorem of Pythagoras after this had been established.
Their horrible noises were compared to those of oxen Pythagoras was
going to sacrifice to the gods in gratitude.

Boltzmann put forward ideas on the origin of life on the basis of
struggle for survival and selection that are quite consistent with
present views. He assumed what is now known as chemical evolution in the
primeval ocean. Moreover, Boltzmann explained photosynthesis as having
arisen in the tendency of plants to harness the energy of light to their
requirements."

Broda, E. 1982. Ludwig Boltzmann - Man, physicist, philosopher,
biologist. Rheologica Acta 21 (4):357-359.


--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Craig Franck]

On 12/23/2011 1:22 PM, John Stockwell wrote:

[...]

> Why doesn't anybody ask the question about "critically analysing" any
> other field of science. For example, should student critically analyse
> areas of physics
> or what have you?

One argument is if evolution is true, then this fact does
something to undermine science in general. So it suffers
from a kind of vicious self reference that is somewhat unique.

Brian Greene in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos:_Space,_Time,_and_the_Texture_of_Reality
does something similar with the 2LoT and the past.

The question of how or why such ideas would or should be
broached at the high school level has more to do with
sociology than science.

Craig

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:48:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:jd2hj7$g4c$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> We often hear things like [a theory] "is as well-established as gravity"
>>> but we never hear physicists say that [a theory] "is as well-established
>>> as evolution."
>>
>> Physicists would be pleased if the existence of other universes were as
>> well proven as evolution.
>
>But they never say that *any* of their theories is as well-established
>as evolution. In fact, evolution is *never* used as a comparative
>example of a well-established theory.
>
>> Having said that, it's true that biology has been slower to establish
>> universal laws than physics or chemistry.
>>
>> That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
>> so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
>> meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.
>
>I disagree. The reason is because the theories of physics and chemistry
>are relatively simple and involve a relatively small number of
>elementary objects whose properties are for the most part constant and
>identical for particles of the same type.
>
>But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
>systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
>claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
>immodest at best.

You seem to be comparing apples and oak trees. While the
models of individual subatomic particles are mostly accepted
and simple in comparison to many other things in science,
comparing them to a model of the entire biosphere is wrong;
you should compare a biological model of the biosphere to a
physical model of the universe. Do you think that a
generally-accepted model of the universe exists?

>> Dawkins has said that he believes that if there is life on other
>> planets, then that life must have evolved through natural selection too.
>> But he admits he has absolutely no evidence for it yet.
--

Bob C.

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

[Craig Franck]

On 12/26/2011 9:48 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:

>> [...] it's true that biology has been slower to establish

>> universal laws than physics or chemistry.
>>
>> That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
>> so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
>> meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.
>
> I disagree. The reason is because the theories of physics and chemistry
> are relatively simple and involve a relatively small number of
> elementary objects whose properties are for the most part constant and
> identical for particles of the same type.
>
> But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
> systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
> claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
> immodest at best.

Evolution is considered well established because there is no
competing scientific theory. The demand that you need to be
able to demonstrate how physics and chemistry could lead to
living systems implies that the complexity of a problem is
somehow limited by human intelligence. Ironically, this sort
of limitation would be evidence for creationism because there
is no natural reason this should be the case.

Craig

[Kalkidas]

I don't get the controversy. If people really want to claim that
neo-Darwinian evolution has a theoretical status anything like, say,
that of Newtonian mechanics, or Maxwell's electromagnetism, then they
should demonstrate it by setting boundary and/or initial conditions,
plugging in numbers to the differential equations, and measuring actual
biological systems to see if the equations are accurate.

The problem is, no one has come up with any system of differential
equations which can model biological systems (with respect to their
evolution) with the required degree of accuracy. You can't specify an
organism with a handful of numbers like you can a rigid body or a
charged particle.

Because they're too damned complicated. I mean, duh!!!

[Kalkidas]

On 12/26/2011 6:12 PM, Craig Franck wrote:
> On 12/26/2011 9:48 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:
>
>>> [...] it's true that biology has been slower to establish
>>> universal laws than physics or chemistry.
>>>
>>> That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
>>> so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
>>> meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.
>>
>> I disagree. The reason is because the theories of physics and chemistry
>> are relatively simple and involve a relatively small number of
>> elementary objects whose properties are for the most part constant and
>> identical for particles of the same type.
>>
>> But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
>> systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
>> claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
>> immodest at best.
>
> Evolution is considered well established because there is no
> competing scientific theory.

You can't establish something as science merely because you can't think
of an alternative.

The demand that you need to be
> able to demonstrate how physics and chemistry could lead to
> living systems implies that the complexity of a problem is
> somehow limited by human intelligence. Ironically, this sort
> of limitation would be evidence for creationism because there
> is no natural reason this should be the case.

Are you saying that the evolution of living systems is not governed by
physics and chemistry? Then in what sense is it a scientific theory at all?

And if it is governed by physics and chemistry, then don't you think
that it might be a good idea to reveal the inferences in detail?

[deadrat]

There are successful quantitative methods to model both population dynamics and
population genetics. Someone with more expertise than I will have to detail
them for you.

> The problem is, no one has come up with any system of differential
> equations which can model biological systems (with respect to their
> evolution) with the required degree of accuracy. You can't specify an
> organism with a handful of numbers like you can a rigid body or a
> charged particle.

Why aren't you complaining that we don't have a successful theory of dynamics
because there are just too damn many particles to model a rigid body of any
size?

> Because they're too damned complicated. I mean, duh!!!

We don't need to model every last zebra enzyme to model the population dynamics
of a herd of zebras. Just because you're not familiar with the differential
equations doesn't mean they're not accurate enough. You're so enamored of
Newtonian mechanics, but it's too complicated to answer the question of the
long-term stability of the solar system.

[Craig Franck]

On 12/26/2011 2:17 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Kalkidas<e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 12/25/2011 11:42 AM, Steven L. wrote:

[...]

>>> Having said that, it's true that biology has been slower to establish
>>> universal laws than physics or chemistry.
>>>
>>> That's because while physicists and chemists study the entire universe,
>>> so far (with only a very few exceptions like those amino acids in
>>> meteorites) biologists are limited to studying life on Earth only.
>>
>> I disagree. The reason is because the theories of physics and chemistry
>> are relatively simple

[...]

>> and involve a relatively small number of
>> elementary objects whose properties are for the most part constant and
>> identical for particles of the same type.
>
> A relatively small number of types of elementary objects. There are an
> estimated 10^80 atomic particles in the visible universe. The number of
> possible phase states associated with a cooling cup of coffee has an exponent
> with multidigit numbers.
>
> Newton's laws seem fairly simple to you, do they? How about trying to solve
> the n-body problem analytically? Go ahead with n=3 and try. We can't even
> determine whether the solar system is stable long term.
>
> Certain nonlinear feedback systems are chaotic and almost immune to
> calculation, even simple systems like a dripping faucet.

That addresses the specific point, but in my experience people
who make this sort of argument are also trying to flesh out
the idea that the biological world has an enormous amount of
conceptual novelty not predictable based on the laws of
physics and chemistry.

My own personal view is there must be some set of "bridging
principles" beyond just statistical fallout that link biology
and physics or the problem will prove beyond our abilities to
solve.

Craig

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 22, 1:28 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The next time you read or hear someone demanding that students
> "critically analyze" evolution, please ask them this:
>
> ***********************
>
> Please choose the ONE statement that comes closest to your opinion:
>
> a)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that it is a stronger and better-supported explanation than
> they would think if they didn’t critically analyze it.
>

> b)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that they actually understand the science better than 99+%
> of the scientists who work in relevant fields.
>

> c)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that 99+% of the scientists who work in relevant fields are
> lying.
>

> d)  I don’t really want students to critically analyze evolution. I
> just want them to memorize misleading arguments that only promote
> unreasonable doubt.  Evolution is thoroughly supported, unlike all the
> failed attempts at alternative explanations, but if students learn
> that they will reject God and behave as if all is permitted.
>

> ***********************
>
> If they ignore the request, object with “none of the above” and/or an
> evasive non-answer, and/or add unsolicited whining about “Darwinism”
> or “Darwinists,” you can safely conclude that they’re trying to hide
> something. So just imagine what they would try to hide from students.

Once the fact is admitted that freedom is real, then evolution theory
becomes so much bullshit. When freedom is acknowledged then the focus
is shifted towards the decisions where it is decided what organisms,
or species come to be, and the focus is shifted away from descent with
modification.

The whole evolution idea is predicated on the assumptions:
1 freedom is not real
2 if freedom is real then the decisionmaking involved wouldn't be very
sophisticated

So evoluton theory is very easily toppled. Anybody investing time in
learning it, IS WASTING THEIR TIME ON SIMPLISTIC IDEOLOGICAL BULLCRAP.
Science doesn't actually need more morons to go on and on and on about
the sacred holiness of the scientific method, which is what
evolutionists most concern themselves with. Very obviously the way
forward in science is an informatics which is predicated on a reality
of freedom. An informatics which relates the alternative nature of
information (ex a bit is 0 or 1), to the reality of choosing
alternatives in freedom. DNA in it's alternative nature of CATG can
only really be understood once one starts to think in terms of the
DECISIONS which resulted in how this INFORMATION ended up to be the
way it is in FREEDOM.

[Garamond Lethe]

So let's talk about model complexity.

I'm going to define variable count as a (very) rough measure of model
complexity. Newton's models are simple and useful for small numbers of
interactions. Statistical reinterpretations of Newton's models are
simple and useful for large numbers of interactions. In between small
and large (mesoscale) they're not useful --- your example of solar system
stability being a case in point.

At scales humans spend most of their time caring about, physics and
chemistry problems can be usefully abstracted to very small or very large
numbers of interactions. With a handful of exceptions (population
genetics, epidemiology) biology occurs between these two scales.

One way of dealing with this problem is simulation, which usually comes
down to massive numbers of iterations over simple models. One of the
many problems with this approach is that you end up having to model your
model.

A second approach is throwing more variables at the problem. This makes
the model difficulty to generalize from (and easy to overfit the data).

The best approach is coming up with a new way to abstract the underlying
system into a model. The fundamental drawback here is it's really,
really hard (but they hand out nice prizes if you pull it off).

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-dbf94c0d-21df-4...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

> Once the fact is admitted that freedom is real, then evolution theory
> becomes so much bullshit. When freedom is acknowledged then the focus
> is shifted towards the decisions where it is decided what organisms,
> or species come to be, and the focus is shifted away from descent with
> modification.

If such "freedom" to choose how to evolve were real, "nandoe" would have
chose to be bright enough to see the flaws in his present arguments.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson

[Garamond Lethe]

You're absolutely right.

> The problem is, no one has come up with any system of differential
> equations which can model biological systems (with respect to their
> evolution) with the required degree of accuracy.

Richard Durrett, _Probability Models for DNA Sequence Evolution_, 2nd.
Ed., Springer, 2008.

Warren J. Ewens, _Mathematical Population Genetics I. Theoretical
Introduction_, 2nd. Ed. Springer, 2004.

> You can't specify an
> organism with a handful of numbers like you can a rigid body or a
> charged particle.

My partner makes a good living doing exactly that.

Snyder, Robin E.; Chesson, Peter L. Local dispersal can facilitate
coexistence in the presence of permanent spatial heterogeneity. Ecology
Letters, 2003, 6(4), 301--309.

http://www.case.edu/biology/snyder/pubs/el2003.pdf

(The good math is in the appendix.)

>
> Because they're too damned complicated. I mean, duh!!!

Our understanding is limited to what we can imagine. I can't imagine how
PDEs are used in biology, and neither can you.

The difference between me and you is that you've concluded from this that
no one else can image how to use PDEs either.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 6:19 am, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:

> If such "freedom" to choose how to evolve were real, "nandoe" would have
> chose to be bright enough to see the flaws in his present arguments.

How would you know, you are completely ignorant about how freedom
works, you only know force. Creationists have always acknowledged that
freedom is real, they were among the first to start regarding
organisms and DNA in terms of information.

[Garamond Lethe]

Is that true? Shanon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" came out
in 1948 and by 1959 information theory is being used to help understand
DNA (RL Shinsheimer's "Is the nucleic acid message in a two-symbol
code?").

The two pre-Dembski creationists working with information theory
mentioned in the t.o. faq published in 1998 and 2000, respectively (L. M.
Spetner's _Not by Chance" and Werner Gitt's _In the Beginning was
Information_).

No, wait, I stand corrected. Dembski's "Intelligent Design as a Theory
of Information" came out in 1997.

Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior to
1997? (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to look, but
my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until later today.)

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior to
> 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to look, but
> my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until later today.)

Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice, and
therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals the
concept of information. Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or the
other, or unknown. Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows
an eye for the alternative nature of genes.

In any case, then as now, cultivating subjectivity towards what
decides is held to be more important then cultivating objective
knowledge about how things are decided, which explains the lack of
scientific knowledge of creationists. It is bad judgement to have
people with heads full of facts, and hearts empty of emotion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:23:49 -0700, the following appeared

Again, one cannot compare an organism with a single
particle; one can only compare it with a comparably-complex
physical system. And you are aware, of course, that there is
no general solution for a physical system of more than two
bodies, right? So it seems that biological systems are at
least as predictable as physical systems. That's *systems*,
not particles, something you seem to repeatedly overlook.

And the predictability of inheritance is quite predictable,
albeit statistically. But then, most physical systems are
only predictable statistically.

>Because they're too damned complicated. I mean, duh!!!

You said it; I didn't.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:50:33 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 12/26/2011 6:12 PM, Craig Franck wrote:

<snip>

>> Evolution is considered well established because there is no
>> competing scientific theory.

>You can't establish something as science merely because you can't think
>of an alternative.

No, it must also account for all the existing data and make
accurate predictions within its scope; evolutionary theory
does this nicely.

You can, if you wish, provide counter examples...

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:47:08 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

This is not even wrong.

It's also so breathtakingly stupid and ignorant that there
is no possibility of rebuttal within the framework of
rational discourse; the best it can be answered is via a
disbelieving stare.

[Kermit]

On Dec 27, 8:27 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior to
> > 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to look, but
> > my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until later today.)
>
> Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
> nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice,

So you're saying I have no free will?

> and
> therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals the
> concept of information.

You have never answered (that I know of) how rocks decide anything.
How do they
know, and how do they act?

> Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
> alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or the
> other, or unknown. Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows
> an eye for the alternative nature of genes.

Yes. The science derived from his work describes how evolution works
at a molecular level.

>
> In any case, then as now, cultivating subjectivity towards what
> decides is held to be more important then cultivating objective
> knowledge about how things are decided, which explains the lack of
> scientific knowledge of creationists.

Well, that, and the fact that they don't want to know how things work.
They just want to feel righteous, safer, whatever.

> It is bad judgement to have
> people with heads full of facts, and hearts empty of emotion.

I am not comfortable around folks whose hearts are full of emotions
and their heads empty of facts. They sometimes burn people accused of
witchcraft or torture heretics or blow up buildings with people in
them.

Kermit

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 6:03 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You have never answered (that I know of) how rocks decide anything.
> How do they
> know, and how do they act?

In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.
That is the same freedom people have, they have alternatives available
and a choice is made, the rock has alternatives available and a choice
is made.

Ofcourse you are confusing descriptions of alternatives people have in
their mind, with the actual alternatives which are sought to be
described, as people ignorant of how freedom works often do. When I
write down "go left" and "go right" on two pieces of paper, then these
are not alternatives, but descriptions of alternatives as they are in
the future. A rock simply has a direct anticipative relationship to
it's future of alternatives, it is not neccessary in order to choose
to have descriptions of alternative courses of action in mind.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 5:56 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:47:08 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by

> "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >On Dec 27, 6:19 am, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>
> >> If such "freedom" to choose how to evolve were real, "nandoe" would have
> >> chose to be bright enough to see the flaws in his present arguments.
>
> >How would you know, you are completely ignorant about how freedom
> >works, you only know force. Creationists have always acknowledged that
> >freedom is real, they were among the first to start regarding
> >organisms and DNA in terms of information.
>
> This is not even wrong.
>
> It's also so breathtakingly stupid and ignorant that there
> is no possibility of rebuttal within the framework of
> rational discourse; the best it can be answered is via a
> disbelieving stare.
> --

You never even knew how to describe the weather turning out
alternative ways in freedom. You denied it, said it was nonsense, said
that only people have freedom.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:27:48 -0800, nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior to
>> 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to look, but
>> my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until later today.)
>
> Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
> nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice, and
> therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals the
> concept of information. Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
> alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or the
> other, or unknown.

But that has nothing to do with information theory.

> Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows an
> eye for the alternative nature of genes.

This also has nothing to do with information theory.

>
> In any case, then as now, cultivating subjectivity towards what decides
> is held to be more important then cultivating objective knowledge about
> how things are decided, which explains the lack of scientific knowledge
> of creationists. It is bad judgement to have people with heads full of
> facts, and hearts empty of emotion.

So Dembski was the first. Ok, thanks!

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 6:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:27:48 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior to
> >> 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to look, but
> >> my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until later today.)
>
> > Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
> > nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice, and
> > therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals the
> > concept of information. Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
> > alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or the
> > other, or unknown.
>
> But that has nothing to do with information theory.
>
> > Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows an
> > eye for the alternative nature of genes.
>
> This also has nothing to do with information theory.

Obviously you don't understand information theory. Information is only
a thing which alternatively is something else, a bit is either 0 or 1.
When creationists are arguing along these lines of that things consist
of chosen alternatives, then it is information theory, no matter that
they didn't use the word information for it.

Creatio ex-nihilo is in essence a doctrine where the 1 (something) is
derived from the 0 (nothing), instead of deriving the 1 by counting.
We now have the essence of information, a 1 which is basically
interchangeable with a 0. Like with a CD; we can change the pits and
holes on the cd inversely, and rewire the cd player, and then it would
produce the exactsame thing as the original CD. So now we can create
information through choosing between 0 and 1. This is true origins,
the result of the choice is derived from nothing, and so is completely
new in the universe. Evolutionary origins of descent with modification
in comparison is a fakery that doesn't really goes to the true facts
about origins like creationism does.

[Kalkidas]

Actually, the transport of ions across cell membranes is modeled by
PDE's. So are many other things in biology which involve real physical
and chemical changes.

However, biology is not the same as neo-darwinian macroevolution. That
depends on imagined long-term changes which can never be observed and
certainly cannot be modeled by any known mathematics, since the objects
that are changing, and the factors controlling the changes, can not be
specified except in the vaguest and most simplistic way.

For example, try specifying an organism's genome with respect to
macroevolution the way you would specify a rigid body with respect to
gravitation (i.e. as a set of numbers which completely describe the
body's gravitational properties, so that the motion of the body under a
given gravitational field is predictable to an arbitrary degree of
accuracy). Give a set of numbers that completely describe the genome's
macroevolutionary properties, so that the evolution of the genome under
-- let's call it a "macroevolutionary field" -- is predictable to an
arbitrary degree of accuracy.

It can't be done.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:05:31 -0800, nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Dec 27, 6:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:27:48 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior
>> >> to 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to
>> >> look, but my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until
>> >> later today.)
>>
>> > Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
>> > nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice,
>> > and therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals
>> > the concept of information. Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
>> > alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or
>> > the other, or unknown.
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with information theory.
>>
>> > Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows an eye for the
>> > alternative nature of genes.
>>
>> This also has nothing to do with information theory.
>
> Obviously you don't understand information theory. Information is only a
> thing which alternatively is something else, a bit is either 0 or 1.

Nope, but good guess.

Noise --- the opposite of information in this context --- also consists
of ones and zeros.

Care to guess again?

[Garamond Lethe]

I have some small experience in modeling ion transport.

Jeffrey P. Gill, Kendrick M. Shaw, Barry L. Rountree, Catherine E. Kehl,
and Hillel J. Chiel. Simulating kinetic processes in time and space on a
lattice. (to appear), 2011

No need to use PDEs --- the diffusion equations work just fine.

This isn't biology --- ion channels occur elsewhere. It chemistry, and
chemistry can be usefully abstracted to very simple models.

Contrast this with the state of the art of cell simulation. We don't
have the computational capability yet (I'm working on it...) to do a
first-order ab initio molecular dynamics model of a single cell and there
are too many unique components for a statistical treatment.

> So are many other things in biology which involve real physical
> and chemical changes.
>
> However, biology is not the same as neo-darwinian macroevolution. That
> depends on imagined long-term changes which can never be observed

You can't imagine how to observe them. I can.

> and
> certainly cannot be modeled by any known mathematics,

You don't know how to model them. I have.

> since the objects
> that are changing, and the factors controlling the changes, can not be
> specified except in the vaguest and most simplistic way.

You don't understand how to specify them. I do.

>
> For example, try specifying an organism's genome with respect to
> macroevolution the way you would specify a rigid body with respect to
> gravitation (i.e. as a set of numbers which completely describe the
> body's gravitational properties, so that the motion of the body under a
> given gravitational field is predictable to an arbitrary degree of
> accuracy). Give a set of numbers that completely describe the genome's
> macroevolutionary properties, so that the evolution of the genome under
> -- let's call it a "macroevolutionary field" -- is predictable to an
> arbitrary degree of accuracy.
>
> It can't be done.

And the fact that I've given you two standard textbooks laying out how it
is currently done means nothing to you. If you can avoid learning about
it, it must not exist.

I think I have a pdf of Durrett lying around somewhere. Would you like
me to send it to you? It's 431 pages of hardcore math (well, what
biologists consider to be hardcore math). Could I trouble you to work
through a couple of chapters and tell me why they're wrong? (I think
I've found one error myself --- just a mathematical typo, I think, but I
need to sit down with it for while before I send a note to Durrett.)

[Robert Camp]

Of course such changes can, and have been, observed. Your argument
depends upon a contrived inequality regarding types of observation. A
human presence does not need to be simultaneous with or in proximity
to an event for it to be observed (there are some events in which such
things would make observation impossible) by humans. Neither must
human eyes or ears directly record such a thing.

Try applying those standards of inference to geology or cosmology and
see where it gets you.

RLC

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 7:47 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:05:31 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 6:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:27:48 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior
> >> >> to 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to
> >> >> look, but my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until
> >> >> later today.)
>
> >> > Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
> >> > nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice,
> >> > and therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals
> >> > the concept of information. Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
> >> > alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or
> >> > the other, or unknown.
>
> >> But that has nothing to do with information theory.
>
> >> > Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows an eye for the
> >> > alternative nature of genes.
>
> >> This also has nothing to do with information theory.
>
> > Obviously you don't understand information theory. Information is only a
> > thing which alternatively is something else, a bit is either 0 or 1.
>
> Nope, but good guess.
>
> Noise --- the opposite of information in this context --- also consists
> of ones and zeros.
>
> Care to guess again?

You are only authoritatively using a description of information which
is wrong. Noise consisting of 1's and 0's is certainly also
information. Usually noise is used to describe new information, as in
a noise generator used for encryption produces new information, which
is used to encrypt the already existing information.

[deadrat]

You can't do the latter, assuming there are two other bodies in your
calculations.

> Give a set of numbers that completely describe the genome's
> macroevolutionary properties, so that the evolution of the genome under
> -- let's call it a "macroevolutionary field" -- is predictable to an
> arbitrary degree of accuracy.

You think physics can do your predictions. It can't.

> It can't be done.

So what?

[Garamond Lethe]

Oh, we're talking about nando-noise. Right....

> Noise consisting of 1's and 0's is certainly also information.

Really?

> Usually noise is used to describe new information,

<boggle>

> as in a noise
> generator used for encryption produces new information, which is used to
> encrypt the already existing information.

You have a nice day, now, and don't go implementing any one-time pads
without adult supervision, ok?

Bye!

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-bb68c403-989b-4...@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>,

Creationists are the ones arguing in and from ignorance.

Anyone who , as creationists do, regards the bible as a better source of
reliable facts than science is is arguing from ignorance.

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-5e1a59a3-718d-4...@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
,

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Noise consisting of 1's and 0's is certainly also
> information.

Then the "information" that nando is claiming to produce is also just
noise.

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-a265fe74-b2af-4...@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>,

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
> and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.

That rock has as much freedom as Nando has sense.

[Ernest Major]

In message <008E1127-0D4E-4765-B0B8-DB0BA94653DE%a...@b.com>, deadrat
<a...@b.com> writes

For example

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

>
>> It can't be done.
>
>So what?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

That's nice.

> Jeffrey P. Gill, Kendrick M. Shaw, Barry L. Rountree, Catherine E. Kehl,
> and Hillel J. Chiel. Simulating kinetic processes in time and space on a
> lattice. (to appear), 2011
>
> No need to use PDEs --- the diffusion equations work just fine.

Ahem, the diffusion equation *is* a PDE.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_equation

> This isn't biology --- ion channels occur elsewhere. It chemistry, and
> chemistry can be usefully abstracted to very simple models.
>
> Contrast this with the state of the art of cell simulation. We don't
> have the computational capability yet (I'm working on it...) to do a
> first-order ab initio molecular dynamics model of a single cell and there
> are too many unique components for a statistical treatment.
>
>> So are many other things in biology which involve real physical
>> and chemical changes.
>>
>> However, biology is not the same as neo-darwinian macroevolution. That
>> depends on imagined long-term changes which can never be observed
>
> You can't imagine how to observe them. I can.

No, you can't.

>> and
>> certainly cannot be modeled by any known mathematics,
>
> You don't know how to model them. I have.

No, you haven't.

>> since the objects
>> that are changing, and the factors controlling the changes, can not be
>> specified except in the vaguest and most simplistic way.
>
> You don't understand how to specify them. I do.

No, you don't.

>>
>> For example, try specifying an organism's genome with respect to
>> macroevolution the way you would specify a rigid body with respect to
>> gravitation (i.e. as a set of numbers which completely describe the
>> body's gravitational properties, so that the motion of the body under a
>> given gravitational field is predictable to an arbitrary degree of
>> accuracy). Give a set of numbers that completely describe the genome's
>> macroevolutionary properties, so that the evolution of the genome under
>> -- let's call it a "macroevolutionary field" -- is predictable to an
>> arbitrary degree of accuracy.
>>
>> It can't be done.
>
> And the fact that I've given you two standard textbooks laying out how it
> is currently done means nothing to you. If you can avoid learning about
> it, it must not exist.

A physical theory of genome change over time does not exist. There is no
system of PDE's which will give the state of a genome at an arbitrary
time t, given the genome's initial state at t0 along with boundary
conditions. You are simply bluffing.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:05:31 -0800, nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Dec 27, 6:37 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:27:48 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Dec 27, 4:49 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Do you have a cite for a creationist using information theory prior
>> >> to 1997?  (Numbers's _The Creationists_ would be a good place to
>> >> look, but my copy is at the office and I won't be going in until
>> >> later today.)
>>
>> > Obviously since forever creationism has been based on God creating ex
>> > nihilo. This way everything is held to be subject to God's choice,
>> > and therefore everything consists of chosen alternatives which equals
>> > the concept of information. Ockham devised a consistent tri logic of
>> > alternative results in the middle ages, where the result is one or
>> > the other, or unknown.
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with information theory.
>>
>> > Mendel with his work on the mendellian laws shows an eye for the
>> > alternative nature of genes.
>>
>> This also has nothing to do with information theory.
>
> Obviously you don't understand information theory.

You should _really_ check out the work of Claude Shannon before saying
things like that.

> Information is only a
> thing which alternatively is something else, a bit is either 0 or 1.

Aye. But not at the same time. You'd need a qubit for that.

> When creationists are arguing along these lines of that things consist
> of chosen alternatives, then it is information theory, no matter that
> they didn't use the word information for it.

If they did, they would have ended up looking even sillier than they do
now.

> Creatio ex-nihilo is in essence a doctrine

If you had left it at that, you would be absolutely right. But science is
about theory, religion is about doctrine.

> where the 1 (something) is derived from the 0 (nothing),

And this is where you start making no sense at all.

<snip further nonsense>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________
/ TONY RANDALL! Is YOUR life a PATIO of \
\ FUN?? /
---------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kalkidas]

On 12/27/2011 1:50 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <008E1127-0D4E-4765-B0B8-DB0BA94653DE%a...@b.com>, deadrat
> <a...@b.com> writes
>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Give a set of numbers that completely describe the genome's
>>> macroevolutionary properties, so that the evolution of the genome under
>>> -- let's call it a "macroevolutionary field" -- is predictable to an
>>> arbitrary degree of accuracy.
>>
>> You think physics can do your predictions. It can't.
>
> For example
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

Notice that deterministic chaos is dependent on the imprecision in
determining the initial conditions (which is what "sensitive dependence
on initial conditions" means), not an imprecision in the equations of
motion, which are entirely deterministic.

In cases like these, it is the inability of measuring something to a
sufficient accuracy, and not the theory itself, that is the culprit.

So if someone could show me a deterministic theory of macroevolution, I
would be willing to stipulate that such things as deterministic chaos
could occur in that theory just as in mechanics, athough, as in
mechanics, they would be the exception rather than the rule.

[Garamond Lethe]

<q>
When Behe was cross-examined during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in
October 2005, he was asked if he still believed that the scientific
literature had no answers on the origin of the immune system. He said
that he did. Then, in a Perry Mason-like flourish, the plaintiffs'
attorney piled fifty-eight peer-reviewed articles and a stack of books
about the origin of the immune system on the witness stand in front of
Behe. When asked, Behe said that he had not read most of them, but
dismissed the pile with a wave of his hand. As the cell biologist
Kenneth Miller, who testified for the plantiffs in the trial, put it
later, "Aint' nothing going to convince this guy."
</q>

Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch, _Not in Our Classrooms_, Beacon Press
Books, 2006.

The link to the transcript is here:

http://earthfusion.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

Behe may still be convinced that the scientific literature has no answers
on the origins of the immune system. But the plantiffs' attorney wasn't
trying to convince Behe, he was trying to convince a judge (and Behe was,
too). Behe found out --- as you're finding out --- that "you're
bluffing!" starts to lose its effectiveness as the peer-review articles
start piling up.

I doubt you'd recognize a PDE if you saw one let me give you a more
verbose cite:

<q>
The variance of the change of gene frequency due to random drift is x(1 −
x)/(2N) and (x, t|p0) can be obtained by solving the following partial
differential equation (PDE),

$$
\frac{\partial\phi(x,t\vert p_0)}{\partial t}
=
\frac{1}{4N}
\frac{\partial^2\(x(1-x)\phi (x,t\vert p_0))}{\partial x^2}
-
\frac{\partial (sx(1-x)\phi(x,t\vert p_0))}{\partial x}
$$

with boundaries x = 0 and x = 1, where N is the Wright-Fisher population
size. Kimura solved this PDE by using the separation-of-variables method
(Kimura 1955b, 1957, 1964).
</q>

Ying Wang and Bruce Rannala, "A Novel Solution for the Time-Dependent
Probability of Gene Fixation or Loss Under Natural Selection", Genetics,
168(2):1081-1084, 2004. 10.1534/genetics.104.027797

Am I bluffing? Would you like to check my transcription of the text?
Here's the link I used:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448842/

It's equation #2.

Want another one?

"This paper shows how biological population dynamic models in the form of
partial differential equations can be applied to heterogeneous
landscapes. The systems of coupled partial differential equations
presented combine dispersal, growth, competition and genetic
interactions. The equations belong to the class of reaction diffusion
equations and are strongly non-linear. Realistic biological dispersal
behaviour is introduced by density dependent diffusion coefficients and
chemotaxis terms, which model the active movement along gradients of
environmental variables. The resulting non-linear initial boundary value
problems are solved for geometries of heterogeneous landscapes, which
determine model parameters such as diffusion coefficients, habitat
suitability and land use. Geometry models are imported from a
geographical information system into a general purpose finite element
solver for systems of coupled PDEs. The importance of spatial
heterogeneity is demonstrated for management of biological control by
sterile males and for risk management of GMO crops."

Otto Richter, "Modelling dispersal of populations and genetic information
by finite element methods", Environmental Modelling Software, 23:2,
206-14, 2008.


Would you now kindly pick up Durretts, Ewens, or either of these papers
and explain to me what they're doing wrong?

[Craig Franck]

On 12/26/2011 8:50 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 12/26/2011 6:12 PM, Craig Franck wrote:

>> On 12/26/2011 9:48 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

[...]

>>> But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
>>> systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
>>> claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
>>> immodest at best.
>>

>> Evolution is considered well established because there is no
>> competing scientific theory.
>
> You can't establish something as science merely because you can't think
> of an alternative.

But when it comes to evolution, it's hard to imagine what
an alternative scientific theory could even possibly look
like. Introducing an "intelligent design agent" raises as
many questions as it answers and cripples biology.

> The demand that you need to be
>> able to demonstrate how physics and chemistry could lead to
>> living systems implies that the complexity of a problem is
>> somehow limited by human intelligence. Ironically, this sort
>> of limitation would be evidence for creationism because there
>> is no natural reason this should be the case.
>
> Are you saying that the evolution of living systems is not governed by
> physics and chemistry? Then in what sense is it a scientific theory at all?

I'm saying that a detailed pathway from the BB to galaxies,
stars, and planets may be several orders of magnitude easier
to generate than one that also includes earth's biosphere.

> And if it is governed by physics and chemistry, then don't you think
> that it might be a good idea to reveal the inferences in detail?

We know a great deal about how living things work, and based
on this how biodiversity arises. But when it comes to
generating a physical pathway from a soup of subatomic
particles to us, all that can currently be offered is a set
general processes. It seems you are looking for specific
steps that go beyond the lab and fossil record.

Craig

[Garamond Lethe]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:23:27 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:

> On 12/27/2011 1:50 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <008E1127-0D4E-4765-B0B8-DB0BA94653DE%a...@b.com>, deadrat
>> <a...@b.com> writes
>>> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Give a set of numbers that completely describe the genome's
>>>> macroevolutionary properties, so that the evolution of the genome
>>>> under -- let's call it a "macroevolutionary field" -- is predictable
>>>> to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.
>>>
>>> You think physics can do your predictions. It can't.
>>
>> For example
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum
>
> Notice that deterministic chaos is dependent on the imprecision in
> determining the initial conditions

Nope. It's a mathematical property. z<-z^2+c (where z and c are
complex) is deterministically chaotic for infinitely-precise values of z
and c.

> (which is what "sensitive dependence
> on initial conditions" means), not an imprecision in the equations of
> motion, which are entirely deterministic.

Motion equations are precise because they're abstractions and precise
abstractions are easier to work with (and the error is tolerable most of
the time). (There was a fad a while back on fuzzy motion control...
Zadeh? Yep, Lotfi Zadeh. For example, "Pid and interval type-2 fuzzy
logic control of double inverted pendulum system". That was 2010; maybe
it stuck around after all.)

>
> In cases like these, it is the inability of measuring something to a
> sufficient accuracy, and not the theory itself, that is the culprit.
>
> So if someone could show me a deterministic theory of macroevolution, I
> would be willing to stipulate that such things as deterministic chaos
> could occur in that theory just as in mechanics, athough, as in
> mechanics, they would be the exception rather than the rule.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I don't think you do,
either.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:13:07 -0500, in article
<btKdncVRIrVt32fT...@giganews.com>, Craig Franck stated..."

>
>On 12/26/2011 8:50 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 12/26/2011 6:12 PM, Craig Franck wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2011 9:48 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> But "life on earth" is composed trillions of hugely complex and unique
>>>> systems. To physically model such an assemblage is impossible, and to
>>>> claim that a theory which purports to model it is "well-established" is
>>>> immodest at best.
>>>
>>> Evolution is considered well established because there is no
>>> competing scientific theory.
>>
>> You can't establish something as science merely because you can't think
>> of an alternative.

And another irony meter explodes.

When the entire case for creationism/intelligent design is based on
"something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology", and
because "I can't imagine how such-and-such could evolve", that means
that it must have been "designed" (with no exposition of what *that*
means!).

>
>But when it comes to evolution, it's hard to imagine what
>an alternative scientific theory could even possibly look
>like. Introducing an "intelligent design agent" raises as
>many questions as it answers and cripples biology.

[...snip...]

That is understatement: "it's hard to imagine".

Nobody has described an alternative. No account of what happened
in the history of life, if it didn't involve common descent with
modification, that produced the "tree of life".

Yes, there are alternatives in the details, which have fared
better or worse than others: inheritance of acquired characters,
natural selection, random variation, symbiosis; but they all
involve common descent with modification.


--
---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)

[Frank J]

On Dec 27, 5:36 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:13:07 -0500, in article

> <btKdncVRIrVt32fTnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@giganews.com>, Craig Franck stated..."

Actually, as you know, "scientific" YECs and OECs did make half-
hearted attempts. But they were (1) mutually contradictory, (2) played
favorites with and misrepresented evidence to "support" them, and (3)
still relied mainly on "supporting" them by promoting unreasonable
doubt of evolution.

Which is why I'm convinced that we would now have something like ID,
with a constant *retreat* on the "what happened when" if not the
designer's identity, had the anti-evolution movement won the major
court battles of the '80s.

>
> Yes, there are alternatives in the details, which have fared
> better or worse than others: inheritance of acquired characters,
> natural selection, random variation, symbiosis; but they all
> involve common descent with modification.

There you mean that even those who have not sold out to pseudoscience
have made valiant attempts. True, and as you know, every evolutionary
biologist today wishes that the *evidence* would let him "dethrone
Darwin."

>
> --
> ---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)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank J]

On Dec 26, 9:07 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 1:28 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The next time you read or hear someone demanding that students
> > "critically analyze" evolution, please ask them this:
>
> > ***********************
>
> > Please choose the ONE statement that comes closest to your opinion:
>
> > a)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> > show them that it is a stronger and better-supported explanation than
> > they would think if they didn’t critically analyze it.
>
> > b)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> > show them that they actually understand the science better than 99+%
> > of the scientists who work in relevant fields.
>
> > c)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> > show them that 99+% of the scientists who work in relevant fields are
> > lying.
>
> > d)  I don’t really want students to critically analyze evolution. I
> > just want them to memorize misleading arguments that only promote
> > unreasonable doubt.  Evolution is thoroughly supported, unlike all the
> > failed attempts at alternative explanations, but if students learn
> > that they will reject God and behave as if all is permitted.
>
> > ***********************
>
> > If they ignore the request, object with “none of the above” and/or an
> > evasive non-answer, and/or add unsolicited whining about “Darwinism”
> > or “Darwinists,” you can safely conclude that they’re trying to hide
> > something. So just imagine what they would try to hide from students.
>
> Once the fact is admitted that freedom is real, then evolution theory
> becomes so much bullshit. When freedom is acknowledged then the focus
> is shifted towards the decisions where it is decided what organisms,
> or species come to be, and the focus is shifted away from descent with
> modification.
>
> The whole evolution idea is predicated on the assumptions:
> 1 freedom is not real
> 2 if freedom is real then the decisionmaking involved wouldn't be very
> sophisticated
>
> So evoluton theory is very easily toppled. Anybody investing time in
> learning it, IS WASTING THEIR TIME ON SIMPLISTIC IDEOLOGICAL BULLCRAP.
> Science doesn't actually need more morons to go on and on and on about
> the sacred holiness of the scientific method, which is what
> evolutionists most concern themselves with. Very obviously the way
> forward in science is an informatics which is predicated on a reality
> of freedom.  An informatics which relates the alternative nature of
> information (ex a bit is 0 or 1), to the reality of choosing
> alternatives in freedom. DNA in it's alternative nature of CATG can
> only really be understood once one starts to think in terms of the
> DECISIONS which resulted in how this INFORMATION ended up to be the
> way it is in FREEDOM.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yawn. Another evasion. Why are you depriving yourself of the *freedom*
to answer the question?

[Kalkidas]

I agree. And that's why I say that the theory of evolution is several
orders of magnitude less well-established than the "Big Bang", which is
itself several orders of magnitude less well-established than Newtonian
mechanics and Maxwellian electromagnetism, or even GR, QM, QED....

>> And if it is governed by physics and chemistry, then don't you think
>> that it might be a good idea to reveal the inferences in detail?
>
> We know a great deal about how living things work, and based
> on this how biodiversity arises. But when it comes to
> generating a physical pathway from a soup of subatomic
> particles to us, all that can currently be offered is a set
> general processes. It seems you are looking for specific
> steps that go beyond the lab and fossil record.

Whose talking about abiogenesis? That's a whole other question. I'm
talking about premature boasting about the status of the so-called
"theory" of evolution, specifically the claims that macroevolution (i.e.
non-flagellar bacteria to flagellar bacteria, reptiles to birds, apes to
humans, etc.) occurs.

We hear great stories from people who are already sold psychologically
on the idea that macroevolution occurs. But we are never shown any
details, only glosses.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 10:03 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:

> > where the 1 (something) is derived from the 0 (nothing),
>
> And this is where you start making no sense at all.

Look at the computer the high voltage on the motherboard is rewritten
as a load of electrons in a memory slot. The 0 is rewritten as 1, thus
the 0 is derived from 1, as talked about in the universal nil potency
rewrite system.

In any case, for all the stupendous lies of evolutionists, they still
have not cultivated any subjectivity towards what does the deciding.
Their hearts continue to be empty of emotion on purpose.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 11:00 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch, _Not in Our Classrooms_, Beacon Press
> Books, 2006.

Eugeny Scott is a self-identified philosophical naturalist, who allows
no acknowledgedment of anything spiritual doing the deciding whatever.
A ridiculous human being who is intent on equating objectivity with
subjectivity, a total nutcase.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

> to answer the question?- Hide quoted text -

You turd, freedom and emotions matter in people's daily lives! People
cannot afford to let go of the belief in freedom just because
scientists are insanly denying it is real.You too are created, you too
have been decided to be the way you are today.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 27, 9:49 pm, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> In article
> <nando-a265fe74-b2af-4c8f-bb61-d4971a7b6...@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>
> >,

>  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
> > and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.
>
> That rock has as much freedom as Nando has sense.

That you ridicule rocks having freedom only shows you do not
understand freedom as a more powerful explanatory framework than
force. What you write is ideological bullshit to deny freedom is real,
thus greatly problemizing informatics which is based on dealing with
things which are alternative in nature. That is evolution theory,
throuw your knowedge about freedom out the window and become a social
darwinist of some sort, and throw all subjectivity towards what does
the deciding out the window as well.

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-db3648f3-cac4-4...@c6g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
,

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 27, 9:49 pm, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <nando-a265fe74-b2af-4c8f-bb61-d4971a7b6...@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
> >
> > >,
> >  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
> > > and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.
> >
> > That rock has as much freedom as Nando has sense.
>
> That you ridicule rocks having freedom

When some rock other than the one on top or your neck has enough freedom
to post here only then will you have any evidence that any rock has any
freedom.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:09:02 -0800 (PST), in article
<8fadfd73-0a35-4214...@d10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."

Yes. But I wouldn't complain too much about these being mutually
contradictory. That *can* be a sign of a healthy controversy, working
things out. At this point, I'm stressing (3), for even granting a
certain amount of substance to YEC, still they fail to have an account
of what was happening, and certainly don't tell us "why this, and not
something else". It was always just hoping that they would find that
something, somehow is wrong with evolution.

>
>Which is why I'm convinced that we would now have something like ID,
>with a constant *retreat* on the "what happened when" if not the
>designer's identity, had the anti-evolution movement won the major
>court battles of the '80s.

I have that feeling, too. I think that there were things like the
"vapor canopy" which were an embarrassment even to YECs.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Dec 28, 1:06 am, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> In article

> <nando-db3648f3-cac4-49fa-b332-aa577a4fd...@c6g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
> ,

>
>  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 9:49 pm, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <nando-a265fe74-b2af-4c8f-bb61-d4971a7b6...@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>
> > > >,
> > >  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
> > > > and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.
>
> > > That rock has as much freedom as Nando has sense.
>
> > That you ridicule rocks having freedom
>
> When some rock other than the one on top or your neck has enough freedom
> to post here only then will you have any evidence that any rock has any
> freedom.

Oh only your kind has the awesome power of turning out alternative
ways. What you write is ridiculous bullcrap from the dark ages of the
20th century when people did not acknowledge freedom is real, and
conceived of all sorts of ridiculous ideology wherein freedom played
no significant role.

[Bill]

On Dec 28, 7:44 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:06 am, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <nando-db3648f3-cac4-49fa-b332-aa577a4fd...@c6g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
>
> >  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 9:49 pm, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <nando-a265fe74-b2af-4c8f-bb61-d4971a7b6...@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > >,
> > > >  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
> > > > > and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.
>
> > > > That rock has as much freedom as Nando has sense.
>
> > > That you ridicule rocks having freedom
>
> > When some rock other than the one on top or your neck has enough freedom
> > to post here only then will you have any evidence that any rock has any
> > freedom.
>
> Oh only your kind has the awesome power of turning out alternative
> ways. What you write is ridiculous bullcrap from the dark ages of the
> 20th century when people did not acknowledge freedom is real, and
> conceived of all sorts of ridiculous ideology wherein freedom played
> no significant role.

Hi. I'm an evolutionist made entirely of matter, without a tiny drop
of spirit. Yet I have all sorts of emotions that are important to me,
and every day I decided stuff freely based on what I (this complicated
bunch of matter) want and what is going on around me. I also have a
(fully material) subjective point of view. It's amazing what you can
do without a ghost in the machine, if you set your brain to it.

[Craig Franck]

On 12/27/2011 12:58 AM, deadrat wrote:
> Craig Franck<craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> That addresses the specific point, but in my experience people
>> who make this sort of argument are also trying to flesh out
>> the idea that the biological world has an enormous amount of
>> conceptual novelty
>
> Before I can tell you whether I'm trying to do what you suggest, you'll have to
> tell me what you mean by "conceptual novelty."

A cell can be described as a collection atoms and molecules
but this requires a large number of intermediate concepts. As
an analogy, try explaining a protocol stack to someone whose
idea of a computer is an abacus. It looks like a truly novel
concept.

[...]

> Kalkidas would have us believe that if we don't have the equations
> that say, can take the state of the earth 4B years ago and predict the current
> biosphere, then we don't have a scientific theory of how life changes over time.
> Or at least not a theory worthy of the name, like those in physics.

That seems to me to be totally unrealistic. A theory has to
explain more than it can prove or it would be a tautological
restatement; there would be no need for biological theories
since they would just be a short hand for chemical or physical
theories.

>> My own personal view is there must be some set of "bridging
>> principles" beyond just statistical fallout that link biology
>> and physics
>
> I can't make sense of all the abstraction. I don't know what it means for a
> principle to be bridging, what fallout arises from statistics, and how fields of
> studies are linked. Perhaps you could elaborate.

A bridging principle could be "moods are biochemically dependent."
This links psychology and chemistry. The 2LoT could be said to
arise from statistical fallout rather than a specific law of
nature.

>> or the problem will prove beyond our abilities to solve.
>
> Certain problems will always be beyond our abilities to solve, either because
> certain necessary data has been irretrievably lost or because chaotic systems
> are in principle not "predictable" given the nature of the data we can gather.

I would be genuinely surprised if our inability to explain
something like consciousness was related to our inability to
make predictions about chaotic systems.

Craig

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

Right, that is your subjective opinion that you don't have any spirit,
that's not incorrect. You may in freedom come to the conclusion that
the spiritual domain is empty as you have. But saying it is empty is
by no means more or less factually correct than to say love or hate
are in there, because it isn't a matter of fact. The point of
subjectivity is to come to a conclusion about what decides, in a free
way. Evidence forces an opinion to a conlusion, destroying the freedom
neccessary in forming a subjective opinion. With evidence you will
only arrive at objective matters of fact, not subjective opinon.
Actually with objectivity you are essentially only copying information
like a machine. The information passes through your eye by medium of
light into your brain where it is stored unchanged. That is
objectivity.

Please don't be an ideological opposer when it comes to deal with
knowledge about how freedom works. Just work with it on a practical
basis, and to be practical you have to acknowledge that what decides
can only be identified subjectively. To have freedom in the way you
identify what decides allows for the logic to work consistently. It
allows to say for example that you "could" have chosen differently.

When you make what decides into an objective matter of fact, then you
are really just using cause and effect logic, where what is
objectively known to "decide" FORCES the result, without it being
possible that the alternative "could" have been chosen in freedom.
Trust me, a creationist, to know how freedom works, try it and see
that the logic does work consistently.

[Bill]

On Dec 28, 10:03 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> When you make what decides into an objective matter of fact, then you
> are really just using cause and effect logic, where what is
> objectively known to "decide" FORCES the result, without it being
> possible that the alternative "could" have been chosen in freedom.
> Trust me, a creationist, to know how freedom works, try it and see
> that the logic does work consistently.

What exactly do you mean when you say that the alternative *could*
have been chosen? I mean that I could have chosen the other
alternative *if I had wanted to.* I think that such a view of choice
is perfectly compatible with materialism (and even determinism). I say
that because for me to have wanted to choose the other alternative, my
brain would have had to be in a different physical state. Had it been
in that state, I could have made the other choice.

Note that this little difficulty about what it means to say that you
could have chosen differently is not limited to materialism. Had you,
for example, chosen to cheat on your taxes rather than to report them
honestly, you would have had to have a different immaterial soul than
you actually have (I say this speaking from a dualist position with
which I disagree). So even if you allow a non-material spirit into the
picture, you are still stuck trying to define what would have had to
be the case in order for you to have chosen the other option. You
might find that you are stuck with a determinism you do not like, even
if you allow for immaterial souls.

[jillery]

That's your opinion of the person. Your opinion may even be
technically correct, although I doubt it. But in no case does Eugenie
Scott's nutcaseousness (nutcasity?) have anything to do with the
arguments raised in this topic, the veracity of Eugenie Scott's
description of an event from Kitzmiller v Dover trial, or Garamond
Lethe's use of that event as an excellent illustration of the state of
the discussion between himself and Kalkidas.

I'm sure your opinion is important to you. But given the above, I
can't help but wonder why you bothered to post it here and now. You
could better have stated your opinion about sheep sex; it would be
just as relevant, but much more entertaining.

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-5705be2c-f2e2-4...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com
>,

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 28, 1:06 am, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <nando-db3648f3-cac4-49fa-b332-aa577a4fd...@c6g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> >
> >  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 9:49 pm, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <nando-a265fe74-b2af-4c8f-bb61-d4971a7b6...@d10g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
> >
> > > > >,
> > > >  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In particular situations like for instance when a rock turns falling
> > > > > and hits the ground, there is some freedom in which way it ends up.
> >
> > > > That rock has as much freedom as Nando has sense.
> >
> > > That you ridicule rocks having freedom
> >
> > When some rock other than the one on top or your neck has enough freedom
> > to post here only then will you have any evidence that any rock has any
> > freedom.
>
> Oh only your kind has the awesome power of turning out alternative
> ways.

Since my kind is the kind that can actually think, we do have awesome
power in comparison to that of those like you.

[Uergil]

In article
<nando-727c8bfd-f369-4...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>,

By snipping the rest, I have made it appear that nando can tell the
ruth.

[deadrat]

He evidently thinks that nonlinear processes are the exception rather than
the rule.

[deadrat]

To be fair, just because you won't study the details, doesn't mean there
aren't any.

[deadrat]

Craig Franck <craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/27/2011 12:58 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> Craig Franck<craigl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That addresses the specific point, but in my experience people
>>> who make this sort of argument are also trying to flesh out
>>> the idea that the biological world has an enormous amount of
>>> conceptual novelty
>>
>> Before I can tell you whether I'm trying to do what you suggest, you'll have
to
>> tell me what you mean by "conceptual novelty."
>
> A cell can be described as a collection atoms and molecules
> but this requires a large number of intermediate concepts. As
> an analogy, try explaining a protocol stack to someone whose
> idea of a computer is an abacus. It looks like a truly novel
> concept.
>
> [...]

Was that a definition of "conceptual novelty"? In the analogy, is the abacus
like a collection of atoms and molecules while the cell is like a protocol
stack?

I'm lost here, but I don't think it really matters to the direction of the
thread.

>> Kalkidas would have us believe that if we don't have the equations
>> that say, can take the state of the earth 4B years ago and predict the
current
>> biosphere, then we don't have a scientific theory of how life changes over
time.
>> Or at least not a theory worthy of the name, like those in physics.
>
> That seems to me to be totally unrealistic. A theory has to
> explain more than it can prove or it would be a tautological
> restatement; there would be no need for biological theories
> since they would just be a short hand for chemical or physical
> theories.

It's more than totally unrealistic. It's ignorant nonsense. But the benefit of
moving the goal posts to the other side of the universe rather than just out of
reach is that you don't have to keep moving them as science progresses.

<snip/>
> Craig

[Nick Keighley]

On Dec 22, 12:28 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The next time you read or hear someone demanding that students
> "critically analyze" evolution, please ask them this:
>
> ***********************
>
> Please choose the ONE statement that comes closest to your opinion:
>
> a)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that it is a stronger and better-supported explanation than
> they would think if they didn’t critically analyze it.
>
> b)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that they actually understand the science better than 99+%
> of the scientists who work in relevant fields.
>
> c)  I want students to critically analyze evolution because that will
> show them that 99+% of the scientists who work in relevant fields are
> lying.
>
> d)  I don’t really want students to critically analyze evolution. I
> just want them to memorize misleading arguments that only promote
> unreasonable doubt.  Evolution is thoroughly supported, unlike all the
> failed attempts at alternative explanations, but if students learn
> that they will reject God and behave as if all is permitted.
>
> ***********************
>
> If they ignore the request, object with “none of the above” and/or an
> evasive non-answer, and/or add unsolicited whining about “Darwinism”
> or “Darwinists,” you can safely conclude that they’re trying to hide
> something. So just imagine what they would try to hide from students.

I'm always suspicious of multi-choice answers to non-trivial
questions. How about

e) in order to better understand the issues

I think if correctly done the answer will be a) but I don't think that
she be pre-determined from the get-go.If your trying to teach 'em
science (or even clear thinking) then they should start off a little
more open minded than that.


--
Nick Keighley