Evolution Vs. Creationism

The book (see link from ARN below or to right @)
Home | National Center for Science Education
Will the real BS please stand down.
Fellow ever evcers apparently did not find the color of the dot over the letter "i" in title distburing but perhaps SEEBS (THE NETWORK "CBS") did, at least they thought the "sound bite" worth reducing from...
Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer
Below From
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000892.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by melott:
new book, "Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction", by E. Scott
from Greenwood Press! Order at http://tinyurl.com/25tcf
Home • ABC-CLIO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It might be a fine book. (No, I haven't read it.) But the title is unfortunate. It should be either Evolution vs. Creation or Evolutionism vs. Creationism.

​

(For the sake of argument I'm not even going to get into such questions as whether IDists or even creationists cannot also be evolutionists of a certain kind, etc.)

​

Otherwise, what we are presented with here seems like a debate between what's taken to be a described phenomenon (and apparently a recognized fact) called "evolution" and a mere ideology (like other "isms") called "creationism".

​

I understand that many evolutionists may actually see the issue that way, but to title the book accordingly is to prejudge the matter -- and to leave "creationism" at a rhetorical disadvantage vis-a-vis "evolution" before even a single line has been read or a page turned.

​

Simply stated, the title as given -- which I know is a very common way to put the issue -- is tendentious.

​

Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 614 | Registered: May 2000 |

​

David Alexander

​

Member # 1572

​

posted 07-14-2004 04:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Geoff:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by melott:
new book, "Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction", by E. Scott
from Greenwood Press! Order at http://tinyurl.com/25tcf
Home • ABC-CLIO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It might be a fine book. (No, I haven't read it.) But the title is unfortunate. It should be either Evolution vs. Creation or Evolutionism vs. Creationism.

​

(For the sake of argument I'm not even going to get into such questions as whether IDists or even creationists cannot also be evolutionists of a certain kind, etc.)

​

Otherwise, what we are presented with here seems like a debate between what's taken to be a described phenomenon (and apparently a recognized fact) called "evolution" and a mere ideology (like other "isms") called "creationism".

​

I understand that many evolutionists may actually see the issue that way, but to title the book accordingly is to prejudge the matter -- and to leave "creationism" at a rhetorical disadvantage vis-a-vis "evolution" before even a single line has been read or a page turned.

​

Simply stated, the title as given -- which I know is a very common way to put the issue -- is tendentious.

​

Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Who says you can't read a book by it's cover? At least sometimes you have a good idea. I like the point you make here. You are probably right about the contents of the book and more importantly you are right about what makes for a real debate rather than a false one.

​

--------------------
"How sincere a pleasure is it to behold the natural beauties of the earth!... How should those principles be entertained, that lead us to think all the visible beauty of the creation a false imaginary glare?"
-George Berkeley

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 133 | From: overseas | Registered: Jun 2004 |

​

Jack

​

Member # 38

​

posted 07-16-2004 11:08 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott should have written a book entitled:

​

Blind Watchmaking vs Intelligent Design

​

I would have been interested in reading something like that but Evolution vs Creationism sounds like a rehash of the same old arguments made against creationism in the past that have nothing to do with ID. I bet Scott equates ID with creationism and then attempts to knock down her strawman version of ID. For instance, I'll be surprised if Scott doesn't present evidence of descent with modification as an argument against ID. I've seen her do it before, which means she either doesn't understand ID or is disingenuous.

​

[ 07-16-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Jack ]

---

I have gone WAY beyond Scott here on EVC but as there is little interest in Macrothermodynamics it may be some time before I can really get others involved. Before I start a dissection of the book I would like to NOTE that I did learn something very positive in really starting to READ it. I did not know that some legal "grass roots" c/e stuff started in Anderson, South Carolina, the town nearly nearest( nearest "large" city) to where my parents have set up their retirement spot.There is a serious logical problem IN THIS BOOK as Chapter 5 happened before Chapter 4 in my life,&liftime WHILE Scott takes the same position as my mother(parent) (which I did "take" with me to Cornell but later learned of her (my MOMS') mistake))What is important to notice is NOT the color of the letter I"s" in the title(bronze or white) but the TWO hierarchies of fact, theory, hypothesis, etc that are supposed to divide popular understandings and scientific senses. My guess is that any discussion of the book here at EVC will show this core frontier of evc not representative of net E\/C reality. I wish we talked instead of Gould's "idants" of Weisman instead of the web of literature on the internet.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-22-2004 10:43 AM

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Just came out and in it HMMorris says everything I NEEDED TO KNOW in review of this book.The fifth paragraph was just IT.

quote:

---

In her attempt to be fair, she devotes over 100 pages to Selections from the Literature, letting both sides speak for themselves. For example, she includes an Impact article of mine (see Impact #331, January 2001) on the evidence of the second law of thermodynamics against evolution. By way of rebuttal, an article by William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey, written 20 years earlier, was also included —which, in my opinion, was completely inadequate to deal with the problem. These two biologists, whom both Dr. Gish and I have debated, think that energy flowing through a system might occasionally generate order in a part of that system and that such hypothetical situations could overcome the disintegrating system as a whole, thereby producing evolution locally. Such an explanation is nave at best. It certainly cannot explain the official evolutionary scenario of total evolution from cosmos to culture.

---

This is precisely the point that Georgi P. Gladyshev makes. Georgi is generous to say that if this local evolution occurrs it would have to be becuase there is a relation between complexity and order but none has been observed. I have written in the past ASSUMING SUCH exists but it would be better to be this sophisticated now and insist that such must be DEFINED first in the "debate". What is nice to see the Elder Morris say, again, (he told me so in snail mail already) is which is why I NEVER had a beef for a creationist future.Furthermore G.Gladshev's thermodynamic approach IS observable IF it is TRUE and thus NOT AT VARIance with creation science. The whole fluf seems to be due to a slight transcendental transition that Kant made IF NOT ONE SUBSTANCE but in macrothermodynamics this is a bit subtle haveing to do with not one level. Scientific Creationism will continue to exist as long as evos think that the local evolution ordered up by Scott MUST BE fronted in front of creationism. Not only does it inhibit the economic realization of atheistic scenarios&the circulization of ethics it also stoped the education of those WALKING in faith.Surely this indendence is visible on the net by now!!I recently showed us a web site that in HTML itself that prevents this simple reordering of the kind of kind letters in words. There may indeed be the kind of order ordering Scott's book recalled but both the sophistication of a Bertrand Russel must be taught all biologists and the difference of progressions from progress must exist materially. It does not as of yet.Currently, we would default progress TO progression and not the other banked way around. I can see some significance of negentropy but this would be AFTER the disputed observations were all allready observed by a consensical lot of humanity. One needs only check ICR Acts and Facts TO KNOW if this had come about or not. Scott's book has other problems I noted in my firstview above. In the mean time I continue to create inferences that would be observable outside interest in this book, such as:Diplody is an adaptation to increaseing the melting point of DNA. (this would remove Gould's historical analysis of the hardening of adaptation since the synthesis)Sex gives access to lower level stable structures. (this provides telelogy to the reflective judgment sans determinative in the ONE SUBSTANCE current accelerated drug discovery attempts to bottom line)Higher temps will cause kinetically larger current densities virially bvut offset decreases in overvoltage with this rise of degree during adaptive zone change monoly explaining the faliure of biology to invelop the Mendel DEVELOMENTAL binomial (this sets the constraints of Shannon information def.s to nanotech improvements)Sex is the bifurcation of the thermostat in this place. (that goes a way to NOT USING THE BIBLE if it was true that any social sex law were not legal but let me not unfold even the speculation of this at this sensitive time).

I thought that accepted NS was that information was already "present" - and so yes, scientific creationism exists but they don't think it is scientific because of the scientific method. That is - the evo's.I previously though that Ken Ham's example was up to scratch with biologic reality when he mentioned the information already being "present". For example - the moth forced to change color to survive. His argument would be that the information would already be in the gene pool of the moth. Any thoughts on this Brad? (edit to ad; I can't fully remember the ins and outs of his explanations though)/. But basically - you his stance was that you can't get new information.Ofcourse - this would fit the present "day" - unless we see changes that were not possible - for example, if a horse grown into something never seen before.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-30-2004 06:50 PM

I am still trying to work IN the consequences that the max and min are inverted in, Human Niche Construction iin "Niche Construction the Neglected Process inn Evolution" paGe 277

quote:

---

"There are at least two reasons why biased cultural transmission might be expected to sweep E or e to fixation more rapidly than natural selection. First, there are only two cultural states, compared with three geneotypes, so rare cultural states take less time to be eliminated by selection than rare alleles. Second, cultural transmission is typically faster than natural selection of genes...biased transmission will stregthen selection generated by cultural niche construction."

---

If one had WATSON'S idea and/or used a Shannon INFORMATION measure as occurs by some Brits doing HIdden Markov models with blasting and mining of data then the info IS NOT ALREADY PRESENT but is transmittable.That's why they apply Chomsky lingusitic hierarchies to databases of genesequencs.It would be scientific if for instance one "believed" along with Carl Hophikns at CU that electric fish brainS CAN BE RIGOROUSLY MODELLED with &GATES. I dont so even think let a lone believe but these are "scientists" in Whewell's instutional sense or understanding the teaching of evolution thusly.I have never attempted to penetrate Gitt's argument or it promotion by AIG. If you would like me to give them a read, let me know. Part of this issue might be whether or not the central limit theorm does or does not apply, for instance, to JAD's prescribed process and/or the system of macrothermodynamic interference with DNA replications. There still can be some room for a positive assesment of Mayr's claim that bean bag genetics never gave a grade to clines. One would likely need to see Gausses errors in terms of Galton's Polygon BUT NOT ON GOULD'S HUMANITY NOR RELIIOUS seperation. A tought write to right, no doubt.that would bear on

quote:

---

"In the fall of 1893, before Pearson made his initial presentation to the Royal Society, Edgmworth sent him a paper developing his own approach to the analysis of skew curves. Pearson was upset so Edgeworth agreed to hold up his own paper in an act of courtesy rarely seen in science. On June 21, 1894, Edgeworth finally read his long paper before the Royal Society. Galton and George Darwin reviewed the paper favourably, but the major mathematical critique took almost a year to arrive and the review was negative, so the paper was rejected. Suspecting Pearson of foul play, Edgeworth failed to call his attention too late for Pearson to cite the work in his article. As Pearson wrote to George Undy Yule in August 1895, "I saw Edgeworth and he told me with some glee that an American had in 1884 reached my skew curve of type III! So he has and quite nicely: see NATuRE this week."^43 There Pearson at a little crow and acknowledged De Forest's priority." (page 278 of A Life of Sir Francis Galton by NWGillham).

---

Regardless, the This was an error.I am just not now prepared to say if there is any new information here or not.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-09-2004 11:42 AM

That's a late edit Brad. I thought Ken Ham's NS was NS without mutation. Fair enough - forgive my interruption, I say that "transmittable" blew me out of the water anyway.Hey Brad, it's okay - you don't have to read AIG - I was just responding to that initial quote I quoted from you referring to creation being "science". I'm guessing your up to scratch on bariminology - so Ham's nibbling the fat won't educate u much.

​

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-09-2004 07:06 PM

I was unable to find my ? pamphlet from AIG on genetics in a first go thru my stacks. I has some difficulty with the connection it,the article, made to geography but there has been much more written there at AIG since and I would like to see also

Search | Answers in Genesis ...
But as to the spurious use of letters 'i','s','m' attatched or not to words, I must say in any combination,, that SJ GOULD, was actually WRONG-- to say that Agassiz USED, a "two-fisted" argument, which all of this wrangling over tiltes amounts to, in a means to this end and Gould labeled the fasle-fact a 'sand painting' because, says I,BSM, the conclusion (he reached one using the word, "thus"), absolutely depended on WHERE in the Solar System the null hypothesis(resides)(he was correct to notice that it was odd no one had before him related the 'hypothesis' or lack on inference"" between Paley and Agassiz) and as to any ugly creation one needs FIRST adjudicate (before-aply let us say huamnely, Derrida's 4 pieces of sand grains counted by Cantor,) an apriori claim with clinamatic divergence aposteriori {with possible prior falsification if only poetry say was there AROUND the discssion of paintings NOT ANY ART) of the likes of my own naming and necessity ("prescribed" substituting strictly IN Agassiz's "premeditated") A STRECH VIA GLADYSHEV'S LAW SUBSUMING THE AXIOM OF CHOICE IN MENDEL'S DOUBLE SIGNIFICATION!That however was fisted with ONE behind my back and is
aposteriori;
against,in its own defense, against certain discrete provisions of physical reality (nothing psychological in the first) (Feynman, Wolfram) BUT NOT THE PHILOSOPHY OF PROBABLISMS. S.Gould missed this and Ernst Mayr who said logic wouldnt progress hiology in his lasted book missesit too.
He was too caught up with typology to get beyond my question to him in 1989.
Sure the recent skull in Asia
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Hobbit' joins human family tree
would need to be discussed as a MUTANT but it is NOT THE NEXT MUTANT as Levin and Kaufmann writing during my periods of against my will involuntary placement by the State of Florida
THOUGHT should be presented to me.I dont know how AIG in its most advanced instationation reads all of this. We need to span the Bay of Bengel with a few EUCEMES scales first before we address this via Wallace's line, but who is there/here to see if this is really new or just the fish I ate for lunch? Shortened URL length to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-11-2004 12:42 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-12-2004 08:17 AM

Thanks. It was good to see the tiny homo floresiensis "hobbit" head next to a human head.As it is either a existing information or the next new information from mutation - AIG would say it is a mutation but not the next one in any evolutionary lineage. Pre-existing information - yet they say mutation - implying a beneficial mutation example?Would you agree with most of AIG's stance? Most of the names I'm not familiar with - so with perseverence I tried to decipher your omniscient thought train, when you were eating your fish for lunch.I thought you might be interested in this article in AIG, reffering to the hobbit as soggy dwarf bones. make of that - whatever you will.hobbit Don't bother with that search engine Brad - just use this link, omni-mike has provided for you. Does this indicate a swaying towards agreement with Ham - that it isn't new?Well, for now - I say that middle-earth is no myth. Whom do you serve Brad? "KenHam". This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-11-2004 01:10 PM

I guess it did, when compared with progressive creationism, as to eating bacon with the facts a la Ham, green eggs and all. That is the unique thing about Croizat is that it becomes possible to FIND the creationist gully in what is an evolutionary question. I dont know how long this lasts. I had taken it back to the Permian horizontally and I never tried this thought for the Cambrian though.The problem however generally is as to DICHOTOMY (and in Croizat (Occam's Razor) but I DO NOT THINK this DIVISIBILITY in Binaries as Gould does and did. AIG's brand of creation science is able to cut the splits linguistically in ways that are often suprising to evos and but that this mUST be NONEVOLUTIONARY is not a given. Currently creos won evos win less. Looks like we are pretty close to much in agreement. Thanks for the link. Brad.