DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

EducationNews.Org ^ | 01/26/2009 | Karl Priest

[svcw]

Great information.

[Captain Beyond]

bump

[varmintman]

bump!!

[-YYZ-]

What I learned from reading this article:

1) That EducationNews.Org is most likely yet another front for the creationist movement.

2) That the author used questionable “mathematics” to “prove” that evolution is impossible - mathematics that he likely doesn’t fully understand himself, and that his students almost certainly don’t. Apparently teaching the scientifically widely accepted theory of evolution is a bad thing, but “proving” that evolution is wrong and thus only design (i.e. creationism) can explain the world using some debatable mathematics is A-OK.

[steve-b]

Take the “OMG UR A RACIST” smears to the DUmp where they belong.

[varmintman]

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials, as well as the ACLU, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense....

Near as I can tell, the biggest single group which does not buy into Darwinism is likely mathematicians and not Christians. Evolution is basically incompatible with modern mathematics and probability theory.

[varmintman]

Go back to DC where you belong.

[tacticalogic]

Someone said: "Evolution is bad science, bad thinking, bad logic, and certainly bad theology".Society and public schools would be much better served by celebrating the real scientists such as Louis Pasteur orFrancesco Redi.

Well, if someone said it, it certainly must be true.

[alexander_busek]

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials, as well as the ACLU, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.

I always get a kick out of it when some joker comes along and claims to have debunked - usually in his spare evenings - one of the most unassailable and comprehensive bodies of scientific work to have developed over the past few centuries. This nutcase seems to differ in that he has apparently made a full-time career our of it.

The article is laughable.

Regards,

[allmendream]

Meanwhile in the REAL world, Biology based upon an understanding of evolution has never been a more productive field in terms of knowledge and application.

[-YYZ-]

OK, my first obseration was incorrect - I suppose I should have followed the link, first. I stand by my second point, however.

[Boxen]

“Near as I can tell, the biggest single group which does not buy into Darwinism is likely mathematicians and not Christians.”

I’m guessing you polled a good number of mathematicians to obtain this conclusion?

[ElectricStrawberry]

...a last ditch effort to salvage Darwinism.

...because somewhere someone has proven the theory incorrect in a peer-reviewed research article.

Must've missed sucha monumental verdict...

[qam1]

Near as I can tell, the biggest single group which does not buy into Darwinism is likely mathematicians and not Christians. Evolution is basically incompatible with modern mathematics and probability theory.

Can you provide a link to mathematics journals to back that assertion up?

[tacticalogic]

I always get a kick out of it when some joker comes along and claims to have debunked - usually in his spare evenings - one of the most unassailable and comprehensive bodies of scientific work to have developed over the past few centuries. This nutcase seems to differ in that he has apparently made a full-time career our of it.

This is the internet, where scientific theories developed from thousands of hours of lab and field work and analysis can be disproven from the comfort of your computer chair, with little more than a few google searches and a bit of sophistry.

[Angostura]

He makes a lot of assertions, and yet doesn’t actually show in the linked Web page how “mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.”

He also seems to be unclear about which aspects of evolution he is trying to refute. Evolution itself (the emergence and spread of new genes in a population) is an observable fact - in the small scale observable in a human lifetime, as anyone who reads about antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or the development of copper-resistant plants around old mines will know.

So is he trying to disprove that speciation doesn’t occur? That the mechanism isn’t Darwininian ‘survival of the fittest’ selection pressure”? Or is he arguing about the origins of life (which is rather different to the evolution of life and should not be conflated).

I suspect that the author is a very good mathematician who is a bit confused about evolutionary biology.

[stormer]

Agreed - I especially liked this line:

“I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.”

If you go to the link, you'll see the students in question are 7th and 8th graders. It does my old heart good to see that we can do away with universities and the like. Just think of all the money we'll save by having 13 year olds disprove the most robust biological theory in the history of scientific achievement in a 50 minute class.

[tpanther]

...because somewhere someone has proven the theory incorrect in a peer-reviewed research article.

Must've missed sucha monumental verdict...

What a riot...there's literally no such thing as "peer review" of the cult of evolution because each and every time it's challenged, cultists scream with their hair on fire about religious attacks on science!

[KarlInOhio]

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials, as well as the ACLU, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.

I'm sure that many people have disproved the existance of God with similar mathematical rigor.

TEACHING MATERIALS
5. Book Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon. Haughton Publishing. 1993)

It looks like that is the version referring to "design proponents" rather than the earlier "creationist" or the intermediate form "cdesign proponentsists".