DARWIN IS DEAD (Leave Him in the Grave)

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

[BJClinton]

I was wondering if you could point out the specific truth and facts from the accompanying article

Well if the middle school math exercise on probability doesn't convince you I don't know what will.

[dmz]

Well if the middle school math exercise on probability doesn't convince you I don't know what will.

Likely something from the field of science would be a good bet. I won't hold my breath, though. If creationists and/or IDers had scientific evidence that evolution is false, we wouldn't be discussing mathematics.

[alstewartfan]

DMZ, mathematics IS science. It’s patently clear why evolutionists ignore probability. Just imagine the odds of three incredibly complex tissues within a body, muscles, bones and tendons, “evolving” at the same time in such a way that all three became functional to an organism. Obviously, unless all three vital cogs were randomly “completed” concurrently, the entire mechanism collapses! Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob

[Darwin Fish]

Tagline bump.

[Coyoteman]

DMZ, mathematics IS science. It’s patently clear why evolutionists ignore probability. Just imagine the odds of three incredibly complex tissues within a body, muscles, bones and tendons, “evolving” at the same time in such a way that all three became functional to an organism. Obviously, unless all three vital cogs were randomly “completed” concurrently, the entire mechanism collapses! Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob

No, mathematics is not science.

Mathematics can be applied to science, and to the extent that it models the variables correctly, it can produce useful results. But that's the key--did that mathematical model use the correct variables correctly, and did it weight them correctly? Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math. And he comes up with entirely different results:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

How are you going to deal with that?

[oldmanreedy]

Coyoteman is exactly right about mathematics.

The central activity of mathematics is applying strict formal rules of logic to produce theorems from arbitrary human-invented axioms. Theorems are proven, and once proven are eternally valid.

The central activity of science (as I understand it) is applying the scientific method to produce theories from data gathered in experiments. Theories are tentative, and are eventually replaced by "better" theories.

I say this mostly as an excuse to point out a particular idiocy of the idiot Karl Priest. From his monumentally idiotic lesson plan:

"1. Students will comprehend that the science of mathematics proves that life could not have developed by natural (evolutionary) means.
...
4. Discuss the scientific method (use the school’s science book definition). Emphasize that evolutionists have failed to follow the scientific method. Middle school teachers will see a cross-content teaching opportunity here."

So this Priest, this harebrained hairball, contends that biologists have failed to follow the scientific method. But somehow his remedial grasp of the subject he claims to teach has prevented him from realizing that the scientific method shows up nowhere in mathematics. How can any semi-educated person swallow this bull excrement?

And some biologists are absolutely amazing mathematicians: Ronald Fisher.

[dmz]

Do you *really* imagine that there existed a time when organisms flopped around gelatinously, like fish in a frying pan? C’mon! Bob
_____

You mean like jellyfish do today?

[kcpriest]

To all of the critics of my article:

“Evolutionists have no evidence, not Star Wars, not swords, not pitchforks, not pointed shoes, nothing. When they wisely default on the Life Science Challenge it proves they are all bluff and no science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch. Now, you say you have a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but you refuse to put you money where your mouth is. Or you say you have a runner who can beat our runner or a jumper who can jump higher than our jumper. Well, let’s put them on a level playing field and see. The proof is in the results of the contest. The contest settles the issue with finality. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with hot air on web sites. If you are so sure of your position you would debate.” (Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo)

There are enough of you true-believers listed at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ to raise the ten grand needed to undergo the mini-trial referred to as the “Life Science Prize”. Not only could you take Dr. Mastropaolo’s money, but you could shut my mouth.

The only problem is, the LSP would be based on observable objective SCIENTIFIC evidence, not Never Never Land “just-so” stories.

Evolutionists have bragged, got “called out” on their bragging, and have lost by default. Even six-year-olds know what to call something that struts around clucking. That’s why you don’t want school children to hear anything other than your propaganda.

I suggest you take a pilgrimage to Westminster Abbey and chant around Darwin’s tomb. At least you’d be leaving alone innocent public school students.

Karl Priest

[Zero Sum]

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

The author is not a mathematician at all. He is a middle school teacher who seems a bit confused about how mathematical models are applied to the real world.

[alstewartfan]

SO..... the jellyfish of today may become the humanity of tomorrow! Neptune rules! Best, Bob

[Captain Beyond]

Sorry to break it to you dude but I have not been a critic of your article or an evolutionist.

[Zero Sum]

Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math.

In the video that you linked, the biologist giving the lecture had his formal education and training in mathematics (he has a Ph.D.) and has 13 years experience as a mathematics professor. Perhaps instead you could say that he is a mathematician who is pretty good at biology. :)

The author of this article, on the other hand, is a middle school teacher. The difference in competence between the two is not limited to the biological sciences.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And some biologists are absolutely amazing mathematicians: Ronald Fisher.

Ronald Fisher was not a biologist. He was a statistician and a eugenist. He held the Galton chair of eugenics for 10 years. His main work The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is an application of statistics to develop a theory about differential reproductive rates to solve a problem (an idiotic problem) in eugenics.

[Angostura]

I was trying to be generous to avoid starting a flame-war, but I don’t disagree.

[Angostura]

What are you actually arguing against old chum? Are you arguing that no evolution ever occurs (i.e there is no change in genetic make-up of a population over time)? Are you arguing that speciation doesn’t occur? That new organs do not arise over time?

You need to be more specific? I’m not surprised no-one has ever applied for the life-sciences prize, the wording is so vague, the terms left undefined, the site so bedecked in rhetoric - no-one is ever going to believe it is a real challenge.

If I can demonstrate the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in a bacterial colony over a few thousand generations, does that win the prize? Can’t really tell from those rules.