RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Tallying the Arguments, Analyzing antievolution sources< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2005,18:33   

This thread is for discussion of the project to tally all the arguments in various antievolution sources so that the contents may be easily compared between them.

My current thought is to write up a PHP/MySQL application to handle additions and edits. The main addition/edit page would be put under password protection. Volunteers would get the username/password combination from me to work on adding information. A public page would allow everyone to view what arguments are associated with each source in the database. This split of restricted access for editing and public access for viewing should keep problems to a minimum.

I'm currently working with three tables to hold the information. Table SRC has information about the source document:

SRCID
TITLE
SHORTTITLE
AUTHOR
PUBLISHER
DATE
PUBTYPE
CATEGORY
URL
BIB

Table ARG has information about arguments and what source deploys them:

ARGID
SRCID
MI_CLASS
PLACE
NEWARG_DESC
QUOTE

Table SB has information about who sells a source document:

SBID
SRCID
VENDOR
ADDRESS
CODE
PRICE
URL

Maybe the last should have been split once more for absolute cleanness in DB design. Oh, well.

I'm working on the forms that will be needed on the add/edit page. This includes a block of radio buttons for all of the arguments identified by Mark Isaak in his "Index of Creationist Claims". When an argument is not found there, there will be a place to enter a description of the new argument.

Once all the framework is in place, then we have the basis for being able to utilize all the volunteer effort that is offered.

Ideas are welcome...

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2005,02:17   

I'm game.  data model looks good.

should be simple enough to create a front end for the tables you propose.  I assume you have a server set to host it on already?

a few questions:

Is there any argument against using the Index of Creationist Claims (IOC) as the primary template for distinguishing between various creationist claims?

for issues not contained within the IOC, should we discuss what heading they should be created under here?  I assume we will need some consistency.

will submissions simply be on random acquisitions, or will there be "fact finding missions"?

will conclusions eventually be drawn and a summary statement or response be submitted at some point, or will this be a more open-ended project that simply acts as a repository of information?

cheers,

t

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2005,10:10   

I've made another table for "vendors" so that the data model is closer to the desired state of relational databases. I've got most of the forms set up and am testing the functions. The system will be set up on "antievolution.org".

ST>Is there any argument against using the Index of Creationist Claims (IOC) as the primary template for distinguishing between various creationist claims?

Isaak's is the only organized hierarchy of creationist claims that I know of. It seems like this does a chunk of the work needed.

ST>for issues not contained within the IOC, should we discuss what heading they should be created under here?  I assume we will need some consistency.

I'd say that someone finding a new argument should attempt to identify the major heading from Isaak's hierarchy that the argument fits under. We can, of course, make Mark aware of any such instances. He has done an excellent job so far of expanding the resource to accommodate newly found instances.

ST>will submissions simply be on random acquisitions, or will there be "fact finding missions"?

I'm thinking that each person should be given responsibility for cataloguing the claims within an identified part of a source, whether that is a specific book chapter, the whole book, a film, a web page, etc. We can use this thread to coordinate who is doing what.

ST>will conclusions eventually be drawn and a summary statement or response be submitted at some point, or will this be a more open-ended project that simply acts as a repository of information?

I certainly intend to use the resource for drawing conclusions. If this gets enough young-earth creationist and intelligent design works catalogued, I think that it will be of use in various pending litigation concerning whether ID is to be treated as essentially different from "creation science". So I definitely see a purpose in the short term and not that this is just a exercize in purely academic concerns.

There may be further coding that I will need to do down the road to compare the arguments used in each category of resources or between two particular sources. This came up, as you will recall, due to a claim that young earth creationist materials are so different from "evidence against evolution" or "intelligent design" materials that you could build a libel case upon this difference. To be useful in that context, there is a bit of a time crunch.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 29 2005,10:20

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2005,13:25   

"there is a bit of a time crunch. "

fire when ready.

cheers

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2005,22:41   

Public Access Rollout

Tallying the Arguments is now up in alpha form. I've entered a few arguments appearing in Sarfati's Refuting Evolution as a demonstration. The link goes to the public page, which allows anyone to view what has been entered so far and provides a PayPal link to donate funds to the project.

From the page:

Quote

This is a collaborative project to exhaustively catalogue the arguments made in various antievolutionary source materials. The public can view the results so far by using this page.

Potential uses for the data collected here range from pure scholarship (tracing the deployment of antievolution arguments over time) to legal issues (demonstrating the close links between all antievolution argumentation).

If you would like to contribute time in cataloguing a source or some defined part of a source, please visit this thread on the discussion board where this project is coordinated.

Because volunteers need to have the source works, you can also help by contributing funds for the purchase and shipping of sources to volunteers.


The four sources of most timely interest are already entered as items in the select list.

If you are volunteering to take on a source or a defined part of a source, please state your preference in this thread and send me a PM (private message) so that I can give you the information needed to access the password-protected data entry application.

Also, please PM me or email me concerning errors encountered.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
m1isaak



Posts: 3
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2005,13:27   

I have rarely had trouble finding a good place for new claims in the Index to Creationist Claims, but such trouble is still possible.  I try not to change any existing numbers (in case others are referring to them), so fitting in some claims has lead to minor inconsistencies; e.g., CH711 and CH711.1 really should be CH711.1 and CH711.2.  Usually, the problem is that the claim can fit in more than one place, and I have decide which slot to fit it in (and put a "see also" by the other slot).  But I once before found a section (around CB400) that needed reorganiztion, and new claims may expose other such sections.

Life -- How Did It Get Here? was one of the sources I used to compile the list in the first place, so claims from it should be no problem.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2005,00:55   

Following up on a comment on PT, I added links going to specific index entry pages on the TalkOrigins Archive, or to the main index page for the very first entries I made.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
rthearle



Posts: 4
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2005,12:49   

Quote
Potential uses for the data collected here range from pure scholarship (tracing the deployment of antievolution arguments over time) ...


In this case wouldn't it me more useful to be able to search by argument rather than by source?

Roy

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2005,01:22   

"In this case wouldn't it me more useful to be able to search by argument rather than by source?"

Yes. Which is why I was adding more tables and what-not to the application. Being able to pull data by argument will be part of this application.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Scott



Posts: 1
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2005,21:33   

I would be glad to help out.  I can work with a section of "Refuting Evolution" by Sarfati and Ham.

Scott

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,08:42   

When tallying the data I'd stay away fromm the "bad designer" argument, especially regarding the so called poorly designed mammalian eye.

This months ICR journal contains an analysis of this issue in the context of rebutting the sophmoric analysis of one of you Dover boys, Miller I believe.

By the time the two "superemely qualified" writers fininsh with that goathead he should stick to dissecting frogs for a HS biology class.

Really its pitiful the lack of analytical ability and real in depth knowlwdge in the evo community... laughable.

Evopeach

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,10:16   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 03 2005,13:42)
When tallying the data I'd stay away fromm the "bad designer" argument, especially regarding the so called poorly designed mammalian eye.

This months ICR journal contains an analysis of this issue in the context of rebutting the sophmoric analysis of one of you Dover boys, Miller I believe.

By the time the two "superemely qualified" writers fininsh with that goathead he should stick to dissecting frogs for a HS biology class.

Really its pitiful the lack of analytical ability and real in depth knowlwdge in the evo community... laughable.

Evopeach

http://www.icr.org/index.p....ID=2476

just so people can easily read it and see that it is irrelevant to any discussions on evolution.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2005,20:45   

I've put in some work entering arguments shared across Mauro (a pre-Scopes precursor to Johnson's Darwin on Trial), Morris's Scientific Creationism: Public School Edition, and Of Pandas and People 1993 edition.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,05:24   

Just so people know the two Phd's with impeccible scientific credentials wrote in response to an article written by Dr. Miller one of the Evos expert witnesses in the Dover trial and  a proponent of bad design as a primary argument against Intelligent Design... the eye being the one most prominently presented.

And of course to illustrate the decepetion, lies, distortions and misrepresntations of Midnight who lives with his head up his ----.

Please do read the article..... learn something.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,07:26   

Quote
Just so people know the two Phd's with impeccible scientific credentials wrote in response to an article written by Dr. Miller
Which two PhD's might those be? Jeez, Peach, can't you even read the byline?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,07:44   

By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. and Joseph Calkins, M.D.*
* Jerry Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio. Joseph Calkins is an Ophthalmologist in private practice, formerly Professor of Ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University.

I know its not as impressive as BS in Biology from Fresno State but it will do for this discussion.


They are Phds because an M.D. is considered a Phd. for academic purposes by all acrediting committees in the USA.

As usual no one comments on the gross distortions of the evo poster or the content and logical analysys of the paper.

Pitiful

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,11:16   

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety

  
  16 replies since April 24 2005,18:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]