RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:04   

Paul Nelson mentioned how he was looking into having an open discussion area for the content of "Explore Evolution".

Well, this one is up and running.

If you do post over on the DI's website, though, please remember to copy the text before you hit "submit" and bring it right over here.

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

    
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:17   

I posted this on PT but thought I'd add it here as well:

I can see that the DI and this teacher from Tacoma are trying to shave as close as possible to what is allowed. The key reason I object to this "teach the controversy" concept is because a better approach is to teach what is understood and admit ignorance when you don't know the answer. Virtually all controversy is born from a lack of knowledge about a particular subject. In science, the best method for reducing controversy is to review what is known and then set about filling in the gaps of knowledge through research.

What this text, Explore Evolution, attempts to do is use the gaps of knowledge to create controversy where none should exist. Instead, a sound educatinal program would teach what is known and understood and make clear where and what is not known or what is still unclear. This way future biologists can form ideas of how best to apply their research and labrotory skills in college and in life.

More important than teachimg any controversy is teaching kids how to actually conduct labrotory investigations and how to use the scienctific method.

If you need to teach the controversy to get kids excited about science, your not much of a teacher.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,14:40   

http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:00   

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

Yeah, and part of the deception is that even though they say this book is for (among others)    
Quote
College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution. Explore Evolution is an excellent college-level supplementary textbook providing much more information about the evidence for and against contemporary Darwin’s theory than standard textbooks are able to offer.

they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it.

Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that book!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:19   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 13 2007,15:00)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.


{snip}

they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it.

Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that book!

You're obviously under the impression that these people are in the EDUCATION field.  I understand how that might throw you  :O

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,15:34   

Their press release gave contact information. I asked; they didn't seem to have enough review copies to go around. At least, I asked in early June, and it hadn't appeared in my mailbox as of about ten days ago.

Quote

New Biology Textbook Seeks to Improve Teaching of Evolution by Promoting Inquiry-Based Approach

For Immediate Release

Contact: Anika Smith (206) 292-0401 x155 questions@exploreevolution.com

Explore Evolution
(link)
: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers Ltd., Melbourne and London, 2007) is the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution. "Sadly, the majority of biology textbooks in use today are 'dumbed-down' and do a poor job explaining evolution," said Dr. John West of Discovery Institute, the book's United States distributor. "Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by providing teachers and students with more information about evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written at the same level." West is Associate Director of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Explore Evolution promotes inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to participate in the process of discovery, deliberation, and argument that scientists use to form their theories. "Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals," emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. "Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science." Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels. The textbook looks at five areas of biology that are typically viewed as confirming the modern theory of evolution: fossil succession, anatomical homology, embryology, natural selection, and natural selection and mutation. For each area of study, Explore Evolution explains the evidence and arguments used to support Darwin's theory and then examines the evidence and arguments that lead some scientists to question the adequacy of Darwinian explanations. Each chapter concludes with a section called Further Debate that explores the current state of the discussion. Explore Evolution is ideally suited for:
   * AP Biology teachers who need a stimulating capstone unit for the last 5-6 weeks of their AP course after their students have taken the AP biology test.
   * High School General Biology teachers who wish to deepen their own understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory and want to incorporate inquiry-based learning into their teaching of evolution.
   * College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution.
   * Home school teachers who want to provide their students with a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum in the life sciences that stresses critical thinking skills.
   * Parents who desire to supplement and enrich their children's school instruction in biological evolution in preparation for college.
   * Interested adults who wish to inform themselves about the scientific debates over key aspects of modern evolutionary theory.
For more information, visit the textbook website at
www.exploreevolution.com
(link), where you will find the introduction to the textbook, table of contents, author and publisher information, as well as sample pages from the book.
Review copies and materials can be requested from Anika Smith, (206) 292-0401 ext. 155, or [EMAIL=asmith@discovery.org.]asmith@discovery.org.[/EMAIL] About the Publisher Established in 1982, Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. (Melbourne and London) specializes in publishing science and nature books of exceptional quality. In addition to Explore Evolution, its books include The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World (2001), The Birds of Asia, vol. 7 (1992), The Mammals of Australia, vol 2 (2002), and World Butterflies (2006). A publishing partner of the Natural History Museum in London, Hill House has been awarded an exclusive license by the museum to produce authentic facsimiles of priceless and rare antiquarian books, prints and maps from the world-famous libraries of that institution. For more information about Hill House Publishers, visit www.worldbutterflies.co.uk
Link.

###


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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,17:46   

From the "Explore Evolution" site:

Quote

One way scientists have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge is through spirited, yet civil, debate about the meaning of publicly accessible evidence. Scientists often debate how best to interpret the available evidence. Controversy in science is nothing new. It’s not a distraction; it’s normal. Explore Evolution is part of the continuing debate over Neo-Darwinism. In the Further Debate section of the website we invite serious scientists and educators to take part in the ongoing discussion about the scientific issues raised in Explore Evolution.

If you’d like to submit scientific comments or critiques about Explore Evolution, please send them in. We will review them and address them on these pages. For some particularly relevant comments or critiques, we will ask the author’s permission to publish their response, so please include your name, address, e-mail address and phone number with your submission. Submit items to furtherdebate@exploreevolution.com


Ok, that's peachy. Here's a game we can play, and it is easy. When going through "Explore Evolution", trace arguments it makes back to the usual antievolution lore, classified and enumerated via Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims. Send it in, noting the page where it occurs in "Explore Evolution", the URL where Isaak has dissected it, and ask why they believe telling children falsehoods makes for good education. Oh, yeah, don't forget to post what you write here... we can add points for the number of arguments each person submits that get the big "Ignored" response.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,18:14   

the email I just sent

 
Quote
I was disappointed to see the same old creationist arguments in the new ID textbook "Explore Evolution". Your sample pages 30-31 (http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_30-31.pdf) repeat old claims about the cambrian explosion appearing out of nowhere. As you well know, this argument comes from the days when ID advocates were still calling themselves creationists. It is documented at the Index of Creationist Claims here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html This is not exploring evolution, it is promoting creationism. Sowing confusion among children in order to advance your religion is unethical. I hope it fails the same way renaming yourselves ID Theorists failed.

Steve Story
[redacted]
Chapel Hill, NC
919-[redacted]


Edited by stevestory on July 13 2007,19:19

   
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:03   

Dang. Here's one which is very similar, but doesn't exactly match the ICC:

dishonest creationist textbook:
Quote
Critics of the fossil succession argument
point out that what is true of animals is also
true of plants. For example, flowering plants
appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period,
145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance
is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom.
“The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”
writes one team of researchers. “Angiosperms
appear rather suddenly in the fossil record…with
no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90
million years before their appearance.”10 This
contradiction was so perplexing that Darwin
himself referred to it as “an abominable mystery.”11
As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil
appearance does not support Darwin’s picture of
a gradually branching tree.


Index of creationist BS:
Quote
Claim CC301:
In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery, pp. 40-45
Response:

  1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.

  2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.

  3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.

  4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.


links:
http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek-inside_24-25.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:09   

That's excellent!

If they want open discussion, we can provide it.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:25   

That creationist textbook which is increasingly pissing me off:



well where have I seen that kind of crap before? Oh yeah

Quote
Evolution and Creation

Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (July 2005)



Why is it important to study EVOLUTION (Darwinism)?



•         Darwinism Poisons Morals



•         Darwinism Poisons Evangelism



•         Darwinism Poisons Truth (Not AJTB)

[snip]


Principle of Irreducible Complexity applied to …



•         Bird Lungs and Wings from Reptiles?


and speaking of birds, how about our jailbird friend Kent Hovind?

Quote
Hovind: "Reptiles have a sack-type lung, and they breathe in and out. Birds have a tubular-type lung, and they breathe through their lungs, not in and out of their lungs."


http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/F.html
http://exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek_inside_1.pdf
http://www.ontruth.com/creationevolutionnotes.htm

Edited by stevestory on July 13 2007,20:31

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:36   

Seeing the ellipse in that quote made me curious as to what the whole thing says.
Quote
Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record during the Jurassic [b][208–145 million years ago (Mya)][b], with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80–90 million years before their appearance. Nevertheless, the existence during the Jurassic of all known sister taxa to the angiosperms implies that the angiosperm lineage must have been established by that time [1]. However, this ancestral lineage, coined ‘angiophytes’, is unlikely to be equivalent to angiosperms as known from the Cretaceous (145 Mya) through to recent forms because it might have lacked many of the characteristic angiosperm features [2]. It is presumed that angiophytes went through a period of little diversification during the Late Triassic (220 Mya) and Jurassic, either because the diversity-enhancing features, such as flowers, of the crown-group angiosperms had not yet evolved in stem angiophytes or because the diversity among angiophytes was inhibited during the Jurassic by environmental conditions or biotic interactions [2].
(my emphasis).

The removed portion describes the range of the Jurassic period, rather than the "Big Bloom." But a couple paragraphs later, some more interesting detail is given:

Quote
The fossil record provides excellent evidence for this rapid diversification in floral form during the earliest phases of recorded flowering plant history [5]. Only 10–12 million years elapsed between the first fossil records (not, vert, similar130 Mya) and clear documentation of all of the major lines of flowering plants 1 and 6. This diversification of angiosperms occurred during a period (the Aptian, 125–112 Mya; Figure 1) when their pollen and megafossils were rare components of terrestrial floras and species diversity was low 1 and 6. Angiosperm fossils show a dramatic increase in diversity between the Albian (112–99.6 Mya) and the Cenomanian (99.6–93.5 Mya) at a global scale 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Figure 1).


Shockingly, Figure 1 is a "gradually branching tree," which these mysterious critics say the data does not support. It's too bad the sample cuts off there; I'd like to know what these critics do think the data supports.

I also have a brief question for Paul Nelson, if he does show up. Do you honestly believe that this is a college-level textbook, appropriate for use at the University of Washington, for example?

Source:Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Volume 20, Issue 11, November 2005, Pages 591-597

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,19:45   

Wikipedia:
Quote
n 1998, Nelson gained a PhD in philosophy from the University of Chicago. The Discovery Institute's Wedge Document,[2] amongst other sources, claimed that Nelson was publishing a work derived from his thesis, "Common Descent, Generative Entrenchment, and the Epistemology in Evolutionary Inference", criticizing the principle of common descent, as part of the Evolutionary Monographs series. The Evolutionary Monographs series is edited by evolutionary biologist Leigh van Valen. Biologist John M. Lynch however notes that it is a "second-tier publication" unsuited to such work, and that the work has been "forthcoming" for quite some time.[3]

Considering that Paul's approaching his 10th year overdue, I really don't think he should have stopped to write a textbook. Poor time-management skills.

   
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,20:40   

EE states that:
Quote
For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. This rapid appearance is sometimes called the angiosperm big bloom. “The origin of the angiosperms remains unclear,”


Ah yes, yet another example of an argument from ignorance. Hmm, too bad for EE progress is being made in understanding this perplexing problem. Check out this article entitled South Pacific Plant May Be Missing Link In Evolution Of Flowering Plants.

The problem with EE is that it tries to stimulate controversy where, instead, a teacher should stimulate a thirst to understand what is known and where the gaps in knowledge are. This way students will be able to do research to help find answers.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,03:44   

Got it! Wesley, that press release contains what I think could well be the name of the next scam:

"Inquiry-based approach."

I am looking forward to the Chesterfield, VA "Inquiry-based approach" trial already.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,05:24   

As you might have expected by now, "inquiry-based approach" is already-existing jargon in the education field. The Discovery Institute's relentless drive to Humpty-Dumpty-ize speech continues.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,06:04   

Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution":

Quote

PREFACE
INTRODUCTION 1
DEFINING SOME TERMS 7
ISSUES IN QUESTION 9

UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT
Arguments For and Against

FOSSIL SUCCESSION 15
Case For 16
Reply 22
Further Debate 30

ANATOMICAL HOMOLOGY 39
Case For 40
Reply 43
Further Debate 49

MOLECULAR HOMOLOGY 51
Case For 52
Reply 57
Further Debate 61

EMBRYOLOGY 65
Case For 66
Reply 68
Further Debate 70

BIOGEOGRAPHY 73
Case For 74
Reply 76
Further Debate 79

THE CREATIVE POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION
Arguments For and Against

NATURAL SELECTION 83
Case For 84
Reply 90

NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION 97
Case For 98
Reply 102
Further Debate 108

A NEW CHALLENGE
Arguments For and Against

MOLECULAR MACHINES 115
Case For 116
Reply 119
Further Debate 121

SPECIAL STUDIES
NATURAL SELECTION AS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST 126
WHAT FOSSILS CAN'T TELL YOU 128

CONCLUSION
THE NATURE OF DISSENT IN SCIENCE 142

GLOSSARY 144
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 149
CREDITS 154
INDEX 157


Does this look like a list of current issues in evolutionary science? I don't think so.

The notion that the Discovery Institute is engaged in any small quibble concerning the power of evolutionary process to produce the history and diversity of life is blown by line six in the table of contents, where they note the heading for the first eighty pages or so will be "Arguments for and against universal common descent". What is the alternative to universal common descent? I expect that they never say so directly here, but our culture is permeated with the telling of the narrow religious doctrine of special creation, so one can certainly ask whether the text that follows especially privileges special creation. That is, they have eighty pages in which to include a sentence saying, "Of course, scientists in the 19th century investigated the doctrine of special creation and found it not amenable to scientific study, and the claims of particular mythologies concerning life's history to have no basis in fact." Will we see any such straightforward disavowal that that is what they want children to accept as an alternative? I don't think so.

Various Index entries that look like they will be applicable:

# CB800: Systematics

   * CB801. Science cannot define "species."
   * CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
         o (see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)
   * CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
   * CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
   * CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
   * CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.

The whole section under CB900: Evolution

The whole section under CC: Paleontology

And a bunch of entries related to natural selection, of course.

We shall see.

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

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,08:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2007,06:04)
Table of Contents for "Explore Evolution":

Same ole creationist crap.  (shrug)


These morons must be genetically incapable of learning from previous experience.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,13:44   

I see that "Exploring Evolution" is not available on Amazon.  Since I only buy creationist books used or remaindered, it will be a while before I read this one.

I got a copy of Behe's latest book already for $11.  Since it was a new copy, I suppose it was considered overstock.

Edited by Dr.GH on July 14 2007,13:46

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,20:29   

I've made a start on an "Explore Evolution" companion. I see this as a resource to complete the critical analysis experience that EE's authors failed to make any progress upon.

Something that I just spent a chunk of time on was setting up for comparisons of quotations in EE to original sources. I've already incorporated the one on angiosperm evolution from earlier in this thread, and located another in the TOA Quotemine Project.

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

    
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,21:18   

Why are they quoting the Science Framework for California Schools from 1990 in EE? I couldn't find anything on the framework from 1990. However I did find this gem on page ix of the 2004 framework :
Quote
Discussions of any scientific fact, hy­ pothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history–social science and English–language arts curricula.

and
Quote
As a matter of principle, sci­ence teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard. Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation.

I'm wondering how the 2004 frameworks mesh with what EE is trying to convey. Too me it looks like the California standards are well written and clear. I'm also wondering how the DI can support secret research labs in light of what I read in the 2004 Science Framework for California Schools on page 20:
Quote
Science does not take place in a secret place isolated from the rest of society.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,21:27   

Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,15:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

I don't know much about literature. I think that's well-known. Sometimes I talk with my playwright friend John and, upon mentioning some writer, hear him say, "That guy's pretty clunky." I freely confess I usually don't know what that means. But reading over this sentence of mine, "read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being." there seems to be something there I would describe as clunky. Some problem with the way the words fit together which slows down the comprehension. Can anyone explain this to me?

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,06:17   

Quote

Abrupt Appearance


That's a section heading from EE on page 22, as they begin to talk about why they don't like "Universal Common Descent".

"Abrupt appearance" has a long history in antievolution, being probably most notably developed by lawyer Wendell Bird. It is also a feature of the textbook, Of Pandas and People, and many of its explicitly creation science drafts.

Its deployment in EE differs in no discernible particular from its past use.

Come on, Paul; did you think that we wouldn't notice?

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

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,08:17   

Quote (stevestory @ July 14 2007,22:27)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,15:40)
http://exploreevolution.com/who_is_this_for.php

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.

I don't know much about literature. I think that's well-known. Sometimes I talk with my playwright friend John and, upon mentioning some writer, hear him say, "That guy's pretty clunky." I freely confess I usually don't know what that means. But reading over this sentence of mine, "read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being." there seems to be something there I would describe as clunky. Some problem with the way the words fit together which slows down the comprehension. Can anyone explain this to me?

Although it's a common locution, your sentence demands a lot of "computation" to extract its meaning, which slows the reader down. Example: "tell me you aren't irritated" is more elaborate than "you'll be irritated," a cousin to a double negative that requires that I imagine someone denying the obvious. (Naturally, it is the obviousness of the deception that this rhetorical device intends to emphasize).

"How deceptive they are being" slows down because of the verb form "being deceptive"; the noun "deception" is simpler.

"Read that page. You'll be irritated by the deception" doesn't require this sort of computation (although is quite prosaic).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Paul Nelson



Posts: 43
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,11:06   

Hi all,

Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Looking forward to a vigorous discussion,

Paul

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,11:44   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
Hi all,

Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Looking forward to a vigorous discussion,

Paul

WHY? Why don't you just debate it HERE?

I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,12:14   

Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Just read the Wedge document, the manifold criticisms of Pandas (and moldering junk such as Icons of Evolution) and the Dover Decision.  Why start the whole process over again? Do you really think you're that clever?

Edit: typo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,12:32   

Hi Paul,

Will you be responding on this thread? I would sincerely like some help trying to explain this stuff.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:09   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 15 2007,12:44)
I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists.

as they say on Law and Order, "asked and answered".

   
stevestory



Posts: 8910
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2007,13:16   

1980's Scientific Creationism: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God did it.
1990's Intelligent Design: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God Somebody did it.
2000's Exploring Evolution: The following (bogus) problems with evolution exist, therefore God Somebody did it....

   
  859 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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