Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 18:56:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7AAE3F.2A01F48B@mindspring.com> References: <20020907110109.T44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > 1) Are the theories predictive? > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > is unpredictable. Mutation is by chance. Selection is not. > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > to me. Please explain. It has one less premise. > Oh, and I didn't catch your answer as to how we have boys and girls. http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22sexual+reproduction%22+evolution&hc=0&hs=0 > > That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated > > as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect > > you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. > > Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. > > Why do you think that Christians would necessarily want to incorporate > it as a specifically *Christian* state? The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists about creationism? > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > > > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > > > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > > > attitudes and academic freedom? > > > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. > > Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make > it so. It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the "evolution" theory. > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution > cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome > this problem? Please explain. By not being defined the way you appear to think it is. 8-). The primary mechanism of evolution is selection, not chance. Do you know how a "Monete Carlo Algorithm" works? It works by generating random inputs, and then constraining the relation between input and outputs to allowable processes, discarding outputs which do not meet the selection criteria. See also "clamping" in back-propagation neural networks. > > This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict > > non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The > > place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your > > children in non-state sponsored schools). > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> -- not the same thing as non-religious. > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world in useful ways. If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more predictive than "evolution" theory. So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will through His choice of natural laws. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7AAE3F.2A01F48B>