CreationTheory.Org revision

[Darth Wong]

Does anyone remember a long time ago when I posted about a proposed revision to the Introduction section on my CreationTheory.Org website? At the time, the two most common criticisms were:

1) The page was too long
2) Pointing out that bacteria can exchange DNA

I've finally gotten around to addressing those criticisms and making a few other revisions and modifications, so please let me know what you think of the current version:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... roduction/

Keep in mind that this is just a temporary site which I'm using to work on the site revision, and it mostly doesn't work. The sidebar menu, for example, is totally non-functional.

PS. At the end of the Introduction I list some "recommended reading" links. Any extra link suggestions would be appreciated.

EDIT: The Probability page is also being heavily revised.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... obability/

The old one sucked.

[The Grim Squeaker]

PS. At the end of the Introduction I list some "recommended reading" links. Any extra link suggestions would be appreciated.

Are you asking for web Sites only in the "Reccomended reading" section, or might we suggest a few "Everyman/popular" books that are also good? (In which Case I would add a few such as Dawkins books ("Selfish Gene", "River out of Eden", etc') or Jared Diamond's "3d Chimpanzee" et all).

[Kuroneko]

The signature example of the scientific approach
toward religion was Kepler who, when asked why God was not
mentioned in his equations of planetary motion, replied that he had
no need of that term.

Did that really happen? There was a story about Napoleon asking this question of Laplace in regards to his Celestial Mechanics. It could have happened to Kepler too, I suppose, but it is unlikely.

I'm more sympathetic to Hume than you are, although the question of which views Hume himself had and which ones he was arguing rhetorically is irrelevant for your purposes, so never mind that.

P.S. "'Arguuments' for Evolution"?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, I'm more sympathetic to Hume's Problem of Induction as well. If I remember my logic and philosophy correctly, he simply was disturbed that induction couldn't be supported without resorting to induction. He didn't like the Problem or its possible ramifications, rather than seriously thinking that induction was useless. Karl Popper's Falsificationism sidesteps induction entirely and has rendered the Problem of Induction obsolescent.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, I dislike the idea of using Popper's falsification principle to sidestep Hume, because it smacks of dishonesty. Yes, you can use the falsification principle to avoid the argument, but you know that if you've tried an experiment a thousand times and it always produces the same result, the same thing will almost certainly happen on the 1001st try. It seems like an evasion to abandon this just because someone has come up with a clever rhetorical attack against it and you've found a clever rejoinder. Hume denies that any real knowledge has been acquired from those 1000 experiments, which is why it's important to point out that his thinking relies on a black/white fallacy.

Besides, the dirty little secret of the "Popper is the answer to Hume" argument is that even the falsification principle relies upon the assumption that the behaviour of the universe is consistent: something which we know through ... induction. If the universe's behaviour is not consistent, then it's perfectly possible to falsify a theory today yet have it be true tomorrow. Of course, you could try to address that by saying that the consistency of the universe is also a falsifiable theory, but then Hume's original argument could still be applied: you have no way of knowing that it won't be falsified tomorrow.

[Surlethe]

I read through the intro. I like the way it's been broken up into bite-sized chunks; the drop-down menu at the bottom of each page is a really nice touch. Aside from the occasional typo, I had a few thoughts about the content.

• Popular Misconceptions: you might point out that many people tend to think of evolution as far more than a theory in biology. Creationists will tend to view it as a philosophical "worldview" or a scientific field encompassing geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biology (coincidentally, all the fields of science that explicitly contradict YECism).
• The Need for Negativity: this analogy might be useful. Consider a class where it's impossible to fail a test. If you took the class, what would you be able to demonstrate you'd learned?
• What about moving the "Popular Misconceptions" page to before the "Arguments for Evolution" page? It seems that the two are more closely linked than the distance between positions 4 and 9 might suggest.
• Would it be helpful to add links to the arguments database to relevant parts of the introduction?
• Nitpick: evolution in Pokemon is not a battle technique.

As far as links go, if I can toot my own horn for a minute, this might be interesting. There is also a website offering a theistic defense of evolution here if you want to mention that there is a divide in Christianity over whether to defend or debunk creationism.

Regarding the philosophy, isn't the assumption that the universe is consistent common to all functioning humans anyway? Anybody who tries to knock Popper's argument from that tack is holding a double standard.

[Darth Wong]

I read through the intro. I like the way it's been broken up into bite-sized chunks; the drop-down menu at the bottom of each page is a really nice touch. Aside from the occasional typo, I had a few thoughts about the content.

• Popular Misconceptions: you might point out that many people tend to think of evolution as far more than a theory in biology. Creationists will tend to view it as a philosophical "worldview" or a scientific field encompassing geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biology (coincidentally, all the fields of science that explicitly contradict YECism).
• The Need for Negativity: this analogy might be useful. Consider a class where it's impossible to fail a test. If you took the class, what would you be able to demonstrate you'd learned?
• What about moving the "Popular Misconceptions" page to before the "Arguments for Evolution" page? It seems that the two are more closely linked than the distance between positions 4 and 9 might suggest.
• Would it be helpful to add links to the arguments database to relevant parts of the introduction?
• Nitpick: evolution in Pokemon is not a battle technique.

As far as links go, if I can toot my own horn for a minute, this might be interesting. There is also a website offering a theistic defense of evolution here if you want to mention that there is a divide in Christianity over whether to defend or debunk creationism.

Interesting suggestions. I'll have to go over the pages again.

Regarding the philosophy, isn't the assumption that the universe is consistent common to all functioning humans anyway? Anybody who tries to knock Popper's argument from that tack is holding a double standard.

These are creationists. Double standards are par for the course.

PS. I'm replacing the Probability section too. Hopefully I didn't make a careless math error anywhere; that would be embarrassing.

[lPeregrine]

Regarding the philosophy, isn't the assumption that the universe is consistent common to all functioning humans anyway? Anybody who tries to knock Popper's argument from that tack is holding a double standard.

These are creationists. Double standards are par for the course.

Double standards even for the same author. Hume himself admitted that the "problem" was only an abstract one, and that the assumptions that the universe is constant and experience provides valid predictions are fundamental parts of how humans work. So it's a case of picking out the "right" quotes and ignoring the context.

PS. I'm replacing the Probability section too. Hopefully I didn't make a careless math error anywhere; that would be embarrassing.

A suggestion would be a clear example of the math behind cumulative selection. A common misconception I see a lot is the idea that evolution happens as one instant change. They quote the near-impossible odds without realizing how cumulative selection cuts them down to much more reasonable levels.

To borrow an example from one of Dawkins' books (The Blind Watchmaker, I believe), the random monkeys would take longer than the age of the universe to write even a single sentence of Shakespeare correctly. But write a computer program (as he did) with proper cumulative selection, and it takes a few minutes (on an ancient computer... with modern hardware, probably instantly). I forget the exact numbers, and I don't have a copy here to look it up, but I remember it did a very good job of putting the difference into perspective. And that's a big part of the problem... it seems like people who don't have a math/science background have a really hard time understanding just how much of a difference there is between the two methods.

[Kihmbar]

I was looking at the Probability page and I found a nitpick mistake (but I believe you would rather have one of us find a mistake than someone trying to debunk your argument).
On Page 2 of Probablility:
-----
Therefore, the total number of possible combinations is 49*49*47*46*45*44 (49! / 43! on your calculator ... now you know what that "x!" button on your calculator is for), which equals approximately 10.07 billion.
-----
Should be 49*48*47*46*45*44. Your math is right (still equals ~10.07 billion), but the number in the equation is wrong.

I double-checked most of your math [I didn't crunch the numbers for the straight flush example or the jokers example] - I didn't find any other careless mistakes.

[Adrian Laguna]

Hume denies that any real knowledge has been acquired from those 1000 experiments, which is why it's important to point out that his thinking relies on a black/white fallacy.

The way I understood Hume's entire argument was that it was a long-winded way of saying, "absolute certainty is impossible". The rules of the universe have already been defined, and we find ourself still trying to uncover them, thus we cannot make absolute proofs about its nature. At which point the practical minded say, "Okay then, so much for that. Let's find the next best thing and run with it."

[FSTargetDrone]

This is in no way intended to be nit-picky, but I recommend changing all instances of "creature" throughout your original material to "animal," "being," "person" or whatever, depending on the context. "Creature" implies a "creator." Yes, it can merely mean "animal" but by definition it does suggest a maker and seems a poorer choice, given the topic, as well as the scientifically-minded and precise tone of your work.

For example, in this page you write:

The original argument is based on the presumption that no creature would have ever mixed those chemicals together in the first place, because they spontaneously explode when mixed. He now admits that you can safely mix those two chemicals, and they only react violently when two more ingredients are added. So a creature could have evolved a chamber where those two chemicals were mixed as part of a natural defense mechanism without "blowing itself up".

"Animal" would be a better choice, there, I think.

"Creature" also appears here, here and here. I think that's everywhere, other than in quotes to and from hatemailers.

[Turin]

A suggestion would be a clear example of the math behind cumulative selection. A common misconception I see a lot is the idea that evolution happens as one instant change. They quote the near-impossible odds without realizing how cumulative selection cuts them down to much more reasonable levels.

To borrow an example from one of Dawkins' books (The Blind Watchmaker, I believe), the random monkeys would take longer than the age of the universe to write even a single sentence of Shakespeare correctly. But write a computer program (as he did) with proper cumulative selection <snip>

DW mentions this argument in the Popular Misconceptions page, but I too think that a more lengthy example would be excellent in the probability section. The difference between the two numbers Dawkins comes up with for "time required" to generate the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL (from Hamlet) from a random string of characters are staggering even if you understand the concept already, and really bring the point home. It's important to have the "random" calculation before the "cumulative selection" calculation, because the difference can be one of those "wow" moments in the theory.

Your probability section is making a strong argument against the dishonest (mis)calculations made by creationists. But it would be much stronger if you include a section on the power of cumulative selection on probabilities, to provide a logically positive argument about probability rather than just the logically negative one. It's the one-two punch approach.

But if you decide to make a section about this, I'd leave out the computer program discussion and just keep the monkeys (hitting keys once per second or something). Bringing the "black box" of the computer just confuses things for an unscientific person, and makes it too easy to dismiss the argument as contrivance.

[Darth Holbytlan]

PS. I'm replacing the Probability section too. Hopefully I didn't make a careless math error anywhere; that would be embarrassing.

There are two errors in the odds calculation for a straight flush with jokers (Page02-Answer4).

First, the statement "if you add two jokers to the deck, you increase the number of possible straight flushes by 20 times, from 36 to 720." is wrong. It should be "from 36 to 756" (756 = 36 + 36*20), making the odds about 1 in 4183. Otherwise, you fail to count the chance of getting a good old-fashioned straight flush with no jokers.

Second, this solution also over-counts the number of straights. Consider the straight A2345 (in, say, clubs), with the bottom two replaced by jokers (Xs): XX345. Now consider the straight 34567 with the top two replaced by jokers: 345XX. These are counted separately but are really the same hand. The same applies to hands like X2345 and X2X45.

The fix is to recognize that XX345 does not count as a A2345 straight, but as a 34567 straight---its value is the highest possible value, not the lowest[*]. So you cannot replace the lowest card with a joker, meaning that the real calculations should only consider the top 4 cards. The number of combinations for each straight with one joker is 2*4 = 8 and the number of combinations with two jokers is 4!/2!/2! = 6, making the total # of combinations 36*(1 + 8 + 6) = 36*15 = 540, giving odds of 1 in 5856.5.

Note that 20 is the correct number to use when calculating the odds of a royal flush with jokers, giving 4 + 4*20 = 84 combinations, or about 1 in 37649.

[*] Unless you're playing low-ball or the like.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Also, here are some notes on the new Introduction. All but one of these are suggested changes rather than clear errors.

First, the error:

Do you believe that science would be improved if it had [no] mechanism whatsoever for identifying incompetents?

On page 9 (Popular Misconceptions), should footnotes 1 and 2 link back to the original documents?

Also, where it says

...but included only those whose first name is Steve...

it may be better to say

...but included only those who go by the name Steve, Steven, Stefan, Stephanie, or the like...

to avoid nitpickers claiming you are lying to exaggerate the statistic.

Should there be a mention on this page of misdirected attacks on evolution that are actually attacks on other disciplines (such as abiogenesis and the Big Bang)? That sort of thing is so common it seems like it should be brought up somewhere.


On page 10 (A Question of Philosophy), it may be worth mentioning in item 2 that Kepler was quite religious, helping to emphasize its point that it's not a lack of belief in God that leads to It being excluded from scientific theories.

In item 4, it may be better to point out that Newtonian mechanics has been overturned by Relativity, yet is still used in preference everywhere from engineering buildings to guiding spacecraft because it's very accurate despite being "overturned".


On page 11, is it worth mentioning Galileo and his censure (by religious authorities, not scientists)? It would be pretty stupid for a creationist to bring up Galileo as a counterexample, but he's such a common example of the "persecuted scientist" meme that I can see one doing so, anyway.


Also there's some variation in different lists between different lists, such as bulleted vs. numbered or headings in italics vs. bold, that may be better off being eliminated.

[Darth Wong]

Very nice work. Although on the poker issue, it occurs to me that as you started talking about the rankings, I realized that I wasn't really thinking about the rules of poker when I did that last question. I was thinking of each of the two jokers as a unique card, when in fact the two cards are interchangeable for the purposes of poker.

[FSTargetDrone]

You might also want to think about italicizing (or underlining) all the book titles and other media (television shows, film) that you reference or mention.

Of Pandas and People at the bottom of this page.

Pokemon, X-Men and Jurassic Park in the last paragraph here. You've already italicized Voyager and Next Generation elsewhere on the same page, so you might as well go for consistency.

Darwin's Black Box on this page.

I think that's all of them.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks for your continued suggestions, everyone. In the meantime, the sidebar menu is working again. Some areas are non-clickable because they haven't been updated yet.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Very nice work. Although on the poker issue, it occurs to me that as you started talking about the rankings, I realized that I wasn't really thinking about the rules of poker when I did that last question. I was thinking of each of the two jokers as a unique card, when in fact the two cards are interchangeable for the purposes of poker.

I don't think I follow what you're saying, here. As I see it, each joker has to be counted as a unique card because each of two hands differing only in jokers count separately. That's why there's a factor of 2 when counting the one-joker cases, and why 54!/49!/5! produces the correct number of hands despite it distinguishing jokers. Also, even poker rules treating each joker distinctly can still create overlaps that need to be avoided. The same hand can result from substituting cards in different hands.

For example, say the first joker can only substitute for odd cards (including A, J, and K) and the second, only even cards (including Q). Let X, Y be the first and second jokers. Substituting for A2 in A2345 produces XY345, and substituting for 67 in 34567 produces 345YX, but these are still the same hand, having the same cards modulo order.

Quiz: How many hands do you get for a straight flush with even-odd jokers as described?[*]

A: For each straight flush, there are 11 possible choices: 1 no-joker solution; 5 one joker solutions---each slot fits only one joker and no overlap can happen because the opposite joker would go on the other end; 5 two-joker solutions---3 choices for one joker and 2 for the other = 6, but skipping XYcde (or YXcde) because that will be counted as cdeYX (cdeXY). This makes a total of 36*11 = 396 straight flushes.

But wait! The whole bit about no dups when there is one joker is wrong when talking about X10JQK because the ace in a royal flush is odd despite being after the (odd) king. That creates four hands miscounted as straight flushes that should be royal flushes---one for each suit. This leaves 392 hands.

The XYJQK hand does not present a problem even though it doesn't map to JQKYX (JQKA-) because it maps to YJQKX (10JQKA) instead. Therefore skipping it is still correct.


[*] NB: This problem is extra tricky. I would have gotten it wrong if I hadn't written a program to generate all of the outcomes.

[Justforfun000]

I like the FAQ section Mike. Particularly the blurb on homosexuality. That was an excellent explanation of how most people naturally feel about being gay, and the resultant explanation of why this is simply a biological imperative and not a religious based feeling.

[FSTargetDrone]

I noticed last night that The Watchtower Observer link in the links section goes to a hosting image that says "This site is hosted by Steinhaug." Now, 5 hours later, it's still linking to that otherwise empty page.

I got curious and search for "The Watchtower Observer" and found something about the site closing (possibly when the site was hosted elsewhere), and also a forum site that seems to be related (apparently the same site host, Steinhaug), but I can't find anything about that site itself.

So, just a heads up in case that site stays dark.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry about not addressing most of your concerns yet, folks. When people started talking about cumulative probability, the blind watchmaker, etc., I decided to try and put my pitiful JavaScript skills to the test by making a simple widget which would demonstrate the difference between simultaneous and sequential events. You can see it here, in a new page I inserted into the Probability section:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ge03.xhtml

Let me know if it works for you guys.

PS. Yeah, I know, it's pitiful that it took me hours to write that. What can I say; I'm no programmer.

[Fire Fly]

Sorry about not addressing most of your concerns yet, folks. When people started talking about cumulative probability, the blind watchmaker, etc., I decided to try and put my pitiful JavaScript skills to the test by making a simple widget which would demonstrate the difference between simultaneous and sequential events. You can see it here, in a new page I inserted into the Probability section:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ge03.xhtml

Let me know if it works for you guys.

PS. Yeah, I know, it's pitiful that it took me hours to write that. What can I say; I'm no programmer.

I must say, that is one of the most elegant and simple demonstrations on how to illustrate the difference between a evolutionist's point of view and a creationist's point of view. Just for fun, I'm going to let the program run all night and see how many rolls it takes.

[Turin]

Sorry about not addressing most of your concerns yet, folks. When people started talking about cumulative probability, the blind watchmaker, etc., I decided to try and put my pitiful JavaScript skills to the test by making a simple widget which would demonstrate the difference between simultaneous and sequential events. You can see it here, in a new page I inserted into the Probability section:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... ge03.xhtml

Let me know if it works for you guys.

Works great for me -- using Firefox, by the way. It's amazing how such a simple little "toy" can demonstrate so powerfully what really is going on with cumulative probability. (Totally trivial complaint: why is the font so ugly in the script?)

Just one note on the probability section in general, although I'm not sure whether or not you want to get into this for what is really an overview. There's a tendency when talking probability in the form of examples to calculate the long odds of something like a Straight Flush or rolling "all 6's". You might want to very briefly mention what this actually means in terms of evolution -- the "straight flush" is any quality that makes the genes for that quality more likely to be replicated. This quality isn't really defined in advance, as evolution doesn't "move towards" anything in particular.

Hm... I don't know, would adding that in just generate more confusion?

[Darth Wong]

You're right, the font is horrible, so I replaced it with graphical dice. Now the only question is whether 10 dice is the best number. Do we want even more, or less?

[Turin]

You're right, the font is horrible, so I replaced it with graphical dice. Now the only question is whether 10 dice is the best number. Do we want even more, or less?

It took me 30 rolls to get all 10 to come up 6 the first time I tried it. At one roll a second, I think that's a pretty good number -- TV advertisement length, which is probably good for holding the proper attention.