5 ms·

> Not understanding Evolution effectively locks students out from large swaths of science. Large in what way? How much of physics depends on evolution? How a

by anamax 14y ago

> Not understanding Evolution effectively locks students out from large swaths of science. Large in what way? How much of physics depends on evolution? How about chemistry? How about materials science? I can go on and on. In fact, much of biology doesn't depend on evolution. (Who do you think did all the work on selective breeding pre-darwin?) I don't know Knuth's views on evolution, but he is Christian. Can you tell me if he believes in evolution? As someone else pointed out in this thread, evolution is being used as a tribal signal. And no, believers in evolution are NOT more rational.

jlgreco 14y ago
Biology is large, and you cannot seriously study modern biology if you flat out deny evolution. Suggestions to the contrary are simply absurd. Knuth is Lutheran iirc, he could fall either way, I don't know which. Lutherans are a coin flip.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Biology is large, and you cannot seriously study modern biology if you flat out deny evolution. Suggestions to the contrary are simply absurd. If that was true, we could identify the intelligent design people by their scientific output. Instead, we find that evolutionists have to look at other evidence to purge them from the ranks of scientists. Evolution is a big deal so how about using valid arguments? > Knuth is Lutheran iirc, he could fall either way, I don't know which. The claim was that creationists can't do any valid science. If you can't look at Knuth's "work product" and tell us whether he's a creationist, the claim is clerly false. I agree that creationists can't do some types of science, but the actual instances are fairly small.
hermannj314 14y ago
Evolution as a conceptual framework for understanding how complexity can emerge from simple feedback is relevant to many branches of science, including computer science. Maybe I am really stretching, but if evolution wasn't real, then many machine learning algorithms wouldn't work.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  As a "science evangelist", you are really stretching. If you make arguments like that, you merely make it easier for others to dismiss you.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Maybe I am really stretching, but if evolution wasn't real, then many machine learning algorithms wouldn't work. You're really stretching. No one denies selective breeding. The evolution claim is much stronger, and isn't necessary for machine learning. Why would you make such an absurd claim?
  - hermannj314 14y ago
    Evolutionary processes present themselves everywhere from political systems, social organization, genetic algorithms in computer science. If evolution doesn't exist, then why do we constantly see processes evolve based on a feedback cycle of constant experimentation, survival, failure, etc. Isn't that word evolution? Is there another word I am supposed to use? So I stand by what I said, if evolution isn't real (i.e. evolution doesn't happen) that all things are complex by-design, and never by uncontrolled processes of iteration and survival, if that is true, then evolutionary algorithms wouldn't work. Is that really absurd? What am I not getting?
    - anamax 14y ago
      > If evolution doesn't exist, then why do we constantly see processes evolve based on a feedback cycle of constant experimentation, survival, failure, etc. > Isn't that word evolution? No. As I wrote, evolution is a stronger claim. Evolution involves feedback but not all feedback is evolution. Many stable amplifier designs use feedback. Would you claim that the signal being amplified is evolving? As to man-made entities, yes, their designs are affected by feedback. However, they're also created. As I said, creationists believe in selective breeding. Their argument wrt evolution is wrt something else, so if you don't understand that.... > So I stand by what I said, if evolution isn't real (i.e. evolution doesn't happen) that all things are complex by-design, and never by uncontrolled processes of iteration and survival, if that is true, then evolutionary algorithms wouldn't work. You do know that you didn't say that above, right? However, I'll play along. Your new claim is wrong because algorithms with feedback can work even if evolution doesn't occur in the wild. As to your suggestion that evolution is involved in every complex system, I'll ask how stars evolved. They're very complex systems. There are lots of complex systems. Evolution only applies to the biological ones.
derleth 14y ago
Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator. This ties back to how we can explain how the universe functions without needing to invoke a deity keeping the gears turning; in short, evolution means life works based on the same physical laws rocks and stars do. And that ties back to what science does: Provides explanations with predictive power, as opposed to explanations like "The gods willed it" that provide no predictive power. If life works on the same laws as all other matter, and we have predictive models for matter in general, then we can better predict what living beings will do and how the world will affect them. That does, in fact, turn out to be the case.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I am reminded of the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pierre-Simon Laplace: Napoleon: M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator. Laplace: I had no need of that hypothesis.
- anamax 14y ago
  > Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator. Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. And if you are, I'll ask where I can see animals with wheels for locomotion and animals that use internal combustion. I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. You misunderstand me totally. > I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap. Except for the part where evolution has all the evidence on its side, right?
    - anamax 14y ago

by anamax 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

Biology is large, and you cannot seriously study modern biology if you flat out deny evolution. Suggestions to the contrary are simply absurd. Knuth is Lutheran iirc, he could fall either way, I don't know which. Lutherans are a coin flip.

anamax 14y ago
> Biology is large, and you cannot seriously study modern biology if you flat out deny evolution. Suggestions to the contrary are simply absurd. If that was true, we could identify the intelligent design people by their scientific output. Instead, we find that evolutionists have to look at other evidence to purge them from the ranks of scientists. Evolution is a big deal so how about using valid arguments? > Knuth is Lutheran iirc, he could fall either way, I don't know which. The claim was that creationists can't do any valid science. If you can't look at Knuth's "work product" and tell us whether he's a creationist, the claim is clerly false. I agree that creationists can't do some types of science, but the actual instances are fairly small.

hermannj314 14y ago

Evolution as a conceptual framework for understanding how complexity can emerge from simple feedback is relevant to many branches of science, including computer science. Maybe I am really stretching, but if evolution wasn't real, then many machine learning algorithms wouldn't work.

thaumaturgy 14y ago
As a "science evangelist", you are really stretching. If you make arguments like that, you merely make it easier for others to dismiss you.
anamax 14y ago
> Maybe I am really stretching, but if evolution wasn't real, then many machine learning algorithms wouldn't work. You're really stretching. No one denies selective breeding. The evolution claim is much stronger, and isn't necessary for machine learning. Why would you make such an absurd claim?
- hermannj314 14y ago
  Evolutionary processes present themselves everywhere from political systems, social organization, genetic algorithms in computer science. If evolution doesn't exist, then why do we constantly see processes evolve based on a feedback cycle of constant experimentation, survival, failure, etc. Isn't that word evolution? Is there another word I am supposed to use? So I stand by what I said, if evolution isn't real (i.e. evolution doesn't happen) that all things are complex by-design, and never by uncontrolled processes of iteration and survival, if that is true, then evolutionary algorithms wouldn't work. Is that really absurd? What am I not getting?
  - anamax 14y ago
    > If evolution doesn't exist, then why do we constantly see processes evolve based on a feedback cycle of constant experimentation, survival, failure, etc. > Isn't that word evolution? No. As I wrote, evolution is a stronger claim. Evolution involves feedback but not all feedback is evolution. Many stable amplifier designs use feedback. Would you claim that the signal being amplified is evolving? As to man-made entities, yes, their designs are affected by feedback. However, they're also created. As I said, creationists believe in selective breeding. Their argument wrt evolution is wrt something else, so if you don't understand that.... > So I stand by what I said, if evolution isn't real (i.e. evolution doesn't happen) that all things are complex by-design, and never by uncontrolled processes of iteration and survival, if that is true, then evolutionary algorithms wouldn't work. You do know that you didn't say that above, right? However, I'll play along. Your new claim is wrong because algorithms with feedback can work even if evolution doesn't occur in the wild. As to your suggestion that evolution is involved in every complex system, I'll ask how stars evolved. They're very complex systems. There are lots of complex systems. Evolution only applies to the biological ones.

derleth 14y ago

Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator. This ties back to how we can explain how the universe functions without needing to invoke a deity keeping the gears turning; in short, evolution means life works based on the same physical laws rocks and stars do. And that ties back to what science does: Provides explanations with predictive power, as opposed to explanations like "The gods willed it" that provide no predictive power. If life works on the same laws as all other matter, and we have predictive models for matter in general, then we can better predict what living beings will do and how the world will affect them. That does, in fact, turn out to be the case.

jlgreco 14y ago
I am reminded of the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pierre-Simon Laplace: Napoleon: M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator. Laplace: I had no need of that hypothesis.
anamax 14y ago
> Large in that evolution describes how complex systems can exist without a creator. Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. And if you are, I'll ask where I can see animals with wheels for locomotion and animals that use internal combustion. I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap.
- derleth 14y ago
  > Unless you're claiming that evolution is the only explanation for complex systems, that's not enough. You misunderstand me totally. > I believe in evolution, but most arguments offered by evolutionists against creationism are crap. Except for the part where evolution has all the evidence on its side, right?
  - anamax 14y ago