> From the article:
> --------------------------------------
> Spectrum/Bill Siedler

> In Pastor Ron Hamman's nearly unintelligible creationist rant
(Spectrum, 1/21),
> he says he wants the Valley to host a creationism vs. evolution
debate because
> it would "really put the Valley on the map!"

> He then makes the claim that evolution cannot properly be called a
scientific
> "theory" like gravity or thermodynamics. Lastly, he says that in 1990
somebody
> issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who could show scientific proof
of
> evolution.

> The prize still sits in a bank, unclaimed, says Hamman, and has now
accumulated
> enough interest to be a $250,000 prize today. Allow me to respond:
First, the
> Valley is already on the "map," but sadly, it's mostly due to our
reputation as
> an enclave for believers of things that strain credulity, like the
Rev. Hamman.
> ---------------------------------------

> Read it at

> J. Spaceman

> --
> My email address (notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake.  Email
sent to it
> will only get caught in my spam tarpit.

> From the article:
> --------------------------------------
> Spectrum/Bill Siedler

> In Pastor Ron Hamman's nearly unintelligible creationist rant (Spectrum, 1/21),
> he says he wants the Valley to host a creationism vs. evolution debate because
> it would "really put the Valley on the map!"

> He then makes the claim that evolution cannot properly be called a scientific
> "theory" like gravity or thermodynamics. Lastly, he says that in 1990 somebody
> issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who could show scientific proof of
> evolution.

> The prize still sits in a bank, unclaimed, says Hamman, and has now accumulated
> enough interest to be a $250,000 prize today.

> HB

> The prize still sits in a bank, unclaimed, says Hamman, and has now
> accumulated enough interest to be a $250,000 prize today. [...]

> The prize still sits in a bank, unclaimed, says Hamman,

>   I make it one of my early labs when I teach astronomy.

>   How do you teach it or about it?

> --
> Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

>>   How do you teach it or about it?
[etc.]
> I'd hand out essays by Richard Feynman and Peter
> Medewar on the nature of science for the students to read and then we'd
> work on a jigsaw puzzle.  I'd use the puzzle as an example of how
> science works.

> Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > In article <1107307667.733610.109...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >  <hbarw...@troyst.edu> wrote:
> > >This sort of ignorance is exactly why I begin each semester with an
> > >anlysis of what is, and is not, "science".

> >   I make it one of my early labs when I teach astronomy.

> >   How do you teach it or about it?

> > --
> > Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur
> activities notes and links.

> I found that I had to teach the nature of science at both the
> undergraduate and graduate levels for the honors class and molecular
> genetics class that I taught.  Even at the graduate level the
> understanding of science cannot be taken for granted.  It turned into
> my one lecture speel.  I'd hand out essays by Richard Feynman and Peter
> Medewar on the nature of science for the students to read and then we'd
> work on a jigsaw puzzle.  I'd use the puzzle as an example of how
> science works.  I'd use those cheap 100 piece kid puzzles that you can
> buy at WalMart.  I found that the two puzzles that I purchased had an
> identical cut out pattern with different pictures.

> The first thing that we'd do is turn over the pieces and I'd try and
> get the students to think about the problem.  Just looking at the
> pieces, can they come to some sort of idea of what the picture was.
> Unless you have sometype of super genius that can assemble the pieces
> in their mind the students can only come up with vague ideas of what
> the picture might be.  We do this in science all the time.  Even the
> assumption that it will make a picture that they can make sense of
> should be pointed out to them.  Try and get them to think about what
> they are doing.  When they start to assemble the puzzle ask them what
> they are doing.  None of the students I've had have tried the random
> assembly of just putting any two pieces together.  Get them to
> understand that they are hypothesis testing by grouping the pieces by
> whatever character that they are using (color, pattern, shape).  Ask
> them why their hypotheses fail so often.  Get them to understand the
> problem that science deals with when you make assumptions based in
> incomplete data.  If they were able to take all the characteristics of
> each piece and make a perfect analysis they would never be wrong in
> their choice of which pieces fit where, but using the mark I eyeball
> and only a limited set of characters you often make mistakes.  You have
> to expect to be wrong quite often in science.  You have to be able to
> test your hypotheses.

> A few students always assemble the edge of the puzzle first.  I point
> out that this is just what scientist try and do when they create a
> framework and build on it.  We usually get the easiest pieces in place
> first and the edges are the easiest pieces to fit because they only
> have three interacting sides to consider.  Science does what it can and
> builds on it.  About this time someone notices that I've taken away the
> corner pieces.  When they ask for the corners I ask them how they know
> that the puzzle has corners.  It isn't a trick question.  We make
> assumptions like this all the time, and it is based on our experience,
> but they can also see that some pieces are missing based on their
> expected square side and only two interacting edges.  They have an
> hypothesis that something is missing and it is based on their
> experience and the physical evidence.  I throw out the corners and they
> have to scratch their heads because I've given them the corners to
> another puzzle, but they still fit and they still complete the outside
> of the puzzle.  I tell them that science is full of pieces that don't
> quite fit, but that are good enough to help us get a better idea of
> what it is that we are working on.

> As the puzzle gets completed I make them note how the qualitative as
> well as quantitative nature of the hypotheses that they are testing
> improves as they acquire more knowledge of what the picture looks like.
>  The picture never gets perfect because the corners don't match, but it
> is obviously good enough to get a pretty good idea of what the picture
> is.

> I don't think that I've ever brought up creationism or ID in this
> lecture, but if you want to you can just state the fact that ID as a
> "concept" has never been able to place a piece in the puzzle of nature.
>  They have tested quite a few pieces to see if they fit, but there
> isn't a single one left in place at the end of the day.  Essentially,
> it is a concept with a 100% failure rate upon testing.  The only pieces
> left on the board are the ones that haven't been tested yet.  It has
> been found to be worse than just randomly picking any two pieces and
> trying them to see if they fit.  If any student doesn't believe this,
> just ask them for a single piece that ID has placed in our scientific
> knowledge.  You won't find a list of these things at the Discovery
> Institute because there are no ID scientific successes.  The farce is
> that they have lists of scientists that were or are religious and state
> their scientific successes without telling anyone that usually these
> guys were responsible for kicking out an ID piece from where it didn't
> belong.  These guys are known for their scientific contributions and
> not their ID contributions.  This is why many scientists define science
> in such a way that ID is excluded from consideration.  It simply has
> never worked, and it has been a monumental waste of time.  Definitions
> like those that exclude ID get put in place to protect the incompetent
> from themselves.  Most rational scientist can figure out for themselves
> that they can think about ID, but they can't really expect to use it
> for anything.  Not a single success and a 100% failure rate upon
> testing is pretty convincing to most scientists.

> Ron Okimoto

><rokim...@mail.uark.edu> wrote in message
>news:1107829738.090845.112680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> Robert Grumbine wrote:
>> > In article <1107307667.733610.109...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> >  <hbarw...@troyst.edu> wrote:
>> > >This sort of ignorance is exactly why I begin each semester with an
>> > >anlysis of what is, and is not, "science".

>> >   I make it one of my early labs when I teach astronomy.

>> >   How do you teach it or about it?

>> > --
>> > Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur
>> activities notes and links.

>> I found that I had to teach the nature of science at both the
>> undergraduate and graduate levels for the honors class and molecular
>> genetics class that I taught.  Even at the graduate level the
>> understanding of science cannot be taken for granted.  It turned into
>> my one lecture speel.  I'd hand out essays by Richard Feynman and Peter
>> Medewar on the nature of science for the students to read and then we'd
>> work on a jigsaw puzzle.  I'd use the puzzle as an example of how
>> science works.  I'd use those cheap 100 piece kid puzzles that you can
>> buy at WalMart.  I found that the two puzzles that I purchased had an
>> identical cut out pattern with different pictures.

>> The first thing that we'd do is turn over the pieces and I'd try and
>> get the students to think about the problem.  Just looking at the
>> pieces, can they come to some sort of idea of what the picture was.
>> Unless you have sometype of super genius that can assemble the pieces
>> in their mind the students can only come up with vague ideas of what
>> the picture might be.  We do this in science all the time.  Even the
>> assumption that it will make a picture that they can make sense of
>> should be pointed out to them.  Try and get them to think about what
>> they are doing.  When they start to assemble the puzzle ask them what
>> they are doing.  None of the students I've had have tried the random
>> assembly of just putting any two pieces together.  Get them to
>> understand that they are hypothesis testing by grouping the pieces by
>> whatever character that they are using (color, pattern, shape).  Ask
>> them why their hypotheses fail so often.  Get them to understand the
>> problem that science deals with when you make assumptions based in
>> incomplete data.  If they were able to take all the characteristics of
>> each piece and make a perfect analysis they would never be wrong in
>> their choice of which pieces fit where, but using the mark I eyeball
>> and only a limited set of characters you often make mistakes.  You have
>> to expect to be wrong quite often in science.  You have to be able to
>> test your hypotheses.

>> A few students always assemble the edge of the puzzle first.  I point
>> out that this is just what scientist try and do when they create a
>> framework and build on it.  We usually get the easiest pieces in place
>> first and the edges are the easiest pieces to fit because they only
>> have three interacting sides to consider.  Science does what it can and
>> builds on it.  About this time someone notices that I've taken away the
>> corner pieces.  When they ask for the corners I ask them how they know
>> that the puzzle has corners.  It isn't a trick question.  We make
>> assumptions like this all the time, and it is based on our experience,
>> but they can also see that some pieces are missing based on their
>> expected square side and only two interacting edges.  They have an
>> hypothesis that something is missing and it is based on their
>> experience and the physical evidence.  I throw out the corners and they
>> have to scratch their heads because I've given them the corners to
>> another puzzle, but they still fit and they still complete the outside
>> of the puzzle.  I tell them that science is full of pieces that don't
>> quite fit, but that are good enough to help us get a better idea of
>> what it is that we are working on.

>> As the puzzle gets completed I make them note how the qualitative as
>> well as quantitative nature of the hypotheses that they are testing
>> improves as they acquire more knowledge of what the picture looks like.
>>  The picture never gets perfect because the corners don't match, but it
>> is obviously good enough to get a pretty good idea of what the picture
>> is.

>> I don't think that I've ever brought up creationism or ID in this
>> lecture, but if you want to you can just state the fact that ID as a
>> "concept" has never been able to place a piece in the puzzle of nature.
>>  They have tested quite a few pieces to see if they fit, but there
>> isn't a single one left in place at the end of the day.  Essentially,
>> it is a concept with a 100% failure rate upon testing.  The only pieces
>> left on the board are the ones that haven't been tested yet.  It has
>> been found to be worse than just randomly picking any two pieces and
>> trying them to see if they fit.  If any student doesn't believe this,
>> just ask them for a single piece that ID has placed in our scientific
>> knowledge.  You won't find a list of these things at the Discovery
>> Institute because there are no ID scientific successes.  The farce is
>> that they have lists of scientists that were or are religious and state
>> their scientific successes without telling anyone that usually these
>> guys were responsible for kicking out an ID piece from where it didn't
>> belong.  These guys are known for their scientific contributions and
>> not their ID contributions.  This is why many scientists define science
>> in such a way that ID is excluded from consideration.  It simply has
>> never worked, and it has been a monumental waste of time.  Definitions
>> like those that exclude ID get put in place to protect the incompetent
>> from themselves.  Most rational scientist can figure out for themselves
>> that they can think about ID, but they can't really expect to use it
>> for anything.  Not a single success and a 100% failure rate upon
>> testing is pretty convincing to most scientists.

>> Ron Okimoto

>Post of the Month nomination.  While we are at it, get some nails and fix it
>to the door of every creationist organization.  Send it in to all those
>newpapers that publixhed letters and comumns from the Discovery Institute.
>(You might even get paid for spreading the good word.)

>Sir, permission to use this article/method in classes, please?

>--
>Mike Dworetsky

>(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

>>Robert Grumbine wrote:

>>>In article <1107307667.733610.109...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> <hbarw...@troyst.edu> wrote:

>>>>This sort of ignorance is exactly why I begin each semester with an
>>>>anlysis of what is, and is not, "science".

>>>  I make it one of my early labs when I teach astronomy.

>>>  How do you teach it or about it?

>>>--
>>>Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

>>activities notes and links.

>>I found that I had to teach the nature of science at both the
>>undergraduate and graduate levels for the honors class and molecular
>>genetics class that I taught.  Even at the graduate level the
>>understanding of science cannot be taken for granted.  It turned into
>>my one lecture speel.  I'd hand out essays by Richard Feynman and Peter
>>Medewar on the nature of science for the students to read and then we'd
>>work on a jigsaw puzzle.  I'd use the puzzle as an example of how
>>science works.  I'd use those cheap 100 piece kid puzzles that you can
>>buy at WalMart.  I found that the two puzzles that I purchased had an
>>identical cut out pattern with different pictures.

>>The first thing that we'd do is turn over the pieces and I'd try and
>>get the students to think about the problem.  Just looking at the
>>pieces, can they come to some sort of idea of what the picture was.
>>Unless you have sometype of super genius that can assemble the pieces
>>in their mind the students can only come up with vague ideas of what
>>the picture might be.  We do this in science all the time.  Even the
>>assumption that it will make a picture that they can make sense of
>>should be pointed out to them.  Try and get them to think about what
>>they are doing.  When they start to assemble the puzzle ask them what
>>they are doing.  None of the students I've had have tried the random
>>assembly of just putting any two pieces together.  Get them to
>>understand that they are hypothesis testing by grouping the pieces by
>>whatever character that they are using (color, pattern, shape).  Ask
>>them why their hypotheses fail so often.  Get them to understand the
>>problem that science deals with when you make assumptions based in
>>incomplete data.  If they were able to take all the characteristics of
>>each piece and make a perfect analysis they would never be wrong in
>>their choice of which pieces fit where, but using the mark I eyeball
>>and only a limited set of characters you often make mistakes.  You have
>>to expect to be wrong quite often in science.  You have to be able to
>>test your hypotheses.

>>A few students always assemble the edge of the puzzle first.  I point
>>out that this is just what scientist try and do when they create a
>>framework and build on it.  We usually get the easiest pieces in place
>>first and the edges are the easiest pieces to fit because they only
>>have three interacting sides to consider.  Science does what it can and
>>builds on it.  About this time someone notices that I've taken away the
>>corner pieces.  When they ask for the corners I ask them how they know
>>that the puzzle has corners.  It isn't a trick question.  We make
>>assumptions like this all the time, and it is based on our experience,
>>but they can also see that some pieces are missing based on their
>>expected square side and only two interacting edges.  They have an
>>hypothesis that something is missing and it is based on their
>>experience and the physical evidence.  I throw out the corners and they
>>have to scratch their heads because I've given them the corners to
>>another puzzle, but they still fit and they still complete the outside
>>of the puzzle.  I tell them that science is full of pieces that don't
>>quite fit, but that are good enough to help us get a better idea of
>>what it is that we are working on.

>>As the puzzle gets completed I make them note how the qualitative as
>>well as quantitative nature of the hypotheses that they are testing
>>improves as they acquire more knowledge of what the picture looks like.
>> The picture never gets perfect because the corners don't match, but it
>>is obviously good enough to get a pretty good idea of what the picture
>>is.

>>I don't think that I've ever brought up creationism or ID in this
>>lecture, but if you want to you can just state the fact that ID as a
>>"concept" has never been able to place a piece in the puzzle of nature.
>> They have tested quite a few pieces to see if they fit, but there
>>isn't a single one left in place at the end of the day.  Essentially,
>>it is a concept with a 100% failure rate upon testing.  The only pieces
>>left on the board are the ones that haven't been tested yet.  It has
>>been found to be worse than just randomly picking any two pieces and
>>trying them to see if they fit.  If any student doesn't believe this,
>>just ask them for a single piece that ID has placed in our scientific
>>knowledge.  You won't find a list of these things at the Discovery
>>Institute because there are no ID scientific successes.  The farce is
>>that they have lists of scientists that were or are religious and state
>>their scientific successes without telling anyone that usually these
>>guys were responsible for kicking out an ID piece from where it didn't
>>belong.  These guys are known for their scientific contributions and
>>not their ID contributions.  This is why many scientists define science
>>in such a way that ID is excluded from consideration.  It simply has
>>never worked, and it has been a monumental waste of time.  Definitions
>>like those that exclude ID get put in place to protect the incompetent
>>from themselves.  Most rational scientist can figure out for themselves
>>that they can think about ID, but they can't really expect to use it
>>for anything.  Not a single success and a 100% failure rate upon
>>testing is pretty convincing to most scientists.

>>Ron Okimoto

> Post of the Month nomination.  While we are at it, get some nails and fix it
> to the door of every creationist organization.  Send it in to all those
> newpapers that publixhed letters and comumns from the Discovery Institute.
> (You might even get paid for spreading the good word.)

> Sir, permission to use this article/method in classes, please?

> Mike Dworetsky wrote:

>><rokim...@mail.uark.edu> wrote in message
>>news:1107829738.090845.112680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>>>Robert Grumbine wrote:

>>>>In article <1107307667.733610.109...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>>><hbarw...@troyst.edu> wrote:

>>>>>This sort of ignorance is exactly why I begin each semester with an
>>>>>anlysis of what is, and is not, "science".

>>>> I make it one of my early labs when I teach astronomy.

>>>> How do you teach it or about it?

>>>>--
>>>>Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

>>>activities notes and links.

>>>I found that I had to teach the nature of science at both the
>>>undergraduate and graduate levels for the honors class and molecular
>>>genetics class that I taught.  Even at the graduate level the
>>>understanding of science cannot be taken for granted.  It turned into
>>>my one lecture speel.  I'd hand out essays by Richard Feynman and Peter
>>>Medewar on the nature of science for the students to read and then we'd
>>>work on a jigsaw puzzle.  I'd use the puzzle as an example of how
>>>science works.  I'd use those cheap 100 piece kid puzzles that you can
>>>buy at WalMart.  I found that the two puzzles that I purchased had an
>>>identical cut out pattern with different pictures.

>>>The first thing that we'd do is turn over the pieces and I'd try and
>>>get the students to think about the problem.  Just looking at the
>>>pieces, can they come to some sort of idea of what the picture was.
>>>Unless you have sometype of super genius that can assemble the pieces
>>>in their mind the students can only come up with vague ideas of what
>>>the picture might be.  We do this in science all the time.  Even the
>>>assumption that it will make a picture that they can make sense of
>>>should be pointed out to them.  Try and get them to think about what
>>>they are doing.  When they start to assemble the puzzle ask them what
>>>they are doing.  None of the students I've had have tried the random
>>>assembly of just putting any two pieces together.  Get them to
>>>understand that they are hypothesis testing by grouping the pieces by
>>>whatever character that they are using (color, pattern, shape).  Ask
>>>them why their hypotheses fail so often.  Get them to understand the
>>>problem that science deals with when you make assumptions based in
>>>incomplete data.  If they were able to take all the characteristics of
>>>each piece and make a perfect analysis they would never be wrong in
>>>their choice of which pieces fit where, but using the mark I eyeball
>>>and only a limited set of characters you often make mistakes.  You have
>>>to expect to be wrong quite often in science.  You have to be able to
>>>test your hypotheses.

>>>A few students always assemble the edge of the puzzle first.  I point
>>>out that this is just what scientist try and do when they create a
>>>framework and build on it.  We usually get the easiest pieces in place
>>>first and the edges are the easiest pieces to fit because they only
>>>have three interacting sides to consider.  Science does what it can and
>>>builds on it.  About this time someone notices that I've taken away the
>>>corner pieces.  When they ask for the corners I ask them how they know
>>>that the puzzle has corners.  It isn't a trick question.  We make
>>>assumptions like this all the time, and it is based on our experience,
>>>but they can also see that some pieces are missing based on their
>>>expected square side and only two interacting edges.  They have an
>>>hypothesis that something is missing and it is based on their
>>>experience and the physical evidence.  I throw out the corners and they
>>>have to scratch their heads because I've given them the corners to
>>>another puzzle, but they still fit and they still complete the outside
>>>of the puzzle.  I tell them that science is full of pieces that don't
>>>quite fit, but that are good enough to help us get a better idea of
>>>what it is that we are working on.

>>>As the puzzle gets completed I make them note how the qualitative as
>>>well as quantitative nature of the hypotheses that they are testing
>>>improves as they acquire more knowledge of what the picture looks like.
>>>The picture never gets perfect because the corners don't match, but it
>>>is obviously good enough to get a pretty good idea of what the picture
>>>is.

>>>I don't think that I've ever brought up creationism or ID in this
>>>lecture, but if you want to you can just state the fact that ID as a
>>>"concept" has never been able to place a piece in the puzzle of nature.
>>>They have tested quite a few pieces to see if they fit, but there
>>>isn't a single one left in place at the end of the day.  Essentially,
>>>it is a concept with a 100% failure rate upon testing.  The only pieces
>>>left on the board are the ones that haven't been tested yet.  It has
>>>been found to be worse than just randomly picking any two pieces and
>>>trying them to see if they fit.  If any student doesn't believe this,
>>>just ask them for a single piece that ID has placed in our scientific
>>>knowledge.  You won't find a list of these things at the Discovery
>>>Institute because there are no ID scientific successes.  The farce is
>>>that they have lists of scientists that were or are religious and state
>>>their scientific successes without telling anyone that usually these
>>>guys were responsible for kicking out an ID piece from where it didn't
>>>belong.  These guys are known for their scientific contributions and
>>>not their ID contributions.  This is why many scientists define science
>>>in such a way that ID is excluded from consideration.  It simply has
>>>never worked, and it has been a monumental waste of time.  Definitions
>>>like those that exclude ID get put in place to protect the incompetent

>>>from themselves.  Most rational scientist can figure out for themselves

>>>that they can think about ID, but they can't really expect to use it
>>>for anything.  Not a single success and a 100% failure rate upon
>>>testing is pretty convincing to most scientists.

>>>Ron Okimoto

>>Post of the Month nomination.  While we are at it, get some nails and fix it
>>to the door of every creationist organization.  Send it in to all those
>>newpapers that publixhed letters and comumns from the Discovery Institute.
>>(You might even get paid for spreading the good word.)

>>Sir, permission to use this article/method in classes, please?

> SECONDED!!!

> I can use this analogy with my daughters.

> Dean Chesterman

> Great post, thanks for taking the time to write it.
> And I *love* the "solving the puzzle" method of
> getting students to think about the scientific method.

> If I could offer one minor tweak to it, though, you might
> want to just "hide" 3-4 pieces entirely, to simulate
> "missing links" (unavailable data) and so on.  This will
> help the students to understand that even though there
> may be "gaps" left in the "big picture", the mostly-completed
> picture as a whole (even with the gaps) still gives a
> usable and understandable "view" of the overall pattern
> (e.g. "it's a fishing boat" or whatever the jigsaw puzzle
> is depicting), and that it's possible to make reasonable inferences
> about what's "in the holes" even if we can't currently lay our hands
> on the actual pieces.

> You could also use the "holes" to impart a lesson about
> the creationists (et al) who fixate on the *holes* (the
> gaps in the evidence or knowledge) as an excuse to refuse to
> draw any conclusions about the parts of the puzzle which *have*
> been found and assembled.  Additionally, you could point out
> that some people (*cough*creationists*cough*, and others)
> like to hold out hope that a special "something" is hiding
> in those "gaps" (missing puzzle pieces), like say the Tooth
> Fairy (or whatever), even though from looking at the hole
> in the puzzle in the context of the surrounding pieces,
> the missing piece looks most likely to just be more of the
> same (e.g. the ship captain's left arm and a piece of the
> pilot house)...

> In short, this covers:

> 1.  The process of inferring/predicting missing evidence from
> patterns in existing evidence,

> 2.  The "can't see the pattern for the gaps" problem of the
> creationists and others (as in "missing link" complaints, etc.),
> and

> 3.  The "god of the gaps" fallacy.