Blinded by (Pop!) science

In today's edition of show and tell, we talk about evolution in a box.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Two recent articles cast doubt on the claim that evolutionists rely on factual information to teach students their theory. When computers are programmed to make evolution happen on a screen, does it convey to what really happens in the wild?

“There’s a huge disconnect,” Dittmar says. “The universities all accept evolution as fact. It’s not a question. But many high schools and middle schools don’t want to touch it. They don’t want to deal with the politics of it.” [1.]

- Evolution can't be a 'fact' if we don't know what it is; or if we don't have a definition of it we can all accept. When the term (E.) is used in such a multitude of ways, when it has so many varying connotations, how can it be a fact?

If we define evolution as change; then obviously E. is a fact... but no one denies that change occurs. Evolution has to mean something more than change to have any meaningful content.
To use the word evolution without defining it, is at best an exercise in obfuscation. No creationist denies the variation that is called micro-evolution. (A phenomenon that might better be called devolution.)

- Darwinists are famous for giving evidence of micro-evolution (variation) as proof of macro-evolution... when the two are utterly different. (Talk about disconnects.)

2. 'Pop! World uses digital lizards in a flash application to simulate red and green lizards evolving (see demo at popworld15.appspot.com). The gamey intro heavily emphasizes the visualization of the computer world. [1.]

- The new strategy for Darwinists is to forget about proving evolution, and merely showing it happen instead... and to hide the phoniness of the programming, and the fact the videos prove nothing. These aren't proofs (evidence) of evolution, but merely animated videos that show it. i.e. the programming ensures that e. will happen. (How many students will be able to see the fallacies embedded in the programming? How many will even care?) These are just cartoons, and have nothing to do with legitimate science.

- It's sad, but I'm afraid true, that in a visual culture you don't have to prove things, all you have to do is show pictures; the image carries the day (or carries the argument).

Notes;
1. Selling Evolution with Video Games and Stories - C/E Headlines 1/23/2011
2. 'PhysOrg reported that educators at the University of Buffalo are using “cloud computing” (software that accesses free internet resources) to make evolution more visually stimulating for students. An application alarmingly called Pop! World is the key to taking the video game culture and selling evolution with it:
3. "That visual appeal is also expected to go far with middle-school and high-school biology students, groups the UB team hopes to excite about evolution..."
- I'm not sure what students are supposed to be excited about... survival of the fittest?
e.g. From an article in Astrobiology;
"For all their power to create life in the world that we know, Darwinian processes have some well-understood disadvantages. For example, they condemn some of our children to die of genetic diseases in order to “allow” others among our children to adapt. For every mutation that allows some children to be bigger, better, and smarter, Darwinian processes require dozens of other mutations that make some children sick. Death from genetic maladaptation inherently goes with adaptation.'' - Steve Benner
- I see no evidence Darwinian processes created the first life forms on this planet. We observe the 'disadvantages' but we don't not observe the 'miracle' of darwinian creation. This 'power to create' is simply a necessary deduction of believing in a materialist worldview. It's not based on empirical observation.
4. Just for the fun of it, I'll point out that a university can't accept or reject anything; being not a person but an abstraction and institution.