Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[JoeEllison]

Now, if you absolutely insist on calling Behe and his ilk "creationists", neither I nor they can stop you, but they don't call themselves by that term, and there is a significant difference between the beliefs of those who do not call themselves creationists, and those who do.

The real difference? Behe is a bigger liar than your run of the mill creationist.

 

[rittjc]

I've read creationist posts that say that true blue scientists are actually pushing creationism as an actual scientific explanation as to how the earth was formed and how living things came about. I mean did these so called scientists go to university and take the courses and get an actual degree in science? Biologists?
Anthropologists? etc? If the answer is yes thaen give me a few names. I've read that some biology students refuse to take a class taught by a creationist.

Are their actually evolutionists with a brain?

 

[JoeEllison]

Are their actually evolutionists with a brain?

Since 99.999% of top-level scientists in pretty much every field are "evolutionists"(your made up term, not mine), the answer would likely be "yes".

The question you should ask yourself is whether or not a post insulting the intelligence of others should confuse the word "their" with the word "there".

 

[Meadmaker]

Wikipedia provides good definitions for three terms that have been used here:

(Each of the below statements come from the first sentences of the articles on the respective terms.)

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed.

Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[

Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory.



It should be able to see how one could believe in intelligent design, but reject creationism. Some people prefer to say that someone like Michael Behe and his ilk are just lying, but personally, I find that to be silly. Why is it so easy to believe that you know their beliefs so well that when they claim to believe something else, they are lying? Isn't the idea that they are telling the truth about their own beliefs just a bit easier to swallow?

 

[JoeEllison]

It should be able to see how one could believe in intelligent design, but reject creationism. Some people prefer to say that someone like Michael Behe and his ilk are just lying, but personally, I find that to be silly. Why is it so easy to believe that you know their beliefs so well that when they claim to believe something else, they are lying? Isn't the idea that they are telling the truth about their own beliefs just a bit easier to swallow?

Only "easier to swallow" if you haven't followed the history of the creationist movement. If you've been following their activities for a few years, you can pick out their pattern of dishonesty and hypocrisy. You should read about the "Wedge Strategy" and follow the links. Behe and others of his ilk are part of a fundamentalist right-wing movement to attack evidence-based science and America's secular form of government.

 

[Meadmaker]

So everyone who is part of that movement has identical beliefs?

Behe believes what he believes. His politics align him with people who believe something that is slightly different than what he believes.

I'm a registered Democrat, and I have never voted for anyone except Democrats for President, Senate, or with one exception, House of Representatives. So, do you think you can tell me what my position is on school vouchers? Minimum wage laws? The War in Iraq? Taxes?

I'm for them. I'm for them, and think the recent raise was a good idea. Get the heck out. Raise them.

He might be part of the same movement. That doesn't mean he shares every single one of their beliefs.

 

[JoeEllison]

He might be part of the same movement. That doesn't mean he shares every single one of their beliefs.

I think you're grasping at straws here, for reasons beyond my understanding. Let's split the difference, and just say that he's willing to work towards right-wing fundamentalist Christian goals, regardless of how much his personal beliefs align with theirs.

 

[volatile]

Dawkins quotes the case of Kurt Wise, who got a PhD in Geophysics from Harvard, supervised by Stephen J. Gould of all people, and still stood firm in his hard-line creationism.

His story is explained here, and it is literally tear-jerkingly tragic to read.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let's split the difference, and just say that he's willing to work towards right-wing fundamentalist Christian goals, regardless of how much his personal beliefs align with theirs.

Certainly, that's true.

 

[Mozybyte]

"Are there actually creationists who are scientists?"
Two of my Psychiatrists wear crucifixes around their neck, one of them is the most respected practitioner on the Land.
My other psychiatrists I don't know what they believe in. they engage me with so much caution, that I dare say that they too, are not very confident about themselves.

 

[drkitten]

[litella]Never mind[/litella]

 

[drkitten]

"Creationism" is the belief that life did not evolve, but was created, as is, or at least very like as it is today.

And the fact that Meadmaker makes this statement while knowing it to be untrue shows something about how many lies creationists are willing to tell to sell their snake oil.

In fact, the creationists are very careful NOT to make that statement because it would violate the "Big Tent" that groups like the Discovery Institute are trying to create in support of "creationism."

Now, it is true that sophisticated creationists are very wary about using the word "creationist," but this has nothing to do with ideological differences. It simply stems from the fact that, under US case law, "creationism" is a religion and cannot be taught without violating church-state separation. Therefore, many if not most creationists call themselves something else to avoid using the legally-actionable word.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think you're grasping at straws here, for reasons beyond my understanding.

If you want to understand my reasons, read DrK's response.

I have a visceral reaction against people who simply cannot grasp the possibility that they might misunderstand someone else's position, and prefer to think that their adversaries are lying, instead of taking the much simpler explanation that they themselves are mistaken.

Wikipedia's definitions are quite good, and I think they accurately describe the difference between ID and creationism. So, if I am lying, or have been duped, so is wikipedia.

FWIW, I actually liked your assertion that they were, indeed, the same, because all you had to do is follow the money. As political positions, they're indistinguishable, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

As for DrK, he's on the record as repeatedly asserting that I am obviously a fundamentalist Christian in disguise. (Search for the phrase "fibs for Jesus" in the archives.) I've had a few responses to that nonsense, but my own personal favorite was, "Please don't tell the rabbi. He thinks I'm an agnostic."

 

[Jeff Corey]

"Are there actually creationists who are scientists?"
Two of my Psychiatrists wear crucifixes around their neck, one of them is the most respected practitioner on the Land...

Which land is that? Mine wears a yamaka.
And since when are psychiatrists scientists?

 

[Mr. Scott]

God Needs Help From False Witness

Dawkins quotes the case of Kurt Wise, who got a PhD in Geophysics from Harvard, supervised by Stephen J. Gould of all people, and still stood firm in his hard-line creationism.

His story is explained here, and it is literally tear-jerkingly tragic to read.

Thanks so much for linking to that story! Here's a sentence I particularly liked:

Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he [Kurt Wise] seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

Dawkins is the man.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

There are creationists that set up creationist "science" institutions. They teach their own kinds of science, and hand out diplomas and such. Kent Hovind attended such an institution. He considers himself to be a scientist.

I've read creationist posts that say that true blue scientists are actually pushing creationism as an actual scientific explanation as to how the earth was formed and how living things came about. I mean did these so called scientists go to university and take the courses and get an actual degree in science? Biologists?

Walter Veith, a zoologist, was a scientist, and then went nutty and is telling everybody that archeologists and paleontologists have to lie to the masses about the real age of the earth, blah blah.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/professing_creation.asp

Creationuts love scientists that will support their viewpoints on how things got to be on earth.

I have taken biology classes from a creationist. They really do frac you over in the classes in refusing to teach what real science is. They teach the same kind of lies that Veith tells you instead, and you are left thinking scientists are crackpots. I was really angry when I took a class by someone who taught what the science really was, with the scientific method. I discovered who the liars and crackpots were then. I now hate creationists who lie about science to further their own agendas.

Behe has been mentioned too. Again, there is someone who is completely dishonest. He knows most people don't know jack about anything, so he uses that to his advantage. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Behe knows what he presents is not true, but most other people don't know that. When his crap was taken apart in court, even the judge knew he was full of it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html

Hovind may be somewhat innocent, but Veith and Behe are liars.

 

[Mozybyte]

Which land is that? Mine wears a yamaka.
And since when are psychiatrists scientists?

I'm in Kangaroo Ground, upside down as always... As to the introspection of psychiatrists, it is a mystery to me too, but they do come from the Medical Sciences, just goes to show to the relevance of framed papers on the wall, accreditations should come in rolls, preferably soft and strong and maybe with an aroma.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The real difference? Behe is a bigger liar than your run of the mill creationist.

That's saying a lot.

Some people prefer to say that someone like Michael Behe and his ilk are just lying, but personally, I find that to be silly. Why is it so easy to believe that you know their beliefs so well that when they claim to believe something else, they are lying? Isn't the idea that they are telling the truth about their own beliefs just a bit easier to swallow?

Why, no, it's not. It's possible, but it's not the most liekly explanation. If someone says that they think the Earth is flat, what is the most reasonable explanation? That they believe it, or that they're screwing with you?

I've read creationist posts that say that true blue scientists are actually pushing creationism as an actual scientific explanation as to how the earth was formed and how living things came about.

Well, if they reject the science that supports evolution, then they aren't true blue scientists.

I mean did these so called scientists go to university and take the courses and get an actual degree in science? Biologists?

I've heard that this is a strategy they're pursuing: going to school, getting degrees, then using those degrees to lend their work credibility. I don't know of any names, but it certainly is possible. Certainly, if there were atheists as determined to deceive people as creationists are, one can imagine one going to theology school and getting a divinity degree simply to discredit religion.

For the most part, though, the "real scientists" who are alleged to support creationism, are phantoms, cranks, or people who studied fields that have nothing to do with evolution. It's no coincidence that a lot of prominent ID supporters and creationists are in my own chosen profession, engineering. My colleagues are drawn to making gizmos, and they think God does the same.

And one of those most prominent ones is a LAWYER.

*(Intelligent Design is not actually creationism, no matter what you will hear on this forum, but it is very, very, close.

They are overlapping categories.

"Creationism" is the belief that life did not evolve, but was created, as is, or at least very like as it is today.

That is one form of creationism.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Intelligent design" is the belief that design is evident in the universe. The most commonly cited "evidence" of this design is "life is so complicated that it couldn't have arisen without a designer."

"Creationism" is the belief that life did not evolve, but was created, as is, or at least very like as it is today.

So, Michael Behe believes that once upon a time, there were single celled organisms. They mutated and formed colonies. Those mutated and formed plants and animals. Those kept mutating and having descendants that were very much, but not exactly, like their parents, until one of them looked an awful lot like us, and at that point, God said he was done and called that one "Adam".

The difference between Behe and us is that he thinks those mutations were no accident. He thinks God made those mutations happen. Furthermore, he thinks that the mutations were so improbable that they couldn't have happened without divine intervention.

One of the reasons for the confusion is, indeed, that book "Of Pandas and People". They wrote a book about creationism, and then changed the word creationism to "Intelligent Design", but described it just as they had described creationism. Reading that book, a lot of people said, "Now just a gol darned minute. We believe in intelligent design, but we don't believe all that stuff about creating fish with fins. We just believe it couldn't have happened without God."

Over time, the different camps have been clarified, so that Michael Behe, and people like him, say that they are not creationists, because they don't believe that organisms were "created", as in "created from nothing". They believe that organisms were formed through divinely guided evolution.

Now, if you absolutely insist on calling Behe and his ilk "creationists", neither I nor they can stop you, but they don't call themselves by that term, and there is a significant difference between the beliefs of those who do not call themselves creationists, and those who do.

First, there is absolutely no difference between an ID'er and a Creationist. Both presupposes an intelligent, supernatural designer. The rest is just a smokescreen, to fool people like you.

Second, Behe is a Creationist: He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
Richard Dawkins, November 8, 1996

 

[Roboramma]

Richard Gentner, (I think I have the name right) a geologist, once got a paper published in a respected scientific journal despite the fact that it promoted a young Earth model. (I believe this was in 1987.)

Just to clarify - he's not a geologist, he's a nuclear physicist. Here's a link I found about him with a quick google: http://www.creationists.org/Robert_Gentry.html
and the full wiki-article (the other posted earlier in the thread just had a link to this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry)

Just because I think it's an important distinction. Nuclear physics does of course have bearing the polonium halos thing, but he can't be expected to fully understand the issues of geology.