Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[JoeEllison]

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."

Here's the thing: you claim ID and Creationism aren't the same thing based on minor details that actually don't mean anything to ID and Creationism proponents anywhere but on paper. The "differences" only exist to try to lie their way into pushing Creationism in public schools. So, if you claim Behe isn't a Creationist, but he's helping use his completely different ideas to help the Creationist fraud, that makes him a bigger liar than your average Creationist. At least your average one just admits that they want Jesus back in the schools, which is more integrity than the ID proponents like Behe have.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well there is a such thing as theistic evolutionists and I guess religious scientists are of that school of thought.

I have several TEs who are teaching or practicing scientists on Christianforums that I interact with regularly.

Explain the difference, then.

ID doesn't say who the designer is, apart from Creationists who wink and nod while saying they don't know. Creationists who embrace ID just talk the ID game and cite DI materials along with AiG etc.

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.

Jonathan Wells. 'Nuff said.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's the thing: you claim ID and Creationism aren't the same thing based on minor details that actually don't mean anything to ID and Creationism proponents anywhere but on paper. The "differences" only exist to try to lie their way into pushing Creationism in public schools. So, if you claim Behe isn't a Creationist, but he's helping use his completely different ideas to help the Creationist fraud, that makes him a bigger liar than your average Creationist. At least your average one just admits that they want Jesus back in the schools, which is more integrity than the ID proponents like Behe have.

The details that separate them are "minor" to you, perhaps. They both believe that God did it. For a lot of people, that's the really, really, important part, and nothing else matters.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who think Behe has a one way ticket to Hell for denying the literal truth of the Bible. I don't think the difference between Sunni and Shia are significant, but they seem to think they ought to blow up themselves and each other to make sure one side wins.

I think the definitions from Wikipedia are correct, and I don't see any reason to assume that these people are lying. The only thing that I have ever read that comes close is their discussions saying that "the designer" need not be God. That's disingenuous. Of course they think it's God. Even that, though, may or may not be a lie depending on the context. I have never read an ID proponent who denied that they believed the designer was God, just that they say the designer is God based on faith.

For what it's worth, I've heard people insist that ID proponents are all Christians, too. I'm quite certain that's incorrect. My former boss, a Hindu, supported ID.

 

[JoeEllison]

Jonathan Wells. 'Nuff said.

Yeah, he's another stupidly dishonest Creationist.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

I missed the part where they said he was lying. I saw the parts that said he was wrong, and you'll get no argument from me about those parts. I just don't think there's any reason to assume he does not believe what he says.

 

[articulett]

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".

I'm not sure there any YECs with a brain...

There are many "intelligent design proponents" who will say they are not creationists... maybe Francis Collins falls into that category... they think "evolution" was the way god chose to make life come about... that god lies outside science and can't be perceived by science-- they may use the "goldilocks universe" or "morality" to support their claims and still believe in souls or similar super natural entities and include that life has some "higher purpose". I don't mind them so much, except they are really dense in comprehending the parts of evolution that keep their designer alive. I suppose they are necessary so the crazies don't run around thinking teaching evolution leads to atheism--

Understanding evolution really seems to make god superflous and a Christian god a recipe for some weird semantic gymnastics and major cognitive dissonance.

Anyone who obfuscates understanding of evolution or other science in order to facilitate their own or someone else's belief in the invisible, immeasurable force or entity is a creationist in my book. Many people who dash in to defend religion or deride Dawkins are undercover creationist I've found.

 

[volatile]

I'm not sure there any YECs with a brain...

There most certainly are. And I think it probably makes it more difficult for us as sceptics to combat them if we underestimate their intelligence. Some of these guys are pretty damn smart - they're just indoctrinated.

I remember reading somewhere about the psychology of religion, and that it's perfectly possible to compartmentalise religious belief from the rest of one's rational capacities. People like Kurt Wise are very, very intelligent people. We won't win the argument by labelling all creationists thick. We need to engage the more intelligent amongst them with the type of evidence and critical thinking they are perfectly capable of, and engage with in other areas every day of their lives.

They've been brainwashed. Indoctrinated since birth. But they aren't stupid or, indeed, beyond redemption.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not sure there any YECs with a brain...

There are many "intelligent design proponents" who will say they are not creationists... maybe Francis Collins falls into that category... they think "evolution" was the way god chose to make life come about... that god lies outside science and can't be perceived by science--

Sorry to snip what I consider a tangental anti-Christian rant (that's just my opinion of it, not an unbiased evaluation), but Francis Collins is decidedly a TE, and as far as I know has not alligned himself with the ID movement Creationists in disguise or not.

I don't think its a reach in the least to conflate most IDers with Creationists, but I think it's one to conflate TEs with YECs and via guilt by association with IDers.

Joe, since I think words mean things, "Creationist" with a capital C means something specific to me and Jonothan Wells isn't one. I only use capital C Creationist when referring to YEC fundies. Wells is definately the odd duck. He's an anti-evolutionist/anti-atheist, really rather annoying, and Icons of Evolution is a pack of lies and distortions... but I don't consider him a Creationist.

 

[JoeEllison]

There most certainly are. And I think it probably makes it more difficult for us as sceptics to combat them if we underestimate their intelligence. Some of these guys are pretty damn smart - they're just indoctrinated.

I remember reading somewhere about the psychology of religion, and that it's perfectly possible to compartmentalise religious belief from the rest of one's rational capacities. People like Kurt Wise are very, very intelligent people. We won't win the argument by labelling all creationists thick. We need to engage the more intelligent amongst them with the type of evidence and critical thinking they are perfectly capable of, and engage with in other areas every day of their lives.

They've been brainwashed. Indoctrinated since birth. But they aren't stupid or, indeed, beyond redemption.

On the other hand, the smart ones may be beyond our help. I can talk a dumb person into or out of a lot of things. A smart person has probably come up with a million "good" reasons why they should believe something dumb. How do you really compete with that?

 

[JoeEllison]

Joe, since I think words mean things, "Creationist" with a capital C means something specific to me and Jonothan Wells isn't one. I only use capital C Creationist when referring to YEC fundies. Wells is definately the odd duck. He's an anti-evolutionist/anti-atheist, really rather annoying, and Icons of Evolution is a pack of lies and distortions... but I don't consider him a Creationist.

I think words mean things too... just not always what YOU think they mean.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think words mean things too... just not always what YOU think they mean.

Hah! Point taken. Just one question how many C/IDers do you interact with on the 'Net on a daily basis?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

The thing is that you are requiring them to either be liars or idiots. They claim that ID is something more than a philosophical position but a scientific theory. So they are either remarkably and willfully ignorant or lying. As they likely have had the reasons why ID is not a scientific theory pointed out to them repeatedly, the only coarse left is dishonesty.

After you get corrected and shown your mistake, if you continue to hold a position that has been shown to be in error you are being highly dishonest, and that generally is a good way to describe a liar.

 

[CFLarsen]

Jonathan Wells. 'Nuff said.

Speaking of...

Book Review: Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells
No biologist worth her or his salt would deny that the fossil record is incomplete. At best, we have a sketchy idea. However, stating that an inaccuracy in general biology textbooks is proof that the modern theory of evolution must be wrong is beyond ludicrous. Yet this seems to be the reasoning of Rev. Jonathan Wells' book "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth."

 

[JoeEllison]

Hah! Point taken. Just one question how many C/IDers do you interact with on the 'Net on a daily basis?

None if I can help it!!

I did battle against the forces of online evil for a couple of years, back when my heart could stand the strain...

 

[articulett]

Well, I made it clear that it's my opinion that Behe and even Collins are creationists per my definition... they see design that natural selection can and does account for. They, personally, would not admit to being creationists I don't think. But Behe makes it hard for people to understand evolution and Collins is fine, just a little sappy. Kurt Wise may not be dumb, but he is delusional. John Nash was a brilliant man, but also schizophrenic. As long as they are not denigrating scientists or proffering science with their religion, I'm fine. But I think there is something odd about people who think the universe exists to bring forth them.

I don't think it does much for science or rational thought to proffer such idea or to infer that if things "look designed" it's because they are. And I reserve the right to categorize creationists as I see fit. I notice they have no problems categorizing evolutionists, non-believers, and anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The details that separate them are "minor" to you, perhaps. They both believe that God did it. For a lot of people, that's the really, really, important part, and nothing else matters.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who think Behe has a one way ticket to Hell for denying the literal truth of the Bible. I don't think the difference between Sunni and Shia are significant, but they seem to think they ought to blow up themselves and each other to make sure one side wins.

I think the definitions from Wikipedia are correct, and I don't see any reason to assume that these people are lying. The only thing that I have ever read that comes close is their discussions saying that "the designer" need not be God. That's disingenuous. Of course they think it's God. Even that, though, may or may not be a lie depending on the context. I have never read an ID proponent who denied that they believed the designer was God, just that they say the designer is God based on faith.

For what it's worth, I've heard people insist that ID proponents are all Christians, too. I'm quite certain that's incorrect. My former boss, a Hindu, supported ID.

So what? ID tries to lie and not claim that it is explicitly about god. of course it is, any being what has that sort of abilities, powers, privileged existence fits into all kinds of definitions of being a god.

That is the fundamental lie about ID, it is a smoke screen to talk about the existence of some sort of god with out using the G-Word. Yes it is not specific to what sort of god it is, but it is all about god.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They've been brainwashed. Indoctrinated since birth. But they aren't stupid or, indeed, beyond redemption.

Of course they are stupid. It does not mean that they are not intelligent, but most people spend most of the time being very stupid, and that certainly includes people like me.

The reason I say this is that their actions and behaviors are stupid, and often willfully stupid. So I don't think it is wrong to characterize them as stupid.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

I wish I could remember where I read this, but Ive seen ID defined as, "Creationism Lite - with no added God!"

I actually find it amusing when discussions get "interesting", and folks are called: ID-iots; Cretinists or Evilutionists.

YBW

 

[Meadmaker]

So they are either remarkably and willfully ignorant or lying. As they likely have had the reasons why ID is not a scientific theory pointed out to them repeatedly, the only coarse left is dishonesty.

After you get corrected and shown your mistake, if you continue to hold a position that has been shown to be in error you are being highly dishonest, and that generally is a good way to describe a liar.

I think willful ignorance is a lot closer to the truth.

They aren't going to believe evolution until someone pulls life out of a test tube, or, at the very least, shows a detailed, step by step, model of how life could have formed (for abiogenesis) or species transformed (for evolution) without divine guidance. As of now, such models are too sketchy to convince them.

Not by coincidence, the closest thing to such a detailed model that I have ever seen is for the bacterial flagellum. After Behe used it as an example of something that couldn't possibly evolve because it was "irreducibly complex", a lot of people set out to figure out, in great detail, how it could have evolved. I would like to see Behe's answer to that model, but as far as I know, no one has presented it to him in a situation where he has been asked to respond. Presumably, he would waffle and change the subject, but I would like to see the response.ETA: The paper I'm referring to is linkable from talkorigins. If anyone is interested, and can't find it, ask, and I'll see if I can provide the link.

Nevertheless, that is quite different from a lie. However, I have encountered your attitude over and over again on JREF. What happens is that someone says, "I have explained it to you several times. You must be lying."

I think there's another explanation. Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation.

 

[hgc]

I think willful ignorance is a lot closer to the truth.
...

What is "willful ignorance" anyway? Sure, I know what the expression means, used it many times myself. But it does embody a contradiction. I assume an act of will to imply a knowlege of what is being willed. In other words, I take some volitional act by means of transfering my intentions in thought to physical behavior and actions. But how does that work with ignorance? Can one will one's self not to know something. Wouldn't a person have to ascertain the fact in order to decide not to know it?

That pretty much leaves insanity and dishonesty.