Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[Damien Evans]

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.

If you're talking about the Kangaroo Ground I think you're talking about, then you live about ten k's down the road from me

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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."

What is the useful distinction?

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

How is it incompetence if it is willful? The point is that he is intentionaly being dishonnest, not making a mistake. That is a lie, it does not matter if he believes it.

 

[Meadmaker]

That pretty much leaves insanity and dishonesty.

And cognitive dissonance.

Even more than willful ignorance I would say they are guilty of selective skepticism.

 

[Jennie C.]

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.

Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? In order to be a member, you have to have a doctorate in some "related field." I don't know what all of those fields are, though things like biology, physics, etc, are obvous.

My dad was a member. He was a veterinarian.

 

[Art Vandelay]

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

In law, there is a concept called "constructive knowledge", in which once information is available to you, you are considered to know it. For instance, if you are properly served a cease and desist letter, and you simply refuse to open the letter, you cannot later claim that you weren't aware of the contents of the letter. Why technically it might be true that you don't know what the letter says, you have constructive knowledge of its contents. Without this concept, the entire system would break down. Similarly, if we restrict the concept of a lie merely to actual knowledge, creationists can easily avoid being guilty of it by simply refusing to read any information which contradicts their position. For instance, if they say that no intermediatary forms have been found, they may have heard about intermediatary forms, but deliberately refused to follow up on the claims so that their claim would technically not be a lie. But they have constructive knowledge of them, so really their claim is a lie.

 

[Meadmaker]

In law, there is a concept called "constructive knowledge", .... For instance, if they say that no intermediatary forms have been found, they may have heard about intermediatary forms, but deliberately refused to follow up on the claims so that their claim would technically not be a lie. But they have constructive knowledge of them, so really their claim is a lie.

I think that to make this description of constructive knowledge meaningful, you would have to give a specific instance from a specific speaker.



Let me ask a question in a similar vein. We know that there are several different beliefs held by different sorts of people who think that acts of God were necessary in order to form life as we know it. If someone is made aware that there are different beliefs that share this characteristic, and that there are generally accepted terms (for example those documented in wikipedia, built by consensus of its contributors) that divide those believers into categories, would you say that they have constructive knowledge of the existence of those categories? If, then, they continue to insist that these categories do not exist, and that everyone in one category is actually in both categories, would that then, by the same reasoning, be a lie?

I think that's a bit harsh, myself. I prefer to think they just don't understand.

 

[Meadmaker]

What is "willful ignorance" anyway?

Something that ponderingturtle mentioned, but what I meant by it is mostly related to what Art was calling "constructive knowledge".

If information is available, but someone deliberately chooses not to avail himself of that information, he is remaining willfully ignorant. Someone who makes uninformed claims about evolution, is corrected, but who disregards the correction, or refuses to follow up on correction by checking out references, is willfully ignorant. He has the means to educate himself, but chooses not to do so.

We are all willfully ignorant of some things. There's only so many hours in a day. If someone makes a claim, sometimes I read up on it. Other times, I stick with my preexisting bias, and assume the claim is true if and only if it conforms to my bias. Other times, I accept it uncritically, because I trust the source. In all of those cases, I'm demonstrating willful ignorance. The evidence is available, but for one reason or another, I won't pursue it. I don't think that continuing to hold the belief is a lie.

I think the average creationist never bothers to investigate evolution, therefore remaining willfully ignorant.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

hcg, I wouldn't put dishonesty and insanity beyond many vocal Creationists, both the "leaders" of the movement and the average poster you find on the Internet. I agree that cognative dissonance is another factor and I'd add a combination of ignorance and succepibility to the BS spewed by the dishonest, insane and congatively dissonant Creationist masterminds for why a lot of regular citizens by into their trash.

Speaking of...

Wells would almost elicit sympathy from me, given what disdain most of the DI folks probably have for him while embracing him as an "ally" since he's a cultist and all, but he's just such an {rule 8} that I have a hard time mustering an iota of compassion for him. Icons of Evolution is one of the most ironic books ever in that every item he cites actually is evidence for naturalistic evolution, but because of his desperate twisting of them he, and other C/IDers think are evidence against evolution.

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...

I'm still engaged daily in the battle and I go into the lions den* gladly and willingly. I also communicate with TEs, some of whom are teaching/researching scientists in those same forums. There are scientists who, because of their religious convictions, have to embrace YECism. The vast majority of Christian, etc. scientists, who actually do science, as opposed to work for advocacy groups like AiG or ICR, accept standard Cosmology, Astrophysics, Geology and Biology. The last time I communicated with him in 2001, and I have no reason to think he has changed his perspective, Douglas Theobald, the author of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution essays on Talk Origins was a devout Christian.

There are trained scientists who are Creationists, but they stopped doing science while the believers who are scientists continue doing research.

* Oooops, used a Biblical literary referance, hope that doesn't taint my comments.

 

[articulett]

Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? In order to be a member, you have to have a doctorate in some "related field." I don't know what all of those fields are, though things like biology, physics, etc, are obvous.

My dad was a member. He was a veterinarian.

Yes--they pretend to be doing science, but unlike science, they start with the truth they want, and look for facts to support it--like DI. They don't do any peer review. They want to believe the bible is true and they do a scavenger hunt to find facts which seem to support such claims while trying to poke holes or obfuscate understanding of evolution.

Unrepentant sinner-- have you ever changed anyone's mind or enlightened them. I was, at least, heartened to hear that Behe now concedes "common descent" (human and ape ancestry)-- but if Evangelical Christian, Francis Collins can't convey the facts of evolution to creationists-- who can? They prefer to believe they have the truth rather than to find out the actual facts.

No creationist scientists are publishing creationist hypothesis in peer reviewed science literature that's for sure. And as a whole, I think that Science takes them about as seriously as they take Scientology. Just because people call something "science" doesn't make it "science".

 

[godless dave]

To get an idea of what kind of "science" Behe uses when he describes Intelligent Design, we need to look no further than Kitzmiller v. Dover. Behe had, while being cross-examined, to admit that the definition was so loose that it would also mean that astrology would qualify as "science".

At the same trial, Behe admitted he had not read any of the stack of papers that claimed to refute his claim that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved through mutation and natural selection. Nice science work there, buddy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Project Steve

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement reads:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools

The Steve list.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think that to make this description of constructive knowledge meaningful, you would have to give a specific instance from a specific speaker.



Let me ask a question in a similar vein. We know that there are several different beliefs held by different sorts of people who think that acts of God were necessary in order to form life as we know it. If someone is made aware that there are different beliefs that share this characteristic, and that there are generally accepted terms (for example those documented in wikipedia, built by consensus of its contributors) that divide those believers into categories, would you say that they have constructive knowledge of the existence of those categories? If, then, they continue to insist that these categories do not exist, and that everyone in one category is actually in both categories, would that then, by the same reasoning, be a lie?

I think that's a bit harsh, myself. I prefer to think they just don't understand.

The difference of course being that citing a single (frankly disreputable) source to suggest there is a generally accepted definition of a phrase is in no way comparable with producing evidence to disprove a scientific theory. For example a quick google on the exact phrase "intelligent design creationism" produces around 117,000 matches - which suggest that your assertion that they are different is NOT generally accepted.

And unsurprisingly wikipedia also has pages that disagree with your view. For example under "neo-creationism" we find:

"Two forms of neo-creationism are intelligent design and abrupt appearance theory"

Under intelligent design:

"The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign "

"Critics of intelligent design and its movement contend that intelligent design is a specific form of creationism"

And a quick google confirms that most of the results that claim that intelligent design is different from creationism are pro-ID sites. To suggest that because one side of the argument makes a claim that a phrase has a particular meaning (even though this is NOT accepted by those who disagree with them) then this is a generally accepted definition could be considered willfully ignorant.

 

[hgc]

At the same trial, Behe admitted he had not read any of the stack of papers that claimed to refute his claim that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved through mutation and natural selection. Nice science work there, buddy.

If this is true -- that he never read the stuff -- then that's a pretty clear case of "willful ignorance," as described by Meadmaker. He knows the refutation exists, but chooses not to avail himself of the information. Of course he's not actually ignorant that flagellum IC is refuted, but he just establishes what he thinks is plausible deniability about his knowlege of refutation. In this scenario, I call him a liar.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm still engaged daily in the battle and I go into the lions den* gladly and willingly. I also communicate with TEs, some of whom are teaching/researching scientists in those same forums. There are scientists who, because of their religious convictions, have to embrace YECism. The vast majority of Christian, etc. scientists, who actually do science, as opposed to work for advocacy groups like AiG or ICR, accept standard Cosmology, Astrophysics, Geology and Biology. The last time I communicated with him in 2001, and I have no reason to think he has changed his perspective, Douglas Theobald, the author of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution essays on Talk Origins was a devout Christian.

There are trained scientists who are Creationists, but they stopped doing science while the believers who are scientists continue doing research.

* Oooops, used a Biblical literary referance, hope that doesn't taint my comments.

That's exactly what I said in my first post to this thread!! That was my experience, as well, when I was more involved in the daily grind of things scientific: very many religious and scientific folks, who knew where to draw the line in order to do good science. And, unfortunately, a very small number of religious people whose beliefs made some aspects of science impossible for them to participate in honestly.

 

[JoeEllison]

I think that to make this description of constructive knowledge meaningful, you would have to give a specific instance from a specific speaker.



Let me ask a question in a similar vein. We know that there are several different beliefs held by different sorts of people who think that acts of God were necessary in order to form life as we know it. If someone is made aware that there are different beliefs that share this characteristic, and that there are generally accepted terms (for example those documented in wikipedia, built by consensus of its contributors) that divide those believers into categories, would you say that they have constructive knowledge of the existence of those categories? If, then, they continue to insist that these categories do not exist, and that everyone in one category is actually in both categories, would that then, by the same reasoning, be a lie?

I think that's a bit harsh, myself. I prefer to think they just don't understand.

Turn it around. Say that someone insists that there are two or more distinct beliefs, when in reality they all fall under the same umbrella belief. If someone is made aware of the "umbrella", and continues to persist in the assertion that the beliefs are somehow separate, isn't that a case of willful ignorance as well?

 

[Meadmaker]

"The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign "

"Critics of intelligent design and its movement contend that intelligent design is a specific form of creationism"

And a quick google confirms that most of the results that claim that intelligent design is different from creationism are pro-ID sites. To suggest that because one side of the argument makes a claim that a phrase has a particular meaning (even though this is NOT accepted by those who disagree with them) then this is a generally accepted definition could be considered willfully ignorant.

In the end, labels mean whatever people agree they mean. Perhaps one side or the other is winning the label war.

I've met people who think like Behe. (My Hindu boss was one.) They believe in common descent and an old Earth, but they think none of it would have been possible without God, and not just some deistic, get things started and lay back sort of God, but an active, interventionist, tweak the DNA, sort of God. What would you call them?

You could call them creationists, if that's very important to you, but they don't call themselves that, and it confuses them with a different group of people who have different beliefs. It confuses them with the people who think that animals (and plants, but no one ever talks about plants) were created out of nothing.

 

[Meadmaker]

If this is true -- that he never read the stuff -- then that's a pretty clear case of "willful ignorance," as described by Meadmaker. He knows the refutation exists, but chooses not to avail himself of the information. Of course he's not actually ignorant that flagellum IC is refuted, but he just establishes what he thinks is plausible deniability about his knowlege of refutation. In this scenario, I call him a liar.

There's only one problem. At trial, Behe was correct. There was nothing, at that time, that refuted his claims about the flagellum. So who's lying?

As I noted earlier, there has since been an extremely detailed model developed which could be said to represent the sort of thing that Behe said didn't exist at the time of the trial. I would like to see his response to it, but it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet. (If I recall from the article, it's scheduled for publication. I could be wrong about that as well. It's possible it was published recently.) At the time of the trial, it didn't exist, and he knew it didn't exist, and he knew that the papers waved in front of him didn't contain it, because he would have heard about it if it existed.

 

[Meadmaker]

Turn it around. Say that someone insists that there are two or more distinct beliefs, when in reality they all fall under the same umbrella belief. If someone is made aware of the "umbrella", and continues to persist in the assertion that the beliefs are somehow separate, isn't that a case of willful ignorance as well?

I should clarify, because that is a point. They do indeed fall under the same umbrella. I have never met a creationist who was not an ID advocate. I have met ID advocates who believe that organisms evolved from common ancestors, and thus don't fall under the generally accepted definition of "creationist", because they don't believe that organisms were "created".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I should clarify, because that is a point. They do indeed fall under the same umbrella. I have never met a creationist who was not an ID advocate. I have met ID advocates who believe that organisms evolved from common ancestors, and thus don't fall under the generally accepted definition of "creationist", because they don't believe that organisms were "created".

It has been demonstrated to you that what you claim is the "generally accepted" definition of creationist is in fact not generally accepted and that your definition is a partisan view of what one side would like creationist to mean.

By persisting in your assertion, without producing evidence, are you not being willfully ignorant?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In the end, labels mean whatever people agree they mean. Perhaps one side or the other is winning the label war.

I've met people who think like Behe. (My Hindu boss was one.) They believe in common descent and an old Earth, but they think none of it would have been possible without God, and not just some deistic, get things started and lay back sort of God, but an active, interventionist, tweak the DNA, sort of God. What would you call them?

What they are - creationists.

You could call them creationists, if that's very important to you, but they don't call themselves that, and it confuses them with a different group of people who have different beliefs. It confuses them with the people who think that animals (and plants, but no one ever talks about plants) were created out of nothing.

I don't care if they try and distance themselves from creationism for political ends (as is clearly spelled out in the Wedge strategy document). If they hold creationist beliefs, they are creationists.

Trying to pretend that they are NOT in fact creationists is a deliberate attempt to create confusion because if they admit they are creationists, they know they cannot get their non-science taught in schools in the US. The evidence clearly deomnstrates this, as the judge in the Dover trial noted.

I know why it is important to them to pretend they are not creationists - why is it important to you to support that argument?