Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[ponderingturtle]

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.

But you agreed with willful ignorance. That means that there is no intent to understand or correct their statements. As it is intent that differentiates a lie from a mistake, it means that they are lying, because they have the intent.

 

[JoeEllison]

What they are - creationists.



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?

I think at this point, piling up on Meadmaker is going to be less than effective. Instead? Let's try to look at this from another angle.

You mention, correctly, that Intelligent Design is not a scientific position, it is a political strategy. So, let's talk about politics, and how reality and labels can conflict. Take the case of Zell Miller. He's a former Democratic senator... except he's really a Republican. He caucused with the Republicans instead of the Democrats, he supported Bush over Kerry, he spoke at the Republican convention, he's done commercials for Republicans running for office, he behaves in every way like an extremist right-wing Republican...

... but he calls himself a Democrat. Should we just accept that, while pretending that every other fact other than his declaration points in the opposite direction?

 

[pgwenthold]

In terms of whether ID is creationism, why not see what the folks at the DI think. For example, look at their perspective in Of Pandas and People, which is the favored ID "textbook." Before being an ID textbook, it had been a creationist textbook. What was the difference? They took all the places that said "created" and replaced them with "intelligently designed" and replaced all the "creator"s with "designer"s. IOW, it doesn't seem that the DI thinks there is any difference between creationism and ID, except for the words.

This, along with the wedge document, were the two biggest nails in the coffin in the Dover case, showing that ID was nothing but creationism renamed.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Well, then you have to give a definition for "creationism". There are people you are calling "creationists" that don't fit the wikipedia definition.



Here's what dictionary.com has to say:

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

Compare traducianism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1840–50; creation + -ism]

—Related forms
cre·a·tion·ist, noun, adjective
cre·a·tion·is·tic, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source cre·a·tion·ism (krē-ā'shə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

cre·a'tion·ist adj. & n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - creationism

noun
the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

creationism


A literal belief in the biblical account of Creation as it appears in the Book of Genesis. Creationists believe that the creation of the world and all its creatures took place in six calendar days; they therefore deny the theory of evolution.

There are people you are calling "creationists" who don't fit any of those definitions.

If those aren't generally accepted definitions, where can we find one that is generally accepted?




This thread has been hijacked, largely as a result of me, so I want to try to get it back into place just a bit. My point (poorly expressed) was that there are people who are scientists and creationists, but most of them are in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of evolution, and so saying "scientists support creationism" is misleading, because if those "scientists" happen to be veterinarians, engineers, or even physicists, they might never have studied the evidence.

Among working scientists who are in a field where knowledge of evolution is relevant, for example, biochemistry, you will find a few scientists, like Michael Behe, that are often classified as creationists. However, they reject most of what we normally call creationism, including the idea that organisms are created. Their beliefs are so different from what biblical literalists call "creationism", that using that word to describe their beliefs does not fit the definitions found in generally accepted sources, like, for example, dictionaries. Indeed, they do not call themselves creationists. They say that they are advocates of intelligent design, but they are not creationists.

 

[pgwenthold]

Among working scientists who are in a field where knowledge of evolution is relevant, for example, biochemistry, you will find a few scientists, like Michael Behe, that are often classified as creationists. However, they reject most of what we normally call creationism, including the idea that organisms are created. Their beliefs are so different from what biblical literalists call "creationism", that using that word to describe their beliefs does not fit the definitions found in generally accepted sources, like, for example, dictionaries. Indeed, they do not call themselves creationists. They say that they are advocates of intelligent design, but they are not creationists.

And as I pointed out, the institution that most strongly advocates ID does not make any distinction between ID and creationism, except in the name. They consider them substantially indistinguishable.

In the end, it is a "no true creationist" argument, that fails when you compare it to practice.

 

[hgc]

Well, then you have to give a definition for "creationism". There are people you are calling "creationists" that don't fit the wikipedia definition.



Here's what dictionary.com has to say:


There are people you are calling "creationists" who don't fit any of those definitions.

If those aren't generally accepted definitions, where can we find one that is generally accepted?

Perhaps there is no "generally accepted" definitions right now. But I think there's an excellent argument to be made that the dictionaries, which revise infrequently, do not accommodate the new flavors of creationism within its long-established definitions.

When I think about what's the salient issue in defining creationism, it has to do with explaining human and other life-form creation with the intervention of a supernatural entity called "God." That the strains of this belief system now include a blended model (of a sort) with the demonstrated natural process of natural selection does nothing to lessen the godly intervention that makes it creationist above all. It only uses natural selection to try to add a sheen of respectability for those people who believe their lying eyes just a little bit.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

They say that they are advocates of intelligent design, but they are not creationists.

Which is a claim made entirely for political purposes - they can spin it how they want but the facts, as found by the judge in the Dover case, are that intelligent design is creationism in a shiny new wrapper.

If the two are different, how come a search and replace was enough to change a creationist book into an ID book?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In Behe's own words:

BEHE: I'm no deist. I'm a Christian who believes strongly in an active, loving God. Yet as C.S. Lewis insisted, Aslan is "not a tame lion." God answered Job's complaint of suffering not by denying it, but by His majesty and transcendence. God did not place us in a toy world, with all the sharp edges smoothed. Rather, along with the pleasant, He designed a world containing real physical danger: tigers with claws, and remarkable parasites with sophisticated molecular technology. We Christians especially should expect to suffer in this life and, much worse, to witness those dear to us suffer. Yet our faith assures us that through the mystery of suffering with Christ, God will draw out much good.

He's a Bible believer. I call that evidence he's a Creationist in my book in this case.

 

[hgc]

In Behe's own words:

remarkable parasites with sophisticated molecular technology

He's a Bible believer. I call that evidence he's a Creationist in my book in this case.

What is that? Is that like sharks with laser beams?!?

Notice how the mundane language of an ID Creationist is peppered with delusion. Parasite technology, indeed.

 

[Meadmaker]

If the two are different, how come a search and replace was enough to change a creationist book into an ID book?

Well, definitions are tricky things. There certainly is some dispute about exactly what certain words mean.

I just want to point out that my source is the dictionary, and your source is "Of Pandas and People"

 

[Meadmaker]

But you agreed with willful ignorance. That means that there is no intent to understand or correct their statements. As it is intent that differentiates a lie from a mistake, it means that they are lying, because they have the intent.

Using this definition, everyone who holds a belief that is demonstrably wrong is a liar. That's a whole lot of liars in the world.

 

[articulett]

Creationists of all stripes seem to obfuscate understanding rather than further it.
Behe and other creationists try to mischaracterize scientific understanding of evolution by pretending that scientist thinks that the complexity arose "randomly"-- they purposely muddle understanding of natural selection and how it multiplies beneficial mutations exponentially while eliminating all the failures over time so that we never see how many failures there were-- we notice the "hits"... the successes-- and creationists like to claim that this seeming design couldn't happen by chance alone. They all do that. And all their followers do too.

They seem to have at least enough awareness to understand that comprehending the incremental nature of natural selection puts a "designer" into question-- and so they aim to make sure they and others do not understand natural selection. From my observations, most people positing a designer have a "block" on natural selection... they always have something they think it can't account for.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Most people who work in science do it for a paycheck. Plenty of scientists are creationists, but the fact is that your personal beliefs about the creation of the universe play no role in interpretation of experimental data.

 

[articulett]

Most people who work in science do it for a paycheck. Plenty of scientists are creationists, but the fact is that your personal beliefs about the creation of the universe play no role in interpretation of experimental data.

Any evidence for these claims?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Any evidence for these claims?

Which of the following decisions will an individual's personal beliefs matter in?

A: The reflux reaction lasted 4 hours, after which NMR showed that all of the reactants had been consumed but there was a peak showing a breakdown product. Should the reflux be shortened for the next batch? By how much?

B: Two compounds are being considered for advancement into clinical trials, but one has HERG liabilities and the other has CYP450 liabilities. Which one should be chosen for advancement? Has the FDA staked out a new position on HERG liabilities in their statements on Avandia?

C: The solid fuel pellet is too temperature sensitive, and cracks upon repeated temperature cycling between -10C and 25C. Can the solid fuel be packed tighter safely? Is there a possible adhesive that could be added to prevent cracking?

D: None of the above

Of course, personal beliefs do matter on occasion, but it's pretty rare. Usually if it's down to personal belief, you should get back in the lab and get enough data to take personality out of it.

As for most scientists working for a paycheck, I take that back. Scientists have no need for money. All they need for sustenance is data, they make a shelter of pure logic, and their only waste is neatly falsified theories.

 

[autumn1971]

I renounce the existance of the Holy Spirit.


I'm still alive.


The God of Abraham is obviously an impotent douche.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Using this definition, everyone who holds a belief that is demonstrably wrong is a liar. That's a whole lot of liars in the world.

No, anyone who strongly advocates a belief in a professional manner that is demonstrably wrong is a liar. There is a difference between the ignorance of not investigating every single thing, and the ignorance of not investigating your professional claims.

You see there is a difference between being lazy or not having the time, and actively ignoring contradictory evidence.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I just want to point out that my source is the dictionary, and your source is "Of Pandas and People"

Indeed. My source is a book specifically related to the subject in question, produced by the people holding the belief and demonstrates that THEY believe that the terms "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" can be replaced by "creation" and "creator" without any impact on the overall text.

Your source is a general dictionary.

I leave it to others to conclude on which is more relevant in determining the beliefs of the authors of my book - their own writings or a dictionary.

 

[Meadmaker]

I leave it to others to conclude on which is more relevant in determining the beliefs of the authors of my book - their own writings or a dictionary.

I'm not sure this line of reasoning is really going to go where you want it to go.

Indeed, the authors of "Of Pandas and People" claimed that ID meant that fish were created with fins, etc. However, there are plenty of ID writings today, written by ID believers, who insist that it does not mean that. I do agree that we should use the believers' own words as the primary indicator of what they believe.

I've never read any edition of "Pandas", nor do I intend to, but I am curious if currently published editions still contain the same wording.

 

[articulett]

Which of the following decisions will an individual's personal beliefs matter in?

A: The reflux reaction lasted 4 hours, after which NMR showed that all of the reactants had been consumed but there was a peak showing a breakdown product. Should the reflux be shortened for the next batch? By how much?

B: Two compounds are being considered for advancement into clinical trials, but one has HERG liabilities and the other has CYP450 liabilities. Which one should be chosen for advancement? Has the FDA staked out a new position on HERG liabilities in their statements on Avandia?

C: The solid fuel pellet is too temperature sensitive, and cracks upon repeated temperature cycling between -10C and 25C. Can the solid fuel be packed tighter safely? Is there a possible adhesive that could be added to prevent cracking?

D: None of the above

Of course, personal beliefs do matter on occasion, but it's pretty rare. Usually if it's down to personal belief, you should get back in the lab and get enough data to take personality out of it.

As for most scientists working for a paycheck, I take that back. Scientists have no need for money. All they need for sustenance is data, they make a shelter of pure logic, and their only waste is neatly falsified theories.

Nice dodge. So you have no evidence that most people who work in science do it for a paycheck. I think if paycheck was the primary goal, science is not the best of fields to choose. And you have no evidence that plenty of scientists are creationists. I find that highly unlikely although "plenty" is a vague term as is "scientist"-- But more that 93% of Nobel Laureates in science do not believe in a personal god--and thus they are not creationists.

And I consider anyone who thinks that "magic" or "the supernatural" or "some higher intelligence" MUST be involved... a creationist... even if they do not consider themselves to be a creationist. Creationist have a vested interest in finding design and mystery and being dishonest with both themselves and others-- that is my opinion, and the opinion of many others, apparently, as well.

If creationists are scientists I would hope that the beliefs don't influence their work in any way, because I can't imagine it doing so to the benefit of others.