Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[whiteyonthemoon]

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.

I have no study to site. My comment was based on what I have seen during my seven years working in biotechnology. I'm sure this means a skewed sample of scientists, but then no worse than including only Nobel laureates.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I renounce the existance of the Holy Spirit.


I'm still alive.


The God of Abraham is obviously an impotent douche.

Wrong thread. This is about C&E. God-Hatings over there. {points}

 

[articulett]

Autumn1971--

You can voice your religious dissent here:
V-http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2823430#post2823430

and your atheist support here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2821143#post2821143

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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.

You mean if they have edited it again to include some more differences to the original openly creationist version to try and pretend that ID is not really creationism, you would expect me to believe them this time?

Sorry, doesn't work that way. If the edits only appear after they lose a court case which means they can't get it into schools because it is religious, and they edit it to try and make it APPEAR less religious, then that is not going to change my belief as to what their genuine belief and purpose is.

Their own words are the best indicator, but they must be taken in context:

Believing everything was created IS science was the original position - court ruled it out because it was religion, not science.
Believing everything came about by ID IS science was the next attempt - again the courts ruled in out because it was religion, not science.
Believing everything came about by ID but it was done gradually not all at once IS science appears to be the next attempt. I don't believe for a moment that this is a genuine belief, just another attempt to get religion into science classrooms.

 

[cyborg]

ID, as we all know, leaves the possibility open that aliens have been manipulating bacteria in order to allow the 'irreducibly complex' flagella to have been created.

And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Meadmaker]

Believing everything came about by ID but it was done gradually not all at once IS science appears to be the next attempt. I don't believe for a moment that this is a genuine belief, just another attempt to get religion into science classrooms.

That is in fact what Behe claims to believe, but your keen insight into human nature can see through that scam.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That is in fact what Behe claims to believe, but your keen insight into human nature can see through that scam.

Whereas your greater faith in his inability to lie allows you to uncritically accept everything he says.

 

[Meadmaker]

Whereas your greater faith in his inability to lie allows you to uncritically accept everything he says.

Here's the way I see it. (I'm glad you asked.)

On those rare occasions when this subject comes up around people with no, or not much, scientific education, I see two types of responses. From non religious people, I see people say, "That creationist stuff is a bunch or religious yahoos trying to put their religion on us." From religious people, I see people say, "I don't know much about science, but if God didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen."

The ID/Creationist/God is necessary crowd goes slightly farther than that. They say, "There's no way it could have just happened. There had to be a God pushing things along." Among those people who are inclined that way and have no scientific education, they can believe anything they want. Young Earth creationism? Why not? They don't know any better.

Behe, and those like him who haven't written as many books, have it a bit harder. Behe is a scientist. He knows that the evidence says the Earth is old. He can't look at the data and be a YEC. He knows about DNA, which also means he knows how similar DNA of different species are. He knows that's true even about the DNA that doesn't appear to do anything, and he knows that the best explanation for this is that the DNA came from a common ancestor.

On the other hand, he doesn't know a few things. He doesn't know how the first DNA came together. He doesn't know how the first cell components came together. He doesn't know the sequence of events that would transform one species into another. He doesn't know any of these things because no one knows any of these things.

And so, he says God did it. He sees geological, astronomical, and other evidence that says the Earth is very old. He sees biological evidence that says diverse life came from common ancestors. He sees that DNA could alter from one species into another, but he can't see the sequence of steps, and he figures that if he knew the sequence of steps, it would be very complicated, and he concludes that, in fact, it would be too complicated to happen by accident.

And that's his (pseudo) theory. It's classic "God of the gaps". It's classic "argument from ignorance". However, let's not fool ourselves. There are gaps, and we are ignorant. There really are things, important things, about the development of life that we can't explain, yet. Behe, and countless laymen, think they've found an explanation. God Did It.

There's really no need to assume that he's lying. He's just hiding in the gaps. Fallacious? Certainly. But lies? I don't see any need to believe that, and I don't think it adds anything.


And that's also how scientists can be creationists or many variations thereof. There are still lots of gaps where God can fit it. It's hard for a geologist or astronomer to be a YEC, but we know so little about the process that there are very few other areas of scientific exploration where creationist (etc) ideas are flatly contradicted by real, scientific, data.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Here's the way I see it. (I'm glad you asked.)

On those rare occasions when this subject comes up around people with no, or not much, scientific education, I see two types of responses. From non religious people, I see people say, "That creationist stuff is a bunch or religious yahoos trying to put their religion on us." From religious people, I see people say, "I don't know much about science, but if God didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen."

The ID/Creationist/God is necessary crowd goes slightly farther than that. They say, "There's no way it could have just happened. There had to be a God pushing things along." Among those people who are inclined that way and have no scientific education, they can believe anything they want. Young Earth creationism? Why not? They don't know any better.

Behe, and those like him who haven't written as many books, have it a bit harder. Behe is a scientist. He knows that the evidence says the Earth is old. He can't look at the data and be a YEC. He knows about DNA, which also means he knows how similar DNA of different species are. He knows that's true even about the DNA that doesn't appear to do anything, and he knows that the best explanation for this is that the DNA came from a common ancestor.

On the other hand, he doesn't know a few things. He doesn't know how the first DNA came together. He doesn't know how the first cell components came together. He doesn't know the sequence of events that would transform one species into another. He doesn't know any of these things because no one knows any of these things.

And so, he says God did it. He sees geological, astronomical, and other evidence that says the Earth is very old. He sees biological evidence that says diverse life came from common ancestors. He sees that DNA could alter from one species into another, but he can't see the sequence of steps, and he figures that if he knew the sequence of steps, it would be very complicated, and he concludes that, in fact, it would be too complicated to happen by accident.

And that's his (pseudo) theory. It's classic "God of the gaps". It's classic "argument from ignorance". However, let's not fool ourselves. There are gaps, and we are ignorant. There really are things, important things, about the development of life that we can't explain, yet. Behe, and countless laymen, think they've found an explanation. God Did It.

There's really no need to assume that he's lying. He's just hiding in the gaps. Fallacious? Certainly. But lies? I don't see any need to believe that, and I don't think it adds anything.

Clearly there is no need to assume he's lying. Equally there is no need to accept that he is telling the truth.

However having read his testimony from the Dover trial, particularly noting his acknowledgement that he had not read large parts of the scientific literature concerning possible evolutionary explanations for some of his supposedly irreducably complex systems, I think he has gone beyond hiding in the gaps to deliberately ignoring evidence that contradicts his beliefs. Willfull ignorance, if you like. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" in order not to confront evidence that may show your belief to be incorrect suggests to me that the belief is not honestly held.

And that's also how scientists can be creationists or many variations thereof. There are still lots of gaps where God can fit it. It's hard for a geologist or astronomer to be a YEC, but we know so little about the process that there are very few other areas of scientific exploration where creationist (etc) ideas are flatly contradicted by real, scientific, data.

I have never argued that creationists cannot be scientists or vice versa.

 

[drkitten]

Clearly there is no need to assume he's lying. Equally there is no need to accept that he is telling the truth.

However having read his testimony from the Dover trial, particularly noting his acknowledgement that he had not read large parts of the scientific literature concerning possible evolutionary explanations for some of his supposedly irreducably complex systems, I think he has gone beyond hiding in the gaps to deliberately ignoring evidence that contradicts his beliefs.

I disagree. Among other things, he has been personally told of the evidence in private conversations and in debates. (That was established in testimony.) If I hand you a piece of paper and you refuse to read it, that may technically be willful ignorance. But if I tell you aloud and you refuse to acknowledge having heard -- that's lying.

I think the evidence for his deliberate and knowing misrepresentation of the facts is well-established in the Dover cross-examination.

 

[Meadmaker]

However having read his testimony from the Dover trial, particularly noting his acknowledgement that he had not read large parts of the scientific literature concerning possible evolutionary explanations....

I haven't read them either, and I'm 100% confident that at the trial, he was right. The kind of explanations he was demanding did not exist at the time, and with the possible exception of the flagellum, they still don't.

(I say "possible" because the explanation that might be enough for the flagellum is beyond my ability to read it. I can see that it's very, very, detailed, and it sure looks good to me, but I don't know if it is enough to meet the criteria he's looking for. At the very least, it makes the gap smaller.)

I don't have to read every scientific paper on evolution to know that there is no explanation for abiogenesis. I don't have to read every paper to know that there are no detailed, step by step models that show species transformation at the DNA level. If those papers existed, we would know about them. We don't, and they don't.

So who's lying?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I haven't read them either, and I'm 100% confident that at the trial, he was right. The kind of explanations he was demanding did not exist at the time, and with the possible exception of the flagellum, they still don't.

(I say "possible" because the explanation that might be enough for the flagellum is beyond my ability to read it. I can see that it's very, very, detailed, and it sure looks good to me, but I don't know if it is enough to meet the criteria he's looking for. At the very least, it makes the gap smaller.)

Yet would you not, if you were a scientist making a groundbreaking assertion, make damn sure that when you stood up and said "there is no scientific explanation of this" you had actually read those scientific papers that MAY contain an explanation?

Behe didn't.

I don't have to read every scientific paper on evolution to know that there is no explanation for abiogenesis.

Indeed reading those papers would not help as abiogenesis is not evolution.

I don't have to read every paper to know that there are no detailed, step by step models that show species transformation at the DNA level. If those papers existed, we would know about them. We don't, and they don't.

So who's lying?

Have you read the transcripts of Behe's testimony? Or the judgement?

Like where the Judge notes:

"Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God." or where he states his assertions about the fossil record is:

"illogical and defies the weight of evidence" or where he notes that although Behe and Minnich "testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by bare assertions and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID." and:

"Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." and:

"Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe's redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition." and:

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers"

To summarise, Behe presented his claimed reasons for promoting ID at the trial and the judge, very politely, called him a liar.

 

[drkitten]

I haven't read them either, and I'm 100% confident that at the trial, he was right. The kind of explanations he was demanding did not exist at the time, and with the possible exception of the flagellum, they still don't.

And Meadmaker tells another fib for Jesus. Or maybe Meadmaker is just making **** up.

Because the worst example of Behe's lies is not the flagellum, but his claims for the blood clotting cascade, which were not only wrong at the time of the trial, but also wrong at the time he brought up the issue in the first place (1996, Darwin's Black Box). Dolphins get along just fine without the Hagemann factor, and this fact has been known since 1969! Similarly, other "lower vertabrates" have been known since the 80s to lack other factors.

Not only this, but Behe knows this and has publically responded (quite badly)to these issues as early as 2000, well before he gave the same discredited testimony on the stand.

Behe knew when he testified about the irreducible complexity of blood clotting that that claim had been disproven. Therefore, he is not "willfully ignorant" but an active liar.

So who's lying?

Behe and Meadmaker are. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yet would you not, if you were a scientist making a groundbreaking assertion, make damn sure that when you stood up and said "there is no scientific explanation of this" you had actually read those scientific papers that MAY contain an explanation?

There might be a unicorn hiding behind the next tree. I don't have to look behind every tree before I say that there are no unicorns.

I'm pretty sure that if a unicorn were found, we would know about it. Likewise, if the paper he was demanding existed, we would know about it. Such a paper would be a significant advance in our knowledge of biology.

There is one difference, in my humble opinion. We'll never find the unicorn, but somebody will (and may already have, see the flagellum) write the paper that he is demanding.

Behe's theory (colloquial sense of the word) is a "God of the gaps" theory, but you can't refute such a theory by claiming there are no gaps. There are gaps. There are big gaps. The gaps Behe was talking about have not yet been filled, and he didn't have to read every paper in order to know that they haven't been filled.

Have you read the transcripts of Behe's testimony? Or the judgement?

Yes.

"Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

And...? I never quite figured out why Judge Jones thought that was so remarkable. What was his point? Of course that's true.

or where he states his assertions about the fossil record is:

"illogical and defies the weight of evidence"

Out of context.

or where he notes that although Behe and Minnich "testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by bare assertions

The same "bare assertions" can be found in the dictionary.

"Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." and:

I haven't read Miller's testimony. I skimmed it once, but I'll see what I can find. I have a prediction, though. When I read it, it will be filled with some rather vague statements that leave open the question of "irreducible complexity". I don't think that there are any biological systems that have ever been shown to be irreducibly complex, and indeed I don't think there ever will be one found, precisely because such systems would not be expected to evolve, but I seriously doubt that Dr. Miller refuted the testimony. My guess is that Behe claimed no explanation was possible, and Miller hinted at where an explanation might be found. I'll get back to you on Miller at Dover.

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers"

Let's pick one and see if it really refuted the claim.

I want to emphasize something. I think Behe's claims of irreducible complexity are unproven and indeed false. I just don't think I can prove that they are false, yet.

To summarise, Behe presented his claimed reasons for promoting ID at the trial and the judge, very politely, called him a liar.

Sad, but true.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Behe's theory (colloquial sense of the word) is a "God of the gaps" theory, but you can't refute such a theory by claiming there are no gaps. There are gaps. There are big gaps. The gaps Behe was talking about have not yet been filled, and he didn't have to read every paper in order to know that they haven't been filled.

No it isn't. He claims that he has a scientific theory. Just that there is no peer reviewed papers, no research, no nothing to back it up. He claims it is not just godidit. He lies.

And...? I never quite figured out why Judge Jones thought that was so remarkable. What was his point? Of course that's true.

You think science means only accepting things that fit your religious beliefs?

Sad, but true.

What is sad is that Behe still pedals the same lies and some people still fall for it.

 

[Meadmaker]

No it isn't. He claims that he has a scientific theory. Just that there is no peer reviewed papers, no research, no nothing to back it up. He claims it is not just godidit. He lies.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Yeah, he thinks it's scientific. I don't. His "science" is "I can't explain it so it must not have happened". That's not very good science, but it isn't a lie.

You think science means only accepting things that fit your religious beliefs?

If science pointed to the existence of God, then the scientist would have to at least consider the possibility that God exists. God isn't beyond the possibility of testing. (See James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. That's a scientific test, isn't it? It could be won by someone claiming to work miracles through the power of God, couldn't it?) Behe thinks he has found something that can only be explained through the existence of God, but he notes that if you don't believe in God, you aren't going to agree.

Personally, I think that he has found something for which we have no explanation, yet.

I didn't read Miller's testimony, but I read his expert statement, here:

http://www.aclu.org/evolution/statements/miller.pdf


It's quite good, and mostly correct, but his discussion of the irreducible complexity of the flagellum was very informative, but wrong, and didn't refute Behe. It pointed the way to where a refutation might be found, but it didn't refute Behe.

 

[Meadmaker]

And Meadmaker tells another fib for Jesus. Or maybe Meadmaker is just making **** up.

That's right. I'm promoting Christianity by pretending to be an uninformed Jew. That makes all Jews look bad, and sends people into the arms of the Lord.

It's so obvious I don't know why only Drkitten can see through my scam.

Behe knew when he testified about the irreducible complexity of blood clotting that that claim had been disproven.

"Disproven" is such a harsh word.

Therefore, he is not "willfully ignorant" but an active liar.

It has been pointed out to you why the Hagemann factor discussion isn't relevant to whether or not the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex, and yet you still say that it disproves irreducible complexity. uh oh...

(Again, for emphasis, I don't beleive it is irreducibly complex, just that the Hagemann factor has nothing to do with it.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Behe's theory (colloquial sense of the word) is a "God of the gaps" theory, but you can't refute such a theory by claiming there are no gaps. There are gaps. There are big gaps. The gaps Behe was talking about have not yet been filled, and he didn't have to read every paper in order to know that they haven't been filled.

So even if he makes intentionally false claims he is still honest? How is that not lying, as he is going beyond a abstract god of the gaps and making specific claims about gaps that can not be explained. He is wrong about those and is basically standing with his fingers in his ears yelling "I am not listening, I can't hear a thing you are saying"

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Yeah, he thinks it's scientific. I don't. His "science" is "I can't explain it so it must not have happened". That's not very good science, but it isn't a lie.

Yes and it is one of intent and will. And as you admit that he is being intentionaly ignorant so that he can continue to make incorrect statements, that this is somehow distinct from simply intentionaly making incorrect statements.

 

[hgc]

...
I haven't read Miller's testimony. I skimmed it once, but I'll see what I can find. I have a prediction, though. When I read it, it will be filled with some rather vague statements that leave open the question of "irreducible complexity". ...

I admire your preparation! Never take up any reading without first knowing what you'll know after you're done, I always say.