Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[cyborg]

Yes and no are equally good answers because the term is irrelevant - that's how it works.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, if someone answered yes, you would not call him a liar, regardless of his level of knowledge. Is that correct?

ETA: Same question to people other than Cyborg.

Is the flagellum IC? Related question: Could one infer that someone is lying based on their characterization of the flagellum as IC? (This relates to charges made by PonderingTurtle, Drkitten, and others that Behe was lying because he called it IC when he knew it was not.)

 

[cyborg]

So, if someone answered yes, you would not call him a liar, regardless of his level of knowledge. Is that correct?

I'd call him an idiot for using such a useless term.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd call him an idiot for using such a useless term.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Anyone else?

 

[articulett]

Like all creationist mumbo jumbo... the term is designed to confuse, not to clarify... you know, like the people who sum up evolution as random. It sounds like it's saying something, but it isn't. A head without a body is irreducibly complex but we know evolution doesn't make heads and then build bodies...

 

[godless dave]

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

There were several papers entered into evidence that refuted his claims about the flagellum.

As a scientist, it is his job to read papers that review his own work. That's what scientists are paid to do.

As a paid expert witness, it was his job to read papers entered into evidence that challenged his testimony. That's what an expert witness is paid to do.

 

[articulett]

Plus Behe is the "what good is half an eye" idiot-- Um... half an eye is 1% better than 49% of an eye. Some vision is better than none. If better vision helps you survive and/or mate then those better vision genes get passed on preferentially.

Irreducible complexity is a made up term designed to confuse--or rather to make evolution seem like it needed a guiding hand. So is all the semantics used to obfuscate basic understanding of natural selection.

 

[drkitten]

So, if someone answered yes, you would not call him a liar, regardless of his level of knowledge.

If you (re)define "irreducibly complex" as "painted blue," then of course you will get different answers about what objects are IC than if you use the actual definition.

And I have no problem asserting that you are a liar if you remake the definition on the fly like that. If you tell me that the phrase means "painted blue," knowing what the actual and accepted definition is, you are lying.

Is the flagellum IC?

Not by the standard definition, nor by the "painted blue" one. It may be by other definitions.

Could one infer that someone is lying based on their characterization of the flagellum as IC?

Yes. If they deliberately assert a counterfactual definition, knowing the correct one, they are lying. Alternatively, if they assert that the flagellum is IC (according to the correct meaning) while knowing that it isn't, they are lying.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you (re)define "irreducibly complex" as "painted blue," then of course you will get different answers about what objects are IC than if you use the actual definition.

I'm not certain that there is one "actual definition", but Paul posted two of them. Let's look at those. (The third he posted was for something called an "irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway", and it seems to me that the definition defines something that does not exist.)

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Behe, Darwin's Black Box)

Is the flagellum a "single system"? Check.
"Composed of several interacting parts" Check.
"that contribute to the basic function" Hmm. "Contribute". What does that mean?
"Removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning" Hmmm....kind of vague. There are some parts that can be removed, and you would still have a flagellum that worked. Others, on the other hand, would make it stop functioning. It seems to me that the parts that "contribute to the basic function" as opposed to, say, improving the basic function, are the ones that can't be removed.

I'm going with IC on this one, but if you think you've caught Behe in a lie on this basis, be sure to pat yourself on the back.

Let's try Dembski.

Quote:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (Dembski, No Free Lunch)

Oh, wait. It's the same, but with more adjectives, and it throws in the "and therefore original". I think that phrase is misleading at best, wrong at worst. Other than that, though, it seems that the flagellum performs a basic function with a group of parts, and some of those are indeed indespensable. Thanks, Bill, for clearing up the ambiguity on "contribute to the basic function" by defining the "irreducible core". Seems like the flagellum meets these two definitions.

The definition I made up is basically Dembski's, but with fewer adjectives.

So, which definition doesn't it meet?

Don't answer if you don't want to, but by trying to parse Behe's definition in a way it was clearly not intended in order to call him a liar, you have succeeded at a task many would not have thought possible. You've made Behe look smart.

 

[articulett]

Behe is dishonest in the same way all creationists are dishonest... they ask weasely questions or use weasely words to imply something that isn't true. It's like asking how far to the end of the earth. The question assumes something not in evidence-- that the earth is flat. Creationists do that all the time with questions like "how does info. get added to the genome"? or "scientists think that all this complexity arose through random chance." They aren't really lying...
but they are inferring a gap that isn't there and then inferring that an intelligence fills the gap. That's what is dishonest about IC... and they know it.
They know that if they can imply that there is no such thing as "half a wing" or "half an eye" that the inference would be that it was made "whole"-- and that is what ICE and all the obfuscation to avoid understanding natural selection is all about.

He may be able to justify that he's being honest just as you are, but Behe knows just as you know that he is inferring a gap in knowledge that isn't there and implying a designer to fill the gap when we know that natural selection fills the gap much better and is well understood-- the only people who can't understand despite the seeming intelligence to grasp it are creationists and apologists. Dishonesty is dishonesty even if you play semantic games and fool yourself into thinking that you are being rigorous and on the "up and up" and aligned with "higher truths".

Behe lies the way all creationists and apologists lie-- they use words and questions to infer meaning and deride evolution or science-- but they never really make a claim you can pin down... they use words to say nothing at all while inferring the nothingness is coming from those who actually have evidence and can teach it to others.

 

[Meadmaker]

..but Behe knows just as you know that he is inferring a gap in knowledge that isn't there and implying a designer to fill the gap

But that isn't the case. There is a gap in knowledge. You cannot show, at this point in history, how one system evolved into another. Maybe the paper by Liu and Orman(?) is good enough to fill that gap. If so, it's the first.

but they never really make a claim you can pin down...

Speaking for the apologists, here's one you can pin down.

There is no scientific paper that demonstrates a plausible evolutionary path between two different systems. (Possible exception, the one cited above that claims to demonstrate a plausible path between a TTSS and a flagellum. I've tried to read it, and it's over my head, at least with the amount of time I'm willing to spend on it.)

It's easy to pin that one down, and trivial to refute, in principle. Go for it.

Here's another. There is no plausible theory of abiogenesis. ("Theory" here being used in the scientific sense of the word, as opposed to common parlance in which it is synonymous with "hypothesis".)

Why bother denying the gaps?

 

[articulett]

having a lot of plausible theories but not knowing which one is most accurate is not the same as saying it's too complex to figure out. But that is what you and Behe are doing. No one's denying gaps... it's just silly to infer that they are beyond human understanding or that we don't have some pretty great possibilities that are infinitely more likely than what you or Behe would infer.

Behe and you are being dishonest and tangential... it's like saying that because electrons spin randomly there is a gap in knowledge and then inferring that means something about some designer. We don't know everything there is to know... but we are on the right path, and so far, there is no need to invoke confusion or magic or an intelligence of any sort.

Like Behe, you change the topic and ask side questions that you don't really want answered and that wouldn't make you concede anything anyhow. You'd just go run to find something else you consider a gap. Irreducible complexity is a term designed to infer that there must be some pre-planned design for some seeming complex thing to come about... that natural selection can't account for it. And yet, even before we figure out how exactly natural selection accounts for it-- we can be assured that it does... because it always does... it is the logical method for understanding everything we have come to understand about evolution and how things can appear too "complex" not to have been "preplanned" and yet be exactly that.

All of your tangents and side issues and insincere questions are just like
Behe's-- even if you refuse to call it dishonest--it's all about "not understanding" natural selection rather than understanding it and conveying that understanding to others.

You don't want to understand it and you want to believe like Behe does that natural selection cannot account for what we observe... and so the semantic games and tangential questions and changing of the topic. Behe is considered dishonest by the vast majority of people in the field... you can make excuses for him all you want, but then again, you tend to be an apologist when it comes to anyone criticizing religion or certain "intelligent design proponents"...

At least that's my opinion.

 

[articulett]

And there are multiple examples of how supposedly irreducibly complex things have evolved... youtube illustrations and applets by forum members... that's ridiculous... just because we can't explain some supposedly specific ICE to the satisfaction of creationists doesn't mean that "intelligent design" is an answer or that the term "irreducibly complex" means anything at all. When the eye is explained they run to blood clots...when blood clots are explained they run to flagellum...when that is explained they refuse to acknowledge the explanation for just how likely it is-- especially when compared to "magic". Quit pretending that you or Behe will ever admit to dishonesty or that "irreducible complexity" like all creationist weenie words is meant to obfuscate understanding and imply that scientists don't know something and that, therefore, a designer must be the answer.

Face it, there is nothing anyone can say that will lead you to conclude that Behe is dishonest... and that any one who is a creationist is not being scientific when it comes to their belief that gaps in knowledge imply a designer.

 

[Meadmaker]

having a lot of plausible theories

Name one. (for abiogenesis, and remember, "theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis")

 

[Meadmaker]

And there are multiple examples of how supposedly irreducibly complex things have evolved...

By natural selection?


Yes, I am being an apologist. Somebody has to do it. Thi is so incredibly ridiculous. What would be the harm in saying, "We haven't worked that out yet, but we're confident we will."

Why (drum roll please) lie about the knowledge? It ain't there.

When the eye is explained

Show me.

.when blood clots are explained

Show me. Wait, I remember something about dolphins not having some part of it. Well, heck, what could be more obvious.

For Pete's sake, we don't know this junk. We have ideas and we have a lot of time to work out the details, but we don't have them today.


And that, not Behe, not obfuscation, not lies, is what keeps ID alive. It will remain alive as an idea until you prove that you can get from molecules to pond scum to you. You haven't done it yet.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It will remain alive as an idea until you prove that you can get from molecules to pond scum to you. You haven't done it yet.

Don't you think that an unreasonable burden of proof?

Do you think that ID will ever go away if we have to "prove" evolution that way?

 

[Elind]

Coming in late, but page 5 looks just like page 1, so I guess there is still some disagreement around to join.

The technical differences between Creationist (young earth or not) and ID are really irrelevant as far as the nature of the beast is concerned. ID was created by creationists with the deliberate intent of creating a "wedge" (their word) between non creationist science and the gullible portion of the public that has a grudging respect for science, but wants to hear it in religious terms if at all possible. Traditional creationism was having a harder and harder time of that, but ID could be disguised in math or science terms that mortals could not refute, and if a real scientist does, who's going to read it?

So, they are just creationists with a new disguise and once they win, (when hell freezes over) all that crap about possible "alien" designers goes out the window. Everyone knows it was God.

Who made the aliens anyway?

 

[articulett]

Name one. (for abiogenesis, and remember, "theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis")

Here are just a few of the amazing things we've come to discern thanks to slow and steady investigation and not just dismissing things as "irreducibly complex" or designed...

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2144.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Ferry5-2006.htm
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/guide3
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0505768103v1
http://www.physorg.com/news66660325.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315161035.htm
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/tripletcode020805.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/life-05zzzzzw.html
http://originoflife.net/sweet_crystal/index.html


Certainly these are explanations facts conjecture and hypothesis are far more probable than anything Behe offers. No matter what semantics you want to use-- science is filling in the details despite creationist obfuscation just as we are with evolution. The gaps you imagine are filled with many facts, possibilities and likely explanations... it just takes some time to narrow down-- dishonesty, semantic games, and creationist clap trap and obfuscation never help. And of course, I know none of this is good enough but nothing is good enough for you to conclude that scientists do not think of "natural selection" as random... and nothing can make you believe Behe is dishonest... so I realize this is all useless to you and that creationists blather will be forthcoming because your goal is to be like Behe-- pretend there are big gaps where there is small amounts of murkiness and imply that Behe and his ilk might have better explanations of the murkiness (though they never have..).

I am quite certain that no amount of evidence will make you come to different conclusions than the above and similar inferences you make without really saying anything.

 

[articulett]

I don't know why I waste my time... it's off topic and yet another insincere request for information being asked for yet again by a Behe groupee...

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Ferry5-2006.htm
Methane-Belching Bugs Inspire a New Theory of the Origin of Life on Earth
drawing of telescope

12 May 2006 --Two laboratories at Penn State set out to show how an obscure undersea microbe metabolizes carbon monoxide into methane and vinegar. What they found was not merely a previously unknown biochemical process--their discovery also became the inspiration for a fundamental new theory of the origin of life on Earth, reconciling a long-contentious pair of prevailing theories. This new, "thermodynamic" theory of evolution improves upon both previous theories by proposing a central role for energy conservation during early evolution, based on a simple three-step biochemical mechanism.



Yes, I know this doesn't count for some reason and there will be another red herring to justify Behe's lies and the notion that scientists have nothing plausible in the way of abiogenesis in the works. More dishonesty, diversion, and obfuscation to pretend that "intelligent design" is scientific in some way.
Ken Miller is a believer... as is Francis Collins... they both find Behe dishonest.
And they don't let their beliefs get in the way of understanding what there is to know.

 

[articulett]

wrong thread.